Wednesday, 29 April 2026

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:01): Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

Petition of Áine Kelly-Costello on behalf of Migrants Against the Acceptable Standard of Health Aotearoa requesting that the House abolish the Acceptable Standard of Health immigration requirements

petition of Joanne Klaui requesting that the House urge New Zealand Post to keep the Totara Park Post centre open, and the

petition of Live Ocean requesting that the House prohibit bottom trawling on seamounts in New Zealand, the issuing of permits for New Zealand vessels that allow bottom trawling on seamounts in the high seas, and phase out other forms of bottom trawling.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:01): A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Notification of the date for the general election 2026.

SPEAKER: That 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):

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing on non-tariff barriers, and the

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Tu Chapman.

SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration. Since no bills are introduced, the House comes to oral questions.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:02) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the definition of a UNESCO World Heritage Site that “World Heritage Sites are places recognised as having ‘outstanding universal value’. They are … deemed significant for their historical, artistic, or scientific importance.”; if so, why is it appropriate to mine in these places?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he justify granting a prospecting permit in one of only three of New Zealand’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are very interested in developing more mining in this country because we need critical minerals to make the clean, green transition. That’s what we’ve got in this country. We’re going to continue to explore them and develop all our natural resources.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the statement of his Minister for Resources regarding mining in a UNESCO World Heritage Site that “we’re going to have to do trade-off politics.”, and, if so, does he think New Zealanders are OK with his Government desecrating a place without—

SPEAKER: No. Reword it.

Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he think New Zealanders are OK with his Government trading off a place with outstanding universal value for short-term, private profits?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I know New Zealanders are not OK about is not having high-paying jobs in regional New Zealand and actually banning oil and gas and mining projects that ends up having Kiwis leave New Zealand to go to Australia to access those jobs in those sectors. We are going to make this country wealthier and more prosperous for everybody, and that means using our resources.

Hon Marama Davidson: Has his Government departed from the commitment of previous Governments first made under Sir John Key in 2012 that there would be no mining in World Heritage areas like the spectacular Te Wāhipounamu?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we will find the balance, but we are prioritising economic growth in this country. We are going to get things done, we’re going to get this economy moving, and we’re going to offer high-paying jobs to people in regional New Zealand. That’s a good thing.

Hon Marama Davidson: If he accepts that mining is appropriate in a globally recognised World Heritage area, is there any piece of supposedly protected land in Aotearoa that is not open to mining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Just remember, 30 percent of this country is in the Department of Conservation estate. We have very important national parks of very high environmental quality, and we’ll continue to protect those, obviously.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:05) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:05): Yes, and particularly our income tax relief, raising thresholds for working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much does the average New Zealand family spend in their weekly grocery shop right now, and is that more or less than when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, food inflation’s up 3.4 percent from memory; it was up 12.5 percent under his Government. So food price inflation exists, and as I said to him yesterday, deflation is not good for an economy, but food price inflation—there’s more to do, but at 3.4 percent it’s better than 12.5 percent, which he delivered.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he stand by his statement in July 2024 that “food prices are falling really quickly”; if so, which food prices have fallen really quickly in the time he’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, the general point about food inflation is it went up to 12.5 percent under his leadership; under our Government, it’s up over the last year 3.4 percent. That’s a good outcome for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much does the average New Zealand family spend on their monthly power bill right now, and is that more or less than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, that’s why I would say to the member, get in behind repealing the oil and gas ban, get in behind the fast-track legislation that’s generating an increase in renewables in this country. [Interruption] You know, you can cry crocodile tears, but actually back some stuff and actually come out and declare what you stand for.

SPEAKER: That’s enough commentary, from both sides. Questions are heard and answered in silence. Answers should be given the courtesy of getting out before they’re barraged down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much does the average New Zealand family spend on home, contents, and car insurance each month, and is that more or less than when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’ll just say to the member, if he actually cares about the impact of the cost of living on New Zealanders, why doesn’t he propose some policy to actually come to the table with? Why doesn’t he support the rates cap? Because that’s a very big driver of the cost of living for New Zealanders. Why doesn’t he support fast track? Why doesn’t he repeal the oil and gas ban with us? And why doesn’t he actually just support extending prescriptions, saving healthcare costs for regular New Zealanders? There’s a lot that you could be doing, but you’re not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much does the average tradie or sole trader spend filling up their ute right now, and is that more or less than when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the good news is that we abolished the ute tax. Remember that one? That was a special. We abolished the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax, if you remember that one, so it’s a lot less than it would have been if he’d stayed in power. We’ve actually cancelled Labour’s fuel excise hikes that were planned. We’ve kept that in place frozen, but we’re progressing a rates cap—get on board with that. Why don’t you support that very simple thought and idea.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many more people are unemployed now compared to when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, the rule of economics is that if you increase Government spending by 84 percent, you drive inflation up to a 32-year high, you have 13 interest rate rises, you put the economy into slow down, if not recession, and people lose their jobs. But in the last quarter, we are pleased to see that we’ve created thousands of new jobs for New Zealanders. That’s good, but we’re going to get the economy growing and that’s how we get people back into work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason he can’t answer a single one of those questions about the day-to-day reality New Zealand families face under his Government and instead resorts to blame and excuses, that he doesn’t know the answers or that he just doesn’t care?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, well, I’ll tell you, we have done more to support working—

SPEAKER: Sorry, there’s a point of order, the Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, it’s a well-established tradition in the House that when moving from a general question to finicky pettifogging detail, you cannot expect the Prime Minister to have that detail. It’s laid out in Speakers’ rulings 197/2 and 197/4. Why are you allowing that level of exactitude to take place?

SPEAKER: Well, I simply disagree with you with the interpretation of the question. I think the Prime Minister is well capable of answering a question as you describe it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to the House and to the member is that, actually, increasing taxes, as the Labour Government seems to have communicated to the Fitch credit rating agency, is not the way forward. That is going to be punishment on working and middle-income working New Zealanders—it’s a very simple fact. We now have stable rents in this country instead of them going up $180 a week. Is the member going to reverse interest deductibility? Is the member going to reduce the brightline test? Is the member going to increase the tax rate? Let’s hear some answers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to answer some of those questions that the Prime Minister’s just asked me.

SPEAKER: Well, I would put the leave, but it would interfere with the prescription of Standing Orders, which makes this question time—Opposition ask questions; Government answers them. If they answer in a rhetorical way, that’s probably a result of the question that was asked in the first place. Are you finished?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

SPEAKER: Yeah, all good. We’ll move to question No. 3.

Finance

Question No. 3

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (14:10) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:10): Last week, Moody’s Ratings released its latest review of New Zealand. It confirmed that New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating would remain at triple A—the highest possible rating—but it revised the outlook from stable to negative. Moody’s highlights that current global economic uncertainty presents downside risks to growth in New Zealand while inflation pressures persist. It says these factors may delay the Government’s fiscal consolidation—that is, getting the Government’s books back to surplus and bending the debt curve from going up to going down. This comes after Fitch Ratings also changed its outlook for New Zealand to negative.

Greg Fleming: What do these recent changes in outlook indicate?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What these changes indicate is a risk to both ratings. Moody’s and Fitch will be watching developments closely to determine whether to move New Zealand’s ratings one notch lower, or to maintain the rating and revise our outlook back to stable. I’m advised that Moody’s typically shifts to a negative outlook when they see at least a one-in-three chance that a downgrade could occur and that an outlook is generally resolved over 12 to 18 months. This gives time to monitor how the fiscal position is evolving. Budget 2026 will be released on 28 May, and members will see the latest Treasury forecasts then.

Greg Fleming: What do these ratings reviews mean for the Government’s fiscal approach?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: These reviews support the Government’s fiscal strategy of keeping a tight rein on spending, getting the operating balance back in surplus, and getting debt under control, all within the next few years. Being on negative outlook is, however, a warning that we need to stay on this course and demonstrate progress, even when global events make it more challenging, and it’s a warning to others who might want to spend more and borrow more that ratings agencies are watching carefully. The interest cost on Government debt is already around $9 billion a year. A credit rating downgrade would increase this interest bill further if debt increased, and even more so if New Zealand faced higher interest rates from being considered a riskier country.

Greg Fleming: How can fiscal consolidation be achieved?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Fair tax.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are two possible fiscal strategies available for consolidation, as the member Chlöe Swarbrick points out. The parties opposite me prefer tax. Our approach is to keep a lid on spending, rather than increase taxes. Fitch makes this point explicitly in its review, saying that there is broad-based consensus across the political spectrum towards fiscal consolidation, although the consolidation strategy may vary. It says that the current Government focuses on expenditure constraint, and that is true. Over the last two Budgets, the Government has made a total of $44 billion worth of savings and reprioritisation. On the other hand, Fitch says that others would emphasise revenue measures to reduce the deficit—that means increasing taxes. People who have those plans should tell the country which taxes they’ll be increasing.

RMA Reform

Question No. 4

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (14:14) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What assurances, if any, can he give to the people of Tāmaki Makaurau that his RMA reforms will not impact the protection of the Waitākere Ranges?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:14): There is special legislation in place for the Waitākere Ranges—the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. The Act requires Auckland Council to give effect to its purpose and objectives when making plans under the Resource Management Act (RMA) that affect the area and to have particular regard to that purpose and objectives when making resource consent decisions in the area. The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, which will replace the RMA, are currently before the Environment Committee for consideration. When those bills were introduced, it was acknowledged that not all consequential amendments to other Acts were included, and the committee, as I understand it, has been made aware of that fact. To maintain the intent of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act under the new planning system, consequential amendments will be needed, and the Environment Committee will be considering that as part of its scrutiny of the bills.

Oriini Kaipara: How can the Minister justify advancing planning legislation that effectively overrides the protections of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and what specific safeguards, if any, will remain to prevent irreversible environmental degradation in the Waitākere Ranges?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I suggest the member, at the end of the night, goes back and reads the Hansard, because if she was listening, she would find out that that’s not what I’m doing.

Oriini Kaipara: What weight has the Minister given to the strong opposition from local communities and mana whenua who are concerned that his RMA reform will undermine the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and why are these concerns not currently reflected in the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Again, I gave a pretty comprehensive answer to the primary question, which was that there are a range of consequential amendments required—there’s around 100. It’s not just about the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, it’s about 100 other pieces of legislation that require consequential amendments, which the select committee will be considering. In relation to the first part of the question, my understanding is that there has been a range of submissions in that regard to the Environment Committee. The bill is in the hands of the committee.

Hon David Seymour: Is there any chance that these changes might allow families with a horse paddock in Henderson, where they’ve been trying to build homes for decades, to actually provide those homes that would do a lot more for mana whenua and many others complaining than any of the carping we’ve heard in this question so far?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is true that I have emails—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s true he doesn’t want any houses in his electorate.

SPEAKER: No, that’s just—not quite so interfering.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s not true, either. It is true that I have had a number of emails around the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act seeking that it be entrenched in law. I’ve also had emails from people who actually live there who wish to do simple things with their property, like subdivide to put another house on, who find themselves unable to do that. What’s important is that the select committee—as I’ve said three times now—work its way through that, consider the consequential amendments made, and I look forward to the report back to the House.

Oriini Kaipara: If protections are weakened and environmental harm follows, will the Minister accept responsibility for any irreversible damage to the Waitākere Ranges?

SPEAKER: That question is highly speculative. There might be a different way that the member could ask that question.

Oriini Kaipara: Should the protections be weakened in any way, shape, or form, will the Minister accept responsibility for any irreversible damage to the Waitākere Ranges?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the Government’s planning reforms work as intended, I will take responsibility for the abundant development opportunities that will land in this country. I will take responsibility for the renewable energy that will be far easier to build—the windfarms that don’t take six years to build. I will take responsibility for infrastructure projects not tied up in endless red tape to build transmission and roads and rail projects. I will take responsibility for the prosperity that we have been denied as a country because of the straightjacket of the RMA.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon David Seymour, and no one else.

Hon David Seymour: Does he also anticipate taking responsibility for far more development opportunity created for Māori than the Māori Party could ever dream of creating?

SPEAKER: No, no. The Minister has got no responsibility for that.

Regional Development

Question No. 5

Andy Foster: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: When the House is ready to give you the respect of the question.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (14:20) to the Minister for Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development) (14:20): Obviously, we have already announced the recommissioning of the 100 million litre tank and the diesel that will go into that tank, but we are also pursuing a strategy with a suitable, legislatively speaking, and a high-quality large event to lay out a road map and a strategy for hydrogen. That is something that will join the host of other announcements I’ve made in terms of geothermal, nuclear fusion, and oil and gas. We are going, in our regions, to ensure that we have the supply of energy by using our regional resources, including hydrogen.

Andy Foster: Does New Zealand have potential for hydrogen being a fuel of choice?

Hon SHANE JONES: Being very interested in clean, green outcomes, I think it’s very important that we join with the different stakeholders in our community and explore the role that hydrogen can play boosting our fuel resilience, our energy resilience, coming off the afflictions associated with the Persian Gulf military conflict. It is important, however, that when people apply for innocuous prospecting permits, they are not pilloried, they are not cancelled, and they are not harassed by opponents to mining when they are legally entitled to go and get an innocuous permit to learn about the potential of hydrogen and other minerals on the Department of Conservation estate—and watch this space.

SPEAKER: I just remind members that filming inside the House is not something that’s permitted. Andy Foster.

Andy Foster: No, that was the last one.

SPEAKER: Oh, no more questions?

Hon SHANE JONES: Oh, you can give me another one.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Andy Foster. [Interruption] OK.

Andy Foster: Mr Speaker, I’m told that we’d run out of numbers if I did that, so we’re leaving it there.

SPEAKER: Three-second rule, son—missed it.

Finance

Question No. 6

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:22) to the Minister of Finance: Vinaka vakalevu, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:22): In context, yes, including those statements I made in my discussions with the Fitch Ratings agency. I can assure members that I said the same thing to them in private as I say to New Zealanders in public.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was she in the room when Barbara Edmonds met with Fitch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I wish I’d been a fly on that wall, because what it led the ratings agency to report was that the Opposition intends to achieve fiscal consolidation through additional revenue measures. I was surprised to read this because, of course, the capital gains tax which the Labour Party have announced, they’ve already said all of that money has been stitched up for doctors appointments.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—don’t push too far.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: So where would the extra revenue come from? Only you know, Barb. Good luck fixing your fiscal hole.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are New Zealanders currently experiencing a cost of living crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and events in the Middle East are playing a very significant role. We have seen the price of diesel almost double since that conflict began. Diesel is a fuel that powers not only vehicles but freight and a number of inputs into our economy, and it is correct to say that that will have an effect on the cost of living for New Zealanders. On the other hand, the effect of the events in the Middle East has shown that in the past couple of weeks we’ve seen that diesel price come down about 55c, which demonstrates that it is in all of our interests to see the conflict in the Middle East resolved as soon as possible.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families have actually received the full $250 that she promised them?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve set out to that member several times—and I hope this time she’ll listen—National committed that the sum of our tax policies would deliver up to $250 a fortnight to families. We delivered on every single one of the commitments that underpin that $250. Up to $150 of that would be delivered by the FamilyBoost payment—and I have been advised that more than 10,000 families have received that payment in a fortnight—and up to $100 of that would be contributed through our changes to personal income tax thresholds and changes to Working for Families credits. Now, that member opposed those tax reductions and opposed that additional income for New Zealanders. I’m proud that we delivered them actual cash into their bank accounts to help with the cost of living.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government has got your back.” when 70 percent of workers didn’t get a pay rise above inflation in the last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, because I’m not cooking up any secret taxes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it having New Zealanders’ back in a cost of living crisis when her Government is increasing the everyday costs through her gas tax, increases to car registration, the reinstatement of prescription fees, increases in line charges, and increases in council rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To pick one, we are introducing legislation to this House to cap rates increases, unlike that member who, again, opposes yet another practical measure to help with the cost of living. You see, the problem is that that member has an opinion on everything and a policy on nothing.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7, Tim van de Molen. [Interruption] Just wait a moment, Mr van de Molen. [Interruption] That’s enough. Questions are heard in silence.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 7

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (14:27) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding the free-trade agreement with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:27): On Monday, New Zealand signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) with India in New Delhi. This marks a major step forward in opening up one of the world’s fastest-growing markets for Kiwi exporters to their 1.4 billion consumers. Ninety-five percent of New Zealand’s exports face tariff elimination or reduction, almost the highest of any India FTA, and almost 57 percent of our exports will be duty free on day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The New Zealand - India free-trade agreement gives unprecedented access to India for Kiwi goods and services. This means our businesses will be able to sell more and employ more people, thus setting our businesses up to succeed and helping New Zealand with its goal of doubling the value of exports over 10 years.

Stuart Smith: What benefits will this agreement deliver for businesses and exporters across the Nelson, Tasman, and Kaikoura regions?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, many, but in particular, for the New Zealand seafood industry and our top of the South—including Nelson fishers—one of the biggest wins in the agreement is seafood. Right now, New Zealand seafood exporters face tariffs of 33 percent in India but under the FTA, 90 percent of our exports in seafood will move to a zero tariff rate, phased in over seven years. We’ve also, for the first time, had a commitment from India in the FTA that perishable goods will cross their border and be cleared within 24 hours, meaning that fish and mussels and other things we produce will be able to be available to Indian consumers more quickly. The FTA means more high-quality New Zealand seafood will be exported to India, meaning Indian consumers will have choice over Australian and European fish and shellfish. Our seafood is better than theirs; Indians deserve to eat it.

Hon Louise Upston: What benefits will this agreement deliver for forestry businesses and exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the free-trade agreement is a big win for forestry and wood processors. The agreement delivers immediate tariff elimination on 95 percent of New Zealand’s forestry and wood exports on day one. Australian forestry exports, under their free-trade agreement, increased by 120 percent under their FTA in the first 12 months, while our exports during that period fell. The India - New Zealand FTA levels that playing field and more forestry—including processed timber, where value is added in New Zealand—will go to India, creating more jobs for Kiwis. This is great news for sawmills and wood processors from Northland to the central North Island; certainly Tokoroa, Kawerau, Te Puke, Gisborne, East Coast, all the way to Nelson and many places in between.

Katie Nimon: What benefits will this agreement deliver for the mighty Hawke’s Bay?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Hawke’s Bay, along with the Bay of Plenty, Northland, Nelson, Southland—many parts of New Zealand are powerhouses of horticulture. This agreement delivers real wins for growers, particularly our apple trade. Right now, apples face a 50 percent tariff into India; under this free-trade agreement (FTA), that tariff rate will reduce to 25 percent, with an initial quota of 32,500 tonnes that matches our current apple exports to India. This quota will grow to 45,000 tonnes, or 300 million apples every year, over the next six years as our exports continue to grow. This is the first time India has included apples in a trade agreement, but it’s not just apples that will benefit: cherries, avocados, blueberries, persimmons also benefit, with full tariff elimination phased in over 10 years, giving our growers confidence to invest and create jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why sign an FTA which included the phrase, “nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori”, given that this language runs counter to the coalition Government’s approach that all New Zealanders should be equal under the law?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, that’s because that language is in many agreements, including the UAE agreement and the EU agreement that that member’s party voted for during this term of Parliament.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That last statement is incorrect. Could I ask the Minister to prove what he just said about our party being on that side of that previous agreement on that clause?

SPEAKER: Well, if that is the case, there’s a remedy the member should follow and a consequence for the Minister who made the statement.

Māori Development

Question No. 8

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:32) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he support the proposal to cut roles from Te Puni Kōkiri, on top of earlier reductions; if so, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (14:32): Kia ora. Decisions around staffing levels at Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) are operational matters and are the responsibility of the Secretary for Māori Development, as chief executive. The member will be—well, at least should be—aware of section 54 of the Public Service Act 2020, passed when he was a Minister of the Crown, which provides that there is a duty on the CE of agencies like Te Puni Kōkiri to act independently on employment matters.

Hon Willie Jackson: Since taking office, how many people have lost their jobs at Te Puni Kōkiri?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am advised that since around June 2024, there has been a net reduction of 25.4 fulltime-equivalent staff at Te Puni Kōkiri.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can he defend further job cuts when Te Puni Kōkiri has just taken on new monitoring and Māori-Crown relations functions and is supposed to be holding other agencies to account for their performance for Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: You see, this is partly a question that can help me explore the differences between the member, whose modus operandi and party believe in massive big government and spraying the cash bazooka, and the fiscal prudence that exists on this side of the House. We are not about the quantity of roles through Government but, actually, the quality of advice, and I’m very confident about the quality of the advice that the Ministry of Māori Development—Te Puni Kōkiri—is providing me.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does he believe it is his role as Minister to advocate permanently for the expansion of full-time roles at Government departments he is responsible for, or to actually address Māori disadvantage and promote Māori economic development?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Definitely the latter is my role, and also to support the Ministry of Māori Development to actually deliver on its statutory role rather than expand all roles for all New Zealanders and all Māori at the whim of a Minister. That is not my role.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with Tama Potaka that “Anything less than an increase in power for Māori would signal yet another failure in respecting the Treaty”, and, if so, how does cutting jobs at TPK achieve this objective?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, the member confuses the citation of that great and diligent man Tama Potaka with the number of staff at a single agency, and I recommend that the member talk with Tama Potaka—great guy—at Copperfields after this debate.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with David Seymour that population ministries like TPK slow down the business of Government, and, if so, is this the reason why he is slowly cutting staff, to prepare for TPK to be cut altogether?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I recall traversing this matter before; I’m not responsible for the views of David Seymour, and I recommend that the member actually check the record to ensure that that is consistent with what has actually been said by David Seymour.

Hon Nicola Willis: Is there any evidence that increasing the number of public servants employed in the back office of Government agencies addresses New Zealanders’ cost-of-living or income opportunities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am aware that there was an increase of about a third in the Public Service between 2017 and 2023, and at this time a number of health and wealth indicators in this country absolutely deteriorated—most appalling for me, indicators such as the 2-year-old immunisation rate of Māori, which dropped from about 90 percent to below 65 percent. That’s why having targets in place and making sure that we work collaboratively across Government and with the agencies to meet those targets is absolutely important. Might I add and acknowledge the work of Minister Goldsmith and Minister Mitchell, who have seen a reduction in the number of serious persistent young offenders who are Māori, from 784 to 594 in the last two years. Tēnā kōrua.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he admit that the latest job cuts prove the Government’s negative Māori agenda is ramping up, and for all his rhetoric about thriving whānau, the only things thriving under National are more cuts and misery for Māori?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, the member—

SPEAKER: Wait on, there’s a point of order, and I think I can anticipate it, but Mr Jones?

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, you know as well as I do that Speakers’ ruling 196 makes that question completely out of order. That’s an unsubstantiated assertion about a negative agenda towards Māori.

SPEAKER: Yes, that is strictly true, but as the member has pointed out, I think, twice in this question time, where I have allowed questions that are of a political nature, political answers are given, and the Minister seemed very capable of doing that.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Two or three observations from me: the member again conflates an assumption and an absolute misunderstanding of the intention of this Government to deliver outcomes alongside, with, and for Māori, whether or not it’s in housing, health, education, or indeed resource management, Treaty settlements, social development, or a range of other matters. Let me tell you a short story: five years ago some relations of people in this House sought to resolve the issues arising over 150 years with the Nelson Tenths and the previous Government absolutely failed to deliver on their aspirations, and it took this Government to actually step up and deal with those concerns, after 150 years. I’m very proud to be part of a Government that has dealt with the issues in the Nelson Tenths and Whakatū situation, and I look forward to seeing members opposite on the day we pass that legislation.

Agriculture

Question No. 9

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:38) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting farmers and growers?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (14:38): On Monday, the Government signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) with India, in New Delhi. This agreement has been described as a once-in-a-lifetime deal, a landmark FTA, and historic. This agreement opens doors and offers further opportunities to our farmers and growers. These are opportunities that have not previously been available. We know that our food and fibre is world class. This agreement will allow these products entry into a new market without significant barriers. This agreement will help grow our export returns and allow our farmers and growers better access to a market of 1.4 billion customers.

Joseph Mooney: What benefits will farmers and growers see in the horticulture industry?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: I would like to share some fantastic news with the member for Southland, which includes part of the Central Otago region, and let him know what this FTA will look like for some in his local area. Cherry growers, for example, will have tariffs eliminated from the current 33 percent down to zero over 10 years. In other parts of the country, kiwifruit growers will also see tariffs eliminated for kiwifruit within quota. This quota is set to grow over six years to anticipate growth in exports from our mighty kiwifruit industry. This makes kiwi exporters more competitive on the world stage. This is nothing but good news for an FTA that will bear fruit for our growers.

Miles Anderson: What benefits will our wine growers and exporters see from this agreement?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you to the member for Waitaki, who is in an area of high growth for the wine industry. Tariffs on wine will be reduced from 150 percent to either 25 or 50 percent, depending on the value of the wine, over 10 years—plus a most favoured nation commitment. The most-favoured nation clause negotiated in our agreement means that additional benefits negotiated with other trading nations must be extended to New Zealand, contingent on our agreement with India entering into force before others with more favourable wine commitments such as the recently concluded EU-India FTA. This will be worth tens of millions of dollars in extra exports for New Zealand businesses, and so we are working hard to make this happen. Cheers to that.

Carl Bates: What benefits will our beekeepers and apiculture industry see from this agreement?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: One thing we are absolutely sure of is New Zealand mānuka honey is a premium sought-after product overseas. The good news for Whanganui and other honey-producing regions is that tariffs on mānuka honey will be cut from 66 percent to 16.5 percent over five years. The India free-trade agreement is making New Zealand products, like mānuka honey, more competitive in an international market, and it offers opportunities that we have not previously had in one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The beekeepers are buzzing with excitement.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Ricardo Menéndez March. It’s very rowdy today, so we’ll just wait till the House settles itself and hears your question respectfully in silence.

Immigration

Question No. 10

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:42) to the Minister of Immigration: Does she agree with the Union Network of Migrants that “migrants are not disposable workers”; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration) (14:42): No person is disposable. However, our priority always must be job opportunities for New Zealanders, especially in times of economic challenge. I appreciate that there are some migrants who came to New Zealand for lower-skilled roles who are approaching the end of their visa and wish to remain here. However, it was clear when they came to New Zealand that these were temporary work visas, and it is important that New Zealanders who are seeking work have the opportunity to apply for these jobs when migrants reach the end of their maximum continuous stay.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that the stand-down period, which prevents workers from being able to remain in a job for the long term, contributes to poorer wages, lower working conditions, and poor productivity as a result of employers not being able to retain them?

Hon Shane Jones: How the hell is that related to the primary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, but on this topic—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. It relates to the answer given by the Minister, which, perhaps if you look at the Hansard later, you’ll see makes the question admissible. Ask the question again, please, Mr Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you so much. The question was: does she agree that the stand-down period, which prevents workers from being able to remain in a job for the long term, contributes to poor wages, lower working conditions, and poor productivity due to employers not being able to retain these workers?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, that cannot be true. That man is reading off a prepared question which was not related to what her response was, and it’s certainly unrelated to the primary question.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not—well, the only person who decides whether a question is valid or not is me. Mr Menéndez March, please ask the question again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that the stand-down period, which prevents workers from being able to remain in a job in the long term, contributes to poorer wages, lower working conditions, and poor productivity due to employers not being able to retain these workers in the long term?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, I don’t agree with that, but what I do agree with is that it is very important for New Zealanders to be prioritised for jobs, and I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for contacting New Zealanders who need work and job opportunities when people who are coming towards the end of their maximum continuous stay are required to leave New Zealand, giving Kiwis access to these jobs.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Paul Scott who has been teaching English for speakers of other languages, including pre - International English Language Testing System (IELTS) preparation, in New Zealand for 30 years, that “IELTS, along with many other similar testing systems, especially requiring band 6.5”—this is the case for migrant bus drivers—“are completely inappropriate for establishing the ability to settle in the country.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I do not. This is a standard of English that has been in place since the early 2000s, across multiple Governments, and it does ensure that migrants are able to settle well in New Zealand. I would also make the point that it’s only the primary applicant that has to have that level of English. Their partner and their children do not and it is very important for that person to be able to live and integrate well into New Zealand society, and that is why we have such good levels of settlement in this country.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it not correct that she lifted those very requirements to one that is even higher for undergraduate students trying to start at university?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Hon Louise Upston: Is it the Government’s intent that a migrant leave a role at the end of their temporary work visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes. The purpose of temporary work visas is to fill skills shortages where a New Zealander is not available. As migrants reach the end of their work visa, the thousands of potential vacancies provide a critical opportunity for New Zealanders to be first in line for jobs. Immigration New Zealand and MSD are jointly undertaking a work programme in this, and last year, Immigration New Zealand identified employers with employees coming to the end of their maximum continuous stay. They provided this information to MSD, who contacted the affected employers, and to date have filled 400 of these roles with people who are needing work. That’s 400 New Zealanders who now have jobs and are able to provide for their families and their future because this Government is committed to prioritising New Zealanders for work, including taking the hard immigration decisions that we need to ensure this happens.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that she has different standards for multimillionaire golden visa holders who get the right to vote, make larger anonymous political donations, and buy multiple homes without having to sit any—

SPEAKER: Oh no—no, sorry.

Ricardo Menéndez March: This is the English language—

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. That question is—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s no point of order. [Interruption] There’s only one person speaking at the moment, and it’s me. That question is ruled out.

Ricardo Menéndez March: OK. Is it correct that golden visa holders are able to buy homes, maker larger anonymous political donations, and get the right to vote without sitting any English tests?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Those things—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. There is implication in that question, but it should be answered.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are things in that question that are not linked. Any person who becomes a tax resident in this country has the ability to buy a house, and any person in this country becomes also a resident. What the member seems to be suggesting with his questions down the English language route is that there should be the same level of English language for all resident visa holders, and, if that is the case, a refugee who is a partner of a New Zealander should also face these higher English language requirements. If that’s what he is suggesting, then feel free to take that to the election.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questioner, in his question, insinuated that a foreigner without any status in this country nevertheless could make financial contributions to political parties. That statement is false. It’s outside the law, and he’s been here long enough to have learnt that, rather than make that foul insinuation and get away with it.

SPEAKER: Well, I appreciate that and I understood that, and I was of a view that that answer would be coming from the floor and the member has now provided it.

Transport

Question No. 11

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (14:50) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement regarding heavy vehicle weight limits that “there are sensible changes we can make that will lift productivity without compromising standards”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:50): Yes, I stand by my full statement, which is “We need to balance that with safety and network impacts, but there are sensible changes we can make that will lift productivity without compromising standards.” The Government is exploring a range of temporary, targeted, and timely measures to support New Zealanders; this includes preparatory work to remove or suspend regulatory barriers that make it harder for businesses and communities to cope with global fuel shocks. Small increases in permitted loads for heavy vehicles could reduce the number of trips needed, saving time, lowering costs, and reducing fuel use.

Tangi Utikere: How can he claim these changes will not compromise standards when he himself has acknowledged there is “no doubt” roads will suffer from heavier trucks, and such a change will put pressure on repairs and maintenance, and on former Minister of Transport Simeon Brown’s pothole patrol?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the answer is in the answer to the primary question, which is that we need to balance that with safety and network impacts. We’re doing the work right now, and no decisions have been made.

Tangi Utikere: Does a proposal to lift heavy vehicle weight limits have the support of all three coalition parties, given that when asked whether he would veto changes to truck weight limits, one coalition partner has said, “Stand back and watch”, and, “We are not going to go down that pathway”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government hasn’t considered any formal advice on the matters the member is referring to.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Winston Peters that weight limits “are put there for good reasons, because of potholes and bridge strength”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, in a general sense. It is undoubtedly true that heavy vehicles have an impact on the road. We are considering that matter right now, and, as I say—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did you make an announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’ll make an announcement when we’ve made a decision. That’s generally how Government works. I know that member wasn’t in Government for very long and has maybe forgotten how the Cabinet process works, but generally, on this side of the House, we go through a process, we do the work, we take a paper to Cabinet, and when we’ve made a decision, we announce it. I look forward to making sure that we continue to be the ones doing the announcing and the decision making for a long time to come.

Tangi Utikere: Should weight limit changes proceed, will he accept responsibility for safety and other concerns having been disregarded—concerns that have been expressed by members of his own coalition Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as I say, the member makes a not unreasonable point that the impact of heavy vehicles has an impact on the roading network. We are considering that, and you’ve also got to balance it with the undoubted situation that we find ourselves in, or potentially find ourselves in. If the fuel crisis worsens, we might find ourselves in a situation in which it would make sense for trucks to do fewer trips, thus improving fuel economy—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Rubbish!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member says “rubbish”, but that is definitely true. It is definitely true that if trucks are able to do fewer trips and take more when they do the same number of trips, that is good for fuel economy. It’s a simple matter of economics and maths—and I know maths aren’t the Labour Party’s strong suit, as we get a daily demonstration of, but I invite the member to actually look at the facts.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister share the concerns of a broad number of New Zealanders with the increased cost of fuel, and is it therefore the Government’s position that it will consider a range of practical measures to reduce the cost of fuel and the use of fuel, and does that include everything from electric vehicle licensing, through to more use of rail, through to reducing red tape on freight?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed. I have seen suggestions from some people that the Government should just do something, and then when the Government does decide to consider doing something, they don’t like that either.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he prioritising regulatory relief for the trucking industry when ordinary New Zealanders are paying record prices at the pump just to get to work, drop their kids off at school, and put food on the table?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this is a classic of the Labour Party genre, which is a series of fallacious assertions backed up with no policy of their own. As Minister, I am prioritising regulatory relief—in fact, the whole Government is prioritising regulatory relief for everyone.

Hon David Seymour: As Minister of Transport, is it his understanding that food on the table more often than not comes on trucks, and, if that is true, will the Government have any communication plans to get that across to some of the simpler members of the Labour Party?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No—sorry. Just a minute—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, sit down—sit down. You can, Mr Seymour, withdraw the last part of that question, and then Mr Bishop may make a short response.

Hon David Seymour: I withdraw the last part of the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Forty minutes ago, we had a long conversation at the front end of question time about food costs and people paying prices at the supermarkets. Guess what will happen if the fuel crisis gets worse and those fuel costs are passed on to consumers? That will show up in food prices. Regulatory relief like we’re talking about, at least on the margins, takes the heat off the food price increases.

Transport

Question No. 12

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:56) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about land transport rules?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (14:56): Recently, Minister of Transport Chris Bishop and I announced that New Zealand’s warrant of fitness—with your indulgences, sir, I’ll refer to them as WOFs—and certificate of fitness A, which I’ll refer to as COFs, light vehicle inspection requirements will soon be significantly reformed, saving Kiwis valuable time and money. The changes mean that most light vehicles under 14 years old will move to two-yearly WOF inspections, up from yearly, and new vehicles will go to four years before needing their WOF. Older vehicles, motorcycles, and light rental vehicles will move from six-monthly to yearly inspections.

Rima Nakhle: How much will this save Kiwis a year?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: These are simple changes that will deliver massive benefits for Kiwis. The cost-benefit analysis done by officials shows that these changes are expected to deliver between $2.6 billion and $4.1 billion in net benefits to Kiwis over 30 years through reduced inspection fees, less time spent on compliance, and fewer unnecessary repairs. I know many people around the country, including people in this House, will welcome these changes, especially when many households are feeling pressure due to high fuel prices caused by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Rima Nakhle: When will these changes come into effect?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: From 1 November, most light vehicle users will benefit from these changes, but it is important to note that the ongoing obligation to keep your vehicle roadworthy—including your tyres—in tip-top shape, continues. We all have an obligation to keep our vehicles roadworthy at all times, and there will be increased penalties and enforcement for people who don’t.

SPEAKER: That concludes question time. We’ll just take a brief 30 seconds for those who have to leave the House before I call for the general debate to begin.

Debates

General Debate

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:59): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This week, Friday is Mayday, International Workers’ Day, a really important opportunity to think about the state of worker solidarity in Aotearoa and, actually, across the country. What we’re seeing right now is that while this Government wants to divide working people against each other, sowing division and misplaced fear, regular working people are actually uniting, coming together, and fighting back. This coalition wants us to blame our neighbour for a lack of jobs, homes, and adequate healthcare; for the failing state of flood protection and infrastructure that leaves the beaches polluted and homes filled with mud.

Winston wants us to blame immigrants. Look at his party’s—Mr Winston Peters.

SPEAKER: The member cannot just use a name like that—

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Winston Peters—

SPEAKER: I haven’t finished speaking. The member must use a member’s full name.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Winston Peters wants us to blame migrants. Just look at his party’s rhetoric on Chinese people and on the India free-trade agreement. Mr David Seymour wants us to blame Māori. Look at the lengths that they’re going to remove te reo Māori from public places and undermine Te Tiriti at every step. They had their own ACT Party candidate advising the Minister and the Government on reviewing and removing Treaty clauses from legislation. The Prime Minister, Mr Luxon, wants us to blame beneficiaries for unemployment. Look at what they’ve done to remove the benefit from young people and create a host of new sanctions for how people are supposed to survive.

This Government is taking their hands off the wheel and choosing to maintain the hardship that ordinary, regular people are facing every single day, while right in front of all of our eyes the wealthy few are hoarding more and more wealth than ever before. Ganesh Nana wrote about this last year in the household net-worth survey, where the wealth divide has become a chasm. People know this. They can see it, they can feel it. Nurses and police and cleaners and bus drivers and early childhood education teachers know that they are, effectively, paying more effective tax than the wealthy owning tens and dozens and loads of houses. They can see this. They’re not buying the line that the economic recovery is helping them, because they are feeling it every single day. One hundred and nineteen families and individuals on the rich list hold as much wealth as nearly half of all New Zealanders. People know that is wrong, and this fossil fuel crisis is another chance for the mega-rich to cash in on that and to exploit that while the system that they’ve designed squeezes regular people harder and keeps us reliant on fossil fuel.

Research released just yesterday showed that six of the biggest fossil fuel companies are making $3,000 per second in profits during a crisis where ordinary people are struggling—$37 million a day above what they made last year. People know this is wrong. People know this system is unfair. People know it needs fixing because people also know that there is enough for everyone, but this Government and multi-millionaires and billionaires want us to believe otherwise.

At this election, then, we have a choice between working people having to work longer just to survive—to pay the bills, to get kai, to pay the rent, and to pay the power bill—while the rich get richer and richer; or we can finally tax the wealthy few so that everyone can have healthcare, affordable housing, and jobs that work for us. We can have an economy that works for working people and a planet that sustains us for today and for mokopuna to come. You can hear the objections of the people. Who are they working for? Whose interests are the people on the other side of the House working for when they are protecting the unfair systems that everyone else can see is wrong, and when they are protecting the wealthy few holding on to their wealth while we’re there—

SPEAKER: Marama Davidson, you know that that’s a completely inappropriate line of debate—totally—making accusations like that, so that’s the end of that speech. I call on the Hon Nicola Willis.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (15:04): It is an historic week. This week New Zealand signed a once-in-a-generation free-trade agreement with India. This means more jobs, higher incomes, and more export opportunities. Our Prime Minister, Chris Luxon, in Opposition said it could be done, and he got it done. He did it with the support of my colleague behind me, the Hon Todd McClay, a negotiator for the ages.

At a time of global uncertainty, opening the doors to a market of 1.4 billion people is exactly the practical economic leadership New Zealanders need. What it means is new opportunities in job-rich industries, evening the playing field with those countries with whom we compete, making it easier for our exporters who produce apples, kiwifruit, sheep meat, wool, coal, wine, iron, steel, aluminium, and honey to reach that important market. But it has not gone unnoticed that there were naysayers along the way—that there were detractors. First of all, we had Labour, who said it couldn’t be done. They didn’t even have it on their agenda.

I do want to turn now to other critics, and yes, that is my friends in New Zealand First, with whom we have agreed to disagree on this matter. New Zealand First are on the wrong side of history on this one, just as they were on the wrong side of history when they opposed the China free-trade agreement. Before we had that agreement, we only had $2.5 billion worth of exports to that market. Today, what is it? More than $20 billion. That is what a free-trade agreement can achieve. It can support jobs. It supports the regional communities New Zealand First say they care about but clearly don’t talk to often, because those regional communities know that the farmers want access to India, and they don’t like New Zealand First’s opposition to it. But, actually, what we really need to call out in this House—and I want to acknowledge Marama Davidson for doing the same—is the race-based scaremongering that New Zealand First have indulged in in opposing this free-trade agreement.

I want to call out Labour, because, actually, along the way, you too sidled up on the anti-immigration rhetoric.

SPEAKER: No, I did not.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: You were quite happy to sit back on that, but here, in particular, I want to quote a remark in Parliament that was made in public. I apologise in advance, because it will offend this House; it offended me. Let me tell you, it has offended New Zealanders of Indian descent up and down this country, who have been in touch with our MPs, in touch with our Ministers, and who are hurt and feel betrayed. That comment was that a free-trade agreement with India—so that our exporters can sell their goods and services there—would unleash a “butter chicken tsunami”.

Hon Members: Shameful!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, shame on you, Shane Jones. I enjoy working with you around the Cabinet table, but that kind of race-based rhetoric has no place in New Zealand politics. To those New Zealanders of Indian descent—actually, to all New Zealanders who are fair-minded and good-minded—I want you to know that we hear you and we back you. We know that the contribution that people from India have made to this economy has been, and will continue to be, immense, and they deserve to be respected for their contributions and not described in that way.

Now, it didn’t go unnoticed that Labour indulged in a bit of the anti-immigration speculation, as well, but that’s the state of Labour today—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the second time the member has made an inaccurate and quite serious accusation against this party. It is not true, and it is, I think, deliberately misleading this House to accuse the Labour Party of sidling up to what views we all find repugnant.

SPEAKER: The member knows there is a course of action he can follow for that. This is a debate, and where debating material is thought to be inaccurate, there is a remedy for parties to follow. I call the Hon Nicola Willis for her last 30 seconds.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is the state of Labour today: bark at every passing car, have an opinion on everything, a policy on nothing. Their chickens are coming home to roost. They’ve made dozens of unfunded policies, and they’ve actually been caught out with these promises this week. In plain English, what they told the Fitch Ratings agency is they’ll sort it all out with more taxes.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: You weren’t in the room.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, they haven’t told New Zealanders yet. Deborah’s pretty shirty about it, but just you wait, it’s coming. Meanwhile: practical economic leadership, a free-trade agreement.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:10): Is this a Government that’s going to give Kiwis confidence? Is that a Government that says to New Zealanders that they are focused on the things that matter? When they have an opportunity to talk about what this Government is doing, they make things up and they have a crack at their coalition partners. They have demonstrated what Kiwis have seen all through the last week, where they actually can’t get through one topic and one speech without having a go at each other. They got into bed with New Zealand First. Don’t cry about it now. The fact of it is they knew exactly what they were getting into. Their polls have dropped, to the benefit of New Zealand First. They’re starting to panic and now they’re having a crack at them. It’s not going to wash. It’s your own doing. You shouldn’t have signed up to it; you did. They’re your mates. Deal with it.

The fact of the matter is that New Zealanders don’t have confidence with this Government, because for two and a half years they’ve been blaming everybody else. Now they’re even blaming themselves. They’re blaming their own coalition partners to take attention from the fact that it was actually only a week ago that Christopher Luxon, under huge pressure, put up a confidence vote in caucus and almost lost to an empty chair. That’s how bad things are for Christopher Luxon. He was backed into a corner. He knew he was losing support. If it wasn’t for Stuart Smith getting lost somewhere in Marlborough on the way, then Christopher Luxon would have had a challenge on his hand. He stood up, he took the numbers, and from what I gather, from what I’ve been hearing, double digits of his caucus voted no. There was nobody to replace him—no one to replace him but an empty chair, and he almost lost.

But I want to thank the members of the National Party for voting for Chris Luxon, because we’re very happy that he is there. We are very happy that he is there, because the more that New Zealanders see from Christopher Luxon, the less they like; the more they start to realise that this Government is empty—it has nothing. If it’s not written in front of them, they don’t know what to say. It was on display in question time today. Andy Foster got given an additional supplementary question from the Speaker and he didn’t know what to say, because no one had written it down for him. He just sat there like a deer in the headlights. Surely you would think, two and a half years after getting into Government, that they would have something to talk about, something to crow about when given a free pass. They didn’t take it!

Rima Nakhle: How about those policies? Any policies yet, mate?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The one-termers are piping up. No wonder they’re worried, because they know—they know that their jobs are nearly done. They know that when New Zealanders see that there are 32,000 thousand fewer jobs in this country, they know this Government has to take responsibility for that. They know when there are 2,000 people leaving the country every week that the Government is refusing to take responsibility for that. When 15 percent—that’s the number of business liquidations, that’s what it’s increased by. They have not taken responsibility for that. They refused to take responsibility for the 18 percent increase in power prices. There are people in this country that are paying 100 bucks to visit the doctor.

We’ve come up with a solution to that. We’re going to use a capital gains tax to pay for three free GP visits for everyone in the country. What’s their answer? “No, I don’t like that. No, no, no, no, we’re quite happy with people paying $100 to go and see their doctor.” They’re crowing about making it easier to access prescriptions, but let’s not forget they used to be free. They put the charges back on them, make it slightly easier, and say, “Aren’t we great?” Well, the answer to that is no, and more and more New Zealanders are answering that. That is why they are polling in the mid-20s, because people have had enough.

They’ve had enough of the excuses. They’ve had enough of the distractions. They’ve had enough of the infighting and the bickering. They’ve had enough of these empty National MPs who promised to fix the cost of living and have made things worse.

Rima Nakhle: Fixed it up after you guys decimated it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Earlier today in question time—it’s actually against Standing Orders to change seats to heckle, but heckle all you like. You may as well make the most of the time you’ve got. What is it? Four months? Get into it.

Chris Hipkins asked the Prime Minister some simple questions today. How much has the average shop gone up for families? He pretended he didn’t know. He knows full well. He doesn’t want to admit—it’s $250, for the record. How much has the monthly power bill gone up? Again, he refused to talk about it. What about home, contents, car insurance? What about filling up the tank? All he had was excuses. All he had was blame. All he had was distractions. But that is all they have had for two and a half years, and New Zealanders are seeing through it. We know their days are numbered, and if you listen to Nicola Willis’s speech, she knows they are, as well. When they are so desperate that they are going to spend their first contribution to a general debate having a crack at their coalition partners because they are eating their lunch, you know something’s up. They know they are buggered, they know their time’s up, and at this election, New Zealanders are going to have their say.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:15): Mr Speaker, I’d almost take that last member, Kieran McAnulty, seriously, although for very different reasons he’s imagined. He does know what it’s like to lose his seat. He had one in the Wairarapa and he lost it at the last election. So to my colleagues who are out door-knocking and campaigning hard, who always believed when Christopher Luxon said we could do a free-trade agreement with India, when Kieran McAnulty, who’s actually given up on his ambition to lead the Labour Party at the moment because of a lack of policy, says he thinks you might lose your seat, good on all of you for standing up for what’s right for New Zealanders, getting out there knocking on doors, and believing Christopher Luxon when he said this Government would make our relationship with India a strategic priority and we would do a high quality, free-trade agreement with India in our first term.

It’s that kind of vision that the country has always had in trade and that we have brought in abundance, and the statistics have been very well canvassed. Can I say to all members, having had a very large delegation of New Zealand businesses, trade associations, and Indian New Zealanders who are so proud of actually what New Zealand has to offer the world, jump on a plane with a day’s notice and travel to India to witness the historic occasion of the signature of the free-trade agreement actually speaks wonders for the ambition of New Zealanders and how New Zealanders know when something that is good for them is done, that it is worth celebrating and celebrating quickly.

India is a nation of 1.4 billion people. For every single Kiwi, that’s more than 250 Indians, if my maths is correct. So, ultimately, what that means is it’s a market that we have never had access to in this way before. It is now the most populous country in the world and we are in on the ground floor as they continue to grow their economy and become confident. Think of it: a country of 5 million people at the bottom of the world, and yesterday, when we arrived and signed on Monday—that was Tuesday here—that evening, on all of the television stations in India, wall-to-wall coverage of a little country called New Zealand that punches above its weight compared to many others, is opening up access for our exporters, and that does nothing but produce jobs that make New Zealanders wealthier.

So we can hear from the Opposition, from the Labour Party, the solution to all of our problems is another tax; actually, it’s not. It’s growing the economy, giving Kiwis choices, actually allowing opportunity for New Zealand businesses, and leveling the playing field so that in a market like India with 1.4 billion people, Kiwi companies can not only compete fairly against Australians but they will beat them in that market—and against the Europeans and against the Americans. Against every single country in the world, Christopher Luxon, this Government, and the National Party backs New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses to do as well as they can.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Not New Zealand First. No, Todd, not New Zealand First.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I mean, Damien O’Connor, who I’ve a lot of respect for because he flew all the way there and back with me at our invitation, is getting at New Zealand First. Not for the reasons that the coalition would say we don’t agree; we’re allowed to agree to disagree. It’s because he ruled out Labour and he ruled out Chris Hipkins from the next Government. So all of a sudden, they’ve changed their tune, right? But I guarantee you, they’re still sending their gifts across from India.

Putting that aside, 1.4 billion people: we back New Zealand businesses to do well. The way to actually allow New Zealanders to do more is not to tax them more; it’s to allow them to create businesses to sell more, to do well overseas, to meet their ambition, and for the Government to go and join them. It’s a long list of things that we have succeeded in in this country, in India: sheep, meat, wood, forestry, kiwifruit, coal, dairy—you know, a reduction of tariffs rates or duty free on day one. That seafood that we were talking about at question time earlier is significant. With 1.4 billion people, we don’t have to sell a mussel to all of them, we can just sell it to half of them. By golly, in Nelson—a seat that we’re going to take off Labour at the next election because of a hard-working MP who cares about them—if we could do that there, the people of Nelson would actually be wealthier. Do you know what we actually need in New Plymouth? A seafood industry, as well as a gas industry. Labour closed that city down. We’re rebuilding it but giving them more options. It’s a wonderful, wonderful thing.

Mānuka honey: unique to New Zealand—those Australians like to try to claim the word “Mānuka” from time to time. Up in India, when people brought the gift of Mānuka honey with them and gave it to some of their counterparts, businesses, and so on, you know what they said? “This is a wonderful product; New Zealand is the first country in the world to have a reduction of tariff rate on honey into India; there are 400 million or 500 million people in India who are wealthy who will buy this; please produce as much as you can.” It’s good for every single part of New Zealand.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:20): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. While we see the opposite side of the House so focused on themselves and their own jobs and bickering amongst their coalition Government, they are failing to see the real issues facing their constituencies. Kiwis up and down the country are struggling with the basics. Yes, bills are up; yes, fuel costs more; but a sign of how bad things are getting is that many New Zealanders are now struggling to afford food.

You don’t need to look to far to see how bad it has gotten under this Government. Headlines like, “Northland residents using Afterpay to buy essentials amid cost of living crisis”. In Whanganui: “Food insecurity new normal as support agencies fight to stay open”; “Waged workers now lining up for food support as need surges”; “Budgeting services see increased demand for food and financial support”. According to the New Zealand Food Network’s recent report, 33 percent of New Zealanders experienced some form of food insecurity last year—that’s one in three.

But if you dive a bit deeper, you see that it gets even worse; 68 percent of people who reported food insecurity said they were experiencing it for the first time; 48 percent of low-income respondents have experienced it, but so have 29 percent of medium-income families, and even 12 percent of high-income families. For Pasifika, the rate of households who have experienced food insecurity is 64 percent. For Māori, it’s over 50 percent. For disabled people, it’s 82 percent. This is, quite simply, disgraceful. What the House needs to keep in mind is that this report is about 2025—and 2025, in case the Government members on the other side of the House have forgotten, is before the current fuel crisis.

Since the start of the fuel crisis, we’ve had food banks tell us that families are struggling to even be able to afford to access the food support that they need. They cannot afford to drive to the food bank. They cannot afford the bus ticket to get to the food bank. We’ve got organisations like the Kindness Collective, who do an incredible job serving children and whānau in need, who have experienced a 336 percent increase in demand for their services, while other organisations like St Vincent de Paul have seen a sharp rise in people being unable to pick up their food parcels. I visited Visionwest, in West Auckland, and it’s a similar situation. The demand from families needing food support is increasing, but people cannot afford to come and pick it up. We also had the Pacific Trust talking about the increase in demand. Many organisations across the country are supporting communities in need.

This is the reality of life under National: more and more people needing assistance, but who can’t even afford to get it. What was the Government’s response to that? Well, they mostly just cross their fingers and hope that it will all go away. They talked about “targeted” support, but they haven’t targeted these people in need. They see more and more people lose their jobs and seek assistance, and then kick them while they’re down. They ignore the struggles that Kiwis are going through. Christoper Luxon promised to fix the cost of living. The National Party promised to fix the cost of living. Instead, they have made it worse. Now, every third person you meet in New Zealand may have gone without food in the last year.

Everything costs more, the economy is weaker, and people aren’t just worse off, people are hungry. Our message to Kiwis is that the Labour Party is focused on what matters—on your job, on your health, on your home—so you can build a future for your family here; so you can afford to build your future here, in Aotearoa. Kia ora.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (15:26): “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Those words are from George Orwell, and they are words that this House would do well to remember today.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) made little sense when it was created, and it makes even littler sense now. Gone are the days of rabbit-ear television and adjusting the antenna. Yes, I am old enough to remember those days, when I was out flatting—

SPEAKER: That’s hardly believable.

LAURA McCLURE: —and now we have everything at our fingertips—oh, there’s a few people in this room that remember that, too. The Broadcasting Standards Authority has become irrelevant. It has not only become irrelevant; if we just actually call it what it is, it has become a group of Wellington bureaucrats that are the taste police on content on the internet. That is what we are seeing. In my very humble opinion, and those of very many New Zealanders, this is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

New Zealanders, as we know, are getting their media from all around the world now. We’re seeing it not just here in New Zealand—they’re getting their media from everywhere around the globe, and that is the beauty of the internet. When the Broadcasting Standards Authority was set up, the internet was not even a thing. For the Broadcasting Standards Authority to go out of their remit and be essentially policing the internet is actually a really scary thought.

Do you know what, it’s funny, because I look at the BSA’s own justification for its own existence, and it is so incredibly weak. The BSA claims its job is—and I quote from their website—“Overseeing and promoting broadcasting standards on behalf of New Zealanders”. But I think there is a more honest motto it could adopt: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” The BSA now looks more like something out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four than something that belongs in a modern liberal democracy.

Freedom of speech is not a nice to have; it’s not a luxury of a modern society; it’s not something that you get to pick and choose whether you like to hear something or you don’t. It’s a fundamental human right, and fundamental to every other freedom that follows on from it. It’s the underlying basis for freedom of religion, freedom to protest, and many more. If you take away speech, you take away it all. If you don’t believe in free speech consistently—if you only believe in it for the views that you agree with—then you don’t really believe in it at all.

It doesn’t even matter whether someone is saying something correct. Often, I see my friends over in the Greens spouting off some kind of nonsense that surely nobody thinks is correct, and some may even say that’s helpful to New Zealanders. But as Evelyn Beatrice Hall famously wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”, and I defend even the Greens and Te Pāti Māori’s right to have their opinions.

The argument about whether the BSA needs to exist comes down to a simple question: do we trust New Zealanders, or do we believe the State knows better? Because right now, the BSA stands there at the podium of truth deciding which views are acceptable for the public to hear and quietly snuffling out the ones that aren’t.

ACT trusts New Zealanders. We trust them to hear different viewpoints and to make up their own minds. We trust them to push back against the ideas they disagree with. We trust them to argue, to debate, and to think for themselves. New Zealanders are not children who need to be coddled by the State or shielded from anything that might actually hurt their feelings. They are adults, they are citizens, and they are perfectly capable of handling speech that they don’t agree with at all. For the critics out there who say that removing the BSA will be a free for all; it won’t be. We have the Media Council. We have defamation laws here in New Zealand. Threats against violence—we have protections in place. The BSA is completely irrelevant now.

Yes, there will be speech that people don’t like. I’m sure some people in the House don’t like this speech right now. There will be opinions that offend and provoke, but that is not a flaw of a free society; it is the beauty of one, a price worth paying. Abolish the BSA.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (15:31): New Zealand is at its core a trading nation. We depend on value created from the land, the sea, the rivers, our fields, and from our ingenuity. The returns from our trade are not just numbers on a page; they are the lifeblood that finances our schools, our hospitals, our police, our defence force, and all the services that every resident and citizen expects. When trade succeeds, the whole country prospers, and nowhere is that clearer than in the mighty Waitaki. The newly inked free-trade agreement with India is truly great news for our farmers, growers, fishers—the local industries whose world-class products are the pride of our region. From Oamaru’s historic precinct to the green heartlands of Waimate, through the high country of Mackenzie to the fertile slopes of Central Otago, and out in Clutha, the benefits will be felt far and wide.

Let’s talk wine. Waitaki boasts many renowned vineyards and wine producers. This is a growing industry in the region. Until now, our wines have faced a staggering 150 percent tariff at the Indian border. Thanks to this agreement, those tariffs will drop to as low as 25 percent for many New Zealand wines, making our labels more attractive and competitive in one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets. This helps not just our vineyards but the bottlers, the packers, the exporters, and the hospitality workers who rely on the wine trade. Our cherry growers and other fruit producers, especially those cultivating the famed stone fruits, apples, and more, can now look forward to the progressive elimination of tariffs that once made it hard to compete. For example, as we heard earlier during question time, cherries will fall from 33 percent tariff to zero over time, which means more money for orchardists, more opportunities for seasonal workers, and a real incentive for investment in new plantings and new technologies. The extra income generated flows back into our local economy, helping to fund our roads, community facilities, education, and health.

Sheep farmers and the red meat industry are at the heart of the Waitaki’s identity. With all the tariffs on sheep meat and wool immediately removed, our region’s fine wool and premium lamb can enter India duty-free. This will benefit not only our high-country farms but also our processors: Silver Fern Farms, at Pareora; Alliance Group, in Pukeuri; BX Foods, in Oamaru. Each of these facilities provides jobs, supports families, and adds enormous value to our exports. Let’s not forget about Godfrey Hirst’s carpet factory in Oamaru, one of the nation’s leading wool processors, whose future will be made brighter by the extended access to a new market. Geraldine’s cropping, artisan foods ventures, and dairying and horticulture in our valleys also stand to gain. The Waitaki Valley itself, as an emerging wine region, and a very good one at that, will find new customers and a greater profile thanks to this agreement.

I want to directly address the concern that sometimes surfaces in conversations about trade and matters of immigration. Part of this agreement allows 1,670 high-skilled work visas to be issued to Indian nationals. These are targeted visas, designed to fill skills, and are not about opening the floodgates or changing the fabric of our communities. These skilled individuals can contribute to our economy, help our businesses grow, and, like so many who came here before, make New Zealand a stronger and more innovative place. Let’s focus on the facts and not the fears. This is about complementing, not overwhelming, our workforce. Waitaki is a large, diverse, and dynamic area, from the dairies of the east through to the sheep and cropping of the heartlands, to the orchards and vineyards of Central Otago, and the Waitaki Valley of course, every part of the electorate—

Dan Bidois: It’s a beautiful electorate.

MILES ANDERSON: —it is a beautiful electorate—contributes to the prosperity of us all. Thanks to the India FTA—or “free-trade agreement” for you, Mr Speaker—every part stands to benefit. Together, we’ll continue to build a region and a nation of opportunity, pride, and promise for the generations to come. As we say, we’re fixing the basics and building a future for the Waitaki. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (15:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The days are getting shorter and many Kiwis are getting colder, and, sadly, we know that energy hardship is now widespread. It was heartbreaking to hear from the Hidden Energy Hardship hui last week that 200,000 households in 2025 were not able to keep their homes adequately warm; 160,000 households could not pay electricity, gas, rates, or water bills on time more than once in the last 12 months; over 160,000 households put up with a cold house to keep costs down; and 100,000 households suffered dampness and mould.

This is shocking. I know Kiwis around the country would be outraged to learn that close to half a million Kiwis are suffering extreme energy hardship in this country, where we have the solutions at our fingertips. No one should be in this situation. I know how cold it can get in Ōtepoti Dunedin, a lovely place, but it makes me heartbroken to see kids in cold, damp homes with black mould throughout. That’s long-term hospitalisation and illness. How about this Government take action? We need a national electrification plan. We have every opportunity to become an energy independent nation powered by the sun, the wind, our geothermal resources, our great hydro lakes, and some biomass.

I had the privilege of attending the opening of the TOPP2 geothermal power station in March, a partnership between Tūwharetoa mai Kawerau ki te Tai Settlement Trust and Eastland Generation. They’re delivering electricity to power 13,000 Kiwi homes, as well as geothermal process heat for the Kawerau Industrial Complex. It’s an example of what could be possible with a national electrification plan: energy independence, building resilience, freeing us from the inflationary pressures of imported fossil fuels.

How long will this Government refuse to accept that their fascination with fossil fuels is harming us? The Government is forcing extreme hardship on Kiwis by prioritising fossil fuels, which they should know by now creates high power prices and drives extreme weather events, just like Wellington suffered last week, and the Far North the week before, and Ōtepoti before that. Our people suffer thanks to this ill-prepared Government. You would think it was blindingly obvious, but this is why we need action on climate, and a national electrification plan is just the thing we need. We are blessed with abundant renewable power sources, and yet, at the same time, businesses in manufacturing are closing, people are having to choose between heating and eating.

This Government has already cut $178 million of funding from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which provided funding for hot-water heating, low-cost energy-efficiency measures, an LED lighting scheme, and a community-focused out programme to target those hard-to-reach households. That cut has adversely affected just those households and whānau in energy hardship. It is not rocket science. This Government should work to empower people, communities, and businesses to end dependence on overseas fossil fuels, to cut bills and build energy resilience. A national electrification plan would do just that, but they’re doing the opposite.

Here are the three steps we need to take: we need to overcome the political inertia to fix the broken electricity market. The current electricity market simply incentivises coal; it locks in the dominance of the big utilities and disincentivises new-build renewables, including distributed generation. We need to support grid-scale renewables for households, communities, and iwi, because building fossil fuels for energy is the primary driver of catastrophic climate change. And we need to beef up energy conservation, which is so critical because the cheapest energy is that which we don’t use.

This Government is flailing about. They haven’t just run out of fuel; they’ve run out of ideas, and they hope that we don’t notice before 7 November.

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman) (15:41): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had a prepared speech, but I’m totally distracted by that previous contribution and the load of waffle that we’ve just heard about electricity and electrification from the very people that were in Government when they wrecked the electricity sector in this country. But anyway, today is Wednesday and today is also another free-trade agreement (FTA) day.

So I want to focus on some positives and not spread any more doom and gloom-I think we’ve had enough of that. But in simple terms, the India FTA is a really solid win for West Coast and Tasman. The exporters in West Coast and Tasman are going to end up with big trade barriers being removed, and this is going to open up our electorate to one of the fastest-growing countries in the world and the market for 1.5 billion people. So we’re a big player when it comes to exports, although we’re usually fairly humble about it. We’ve got Tasman’s forestry, apples, kiwifruit, wine, all bringing in well over $1 billion in New Zealand dollars into the national economy. But the FTA sees a reduction of the removal of about 95 percent of the tariffs that are impacted by those export products. For Tasman, that lines up well with what the region already does best: apples, kiwifruit, wine, forestry products, fish, and other high-quality food and fibre exports.

The India free-trade agreement is a genuine breakthrough for Tasman growers. For Tasman apple exporters, this is one of the biggest gains in the whole deal. Until now, India had a 50 percent tariff on imported apples; under the FTA, New Zealand apples get that cut to 25 percent within a quota, and over time that will come down. Also, the window for that quota is between April and August, which is the perfect time for our exporters. It’s worth noting that New Zealand is the very first country ever to secure this type of access for apples into India. Tasman is home to about one-quarter of New Zealand’s production of apples. So this means our premium varieties are suddenly more competitive on Indian shelves because those tariffs are coming down. I want to take the opportunity of having a big shout-out to Roxy. Roxy is a new variety that’s hitting its stride around the world, including in India, and that’s a new variety that was developed in Tasman over the past 27 years. That’s very cool for them.

Kiwifruit and wine is also going to do well out of the deal, and other products including fishing. But, Mr Speaker, I know you’ll be very interested to know what this deal means for West Coast coal. Put simply, the India – New Zealand Free Trade Agreement is a great news story for West Coast coal industry, even though it’s not a game-changer. The deal means that West Coast coal can go into India duty-free from day one. And the reason they want our coal is because it’s essential for the Indian steel-making industry. So before the Greens go booking a seat in an aerial coal bucket to start their protests, dropping the tariffs doesn’t suddenly mean there are going to be more mines or there’s going to be a big jump in production, but it does make our coal more competitive and it keeps our existing operations viable. That means a lot of security for that sector. After all, we cannot have solar farms and we cannot have solar panels and wind farms without coal.

For the coast, remaining viable is very important, and coal is worth about $350-$450 million a year; the Indian market is worth an average of $150 million a year. I congratulate the Prime Minister, I congratulate the Hon Todd McClay and all of the trade officials for the sterling work that they have done over the past couple of years. Some people said it couldn’t be done; some people said it couldn’t be done in the time frame. But what have we done? We’ve secured the FTA with India. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (15:46): There’s one issue in my electorate in West Auckland that everyone talks about, whether you’re chatting at the petrol station while you’re filling up or the in the supermarket car park or on the doorstep, everyone is talking about the cost of living. People are in a world of pain. They want help and, understandably, they are mad as hell with this Government, because Christopher Luxon promised to fix the cost of living, but his choices, the Government’s choices, have made things much, much worse. People feel let down and abandoned by this Government.

I’ve just done a survey of my constituents and I asked them what was going on for them and their families. The results were striking. Some 1,145 people did the survey from all across West Auckland, and when I asked people what the most important issue for them was, they overwhelmingly said cost of living-48 percent said cost of living. That’s twice as much as the numbers for any other issue like jobs or health. Some 88 percent of the people who responded to the survey said they were “very” or “quite concerned” about the cost of living, and only 2 percent said they weren’t concerned at all; 24 percent of people said it was having a “severe impact” on them and their families; 96 percent of people said it was having “some” or “a significant” or “severe” impact.

Now, my constituents cited overwhelmingly the difficulty in affording groceries, fuel, power, rent, and childcare on stagnant and insufficient incomes. They talked of living paycheque to paycheque, with some even skipping meals or going into debt to survive. But don’t take my word for it, here’s what some of the people actually said: “Cost of everything is so high we can barely afford to go anywhere or do anything. When everything from eating to driving to having a roof over our heads is so expensive, what are we meant to do? I’m so disappointed with the Government, and blame them for it.” Another one wrote: “Living is hard, saving is hard. Food prices are high, rates are high, power is high, petrol is high, wages are stagnant. My relations are heading to Australia where they believe they can buy a house within four years. People are losing hope.” Another person wrote: “My husband is jobless and I’m on maternity leave and money is so tight with two kids and a mortgage.”

A solo father wrote that he suffered a heart attack in 2024 and had five stents. He said: “It’s a struggle to get by on my $625 benefit each week. I’m boarding, which costs me $300, then my son’s school lunch, 60 bucks a week, and with the price of petrol I need to put in 100 bucks just to fill up half a tank. With doctors fees and having to buy essentials, I’m lucky to be left with $30 to get me through to the next week.”

Another person wrote that “The cost of living, fuel prices, poor access to healthcare, hard-to-book GP appointments, so people end up going to the emergency department, which leads to emergency departments being so clogged up, putting massive pressure on staff and long wait times at our local hospital. I’m a nurse in the ED and experience this every day.” That’s just a cross section of what some of the people in West Auckland in my electorate said.

Is it any wonder that people are feeling the pain? Is it any wonder that 2,000 people every single week are heading to Australia? Power bills are up 18 percent under National. Doctors visits cost $100 in some areas, including in West Auckland. Insurance is up, car regos are up, and groceries go up every single week while wages fall behind. The people of West Auckland need a Government that’s on their side and focused on one thing: helping people get ahead. Only Labour is focused on what matters—your job, your health, and your home—so you can build a future in this country, and not in Australia.

We’ve already announced three free doctors visits, free cervical cancer screening, a plan to get easier doctor appointments, and the Future Fund, which builds your future here in New Zealand. Christopher Luxon promised to fix the cost of living, but he’s only made it worse. The only way to fix it is to vote to change the Government in November.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (15:51): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about a really sacred cow today—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, I like cows.

Dr DAVID WILSON: —called climate change. Before we go there, I just might like to add that we’ve had a lot of discussion about free-trade agreements today, and this latest one, I’m sure, is not particularly free, as we will find out as we get the detail. Nevertheless, let’s just switch to this: those that believe in climate change have told us that the science is settled, but anyone that understands science will know that science is never settled and there are disagreements about what is the truth in this whole climate cult.

Let me talk to you about subjective validation. You probably don’t even know what that is, but, anyway, it’s about when you decide that something is really, really right, every bit of information you get validates what you already think you know. There’s also a thing called researcher bias, and we’ve seen plenty of that coming out in recent years. We don’t deny that climate change is real—that’s the thing—but we think it can be resolved with the right interventions, and we have time.

Social psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt warns that modern society has developed harmful sacred cows. Those are ideological taboos that inhibit open inquiry and intellectual humility. I don’t see much intellectual humility coming from the other side of the aisle on this topic, and we need to think about that.

Wealth, technology, and adaptation are making the difference. Richer societies handle climate risks better than alarmist, catastrophic narratives. We are currently observing a striking political and media shift, a rapid retreat from climate alarmism, across the world. Leaders who once led with the Paris Agreement and net zero rhetoric are now prioritising affordability, energy and food security, and economic growth. Those are our priorities, and that is how we will address climate change.

They’re facing up to the high costs of tiny climate change returns and of raising energy prices. Voter backlash against soaring energy bills is forcing a rethink of aggressive net zero mandates across the UK, Europe, the US, and beyond. UK’s well-intentioned climate policies have driven electricity prices to the highest levels in the Western world while delivering negligible climate benefits. As a result, these Governments and corporations and even climate change advocates are talking about rolling back this net zero commitment.

Bjorn Lomborg from the Copenhagen Consensus argues that this growing revolt doesn’t deny climate change but rejects policies that impose enormous economic costs for vanishingly small temperature impacts. Instead, he makes the case for a pivot towards innovation, energy affordability, and human welfare, rather than symbolic emissions targets.

Every single catastrophic narrative can be challenged. Twenty years after An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s dire predictions haven’t played out at all. The world is greening, and do you know what? It has actually been there before. Data shows that nine times more people die from the cold as opposed to the heat. When I was younger, we had a global ice age coming at us. Oh, a few years later, actually, we were wrong. Climate-related deaths have dropped in the last century by 97 percent—97 percent. How have we achieved that? By innovation, adaptation, and getting smarter about what we’re doing.

One of these other ones is that the world is burning—I’m sorry, but, no, it’s not. It’s not burning. If you take a look at this little graph here, I’m happy to show you that. It’s from real evidence, and what it shows is that the number of these catastrophic burning events have dropped in the last hundred years, as have all of the areas burnt. Fact—sorry about that. Sorry to destroy your narrative.

Anyway, climate change is real, but I have complete faith—[Interruption]—unlike you—that New Zealanders can adapt and innovate. I have complete faith, unlike other members in that party.

The climate change challenge is not going to end with us next week, next month, next decade, or next century. We have shorter-term challenges to actually focus on: adapt and provide resilience against disasters. Our party has—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (15:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This week is a good week. This Government has just signed a free-trade agreement with India. It is a momentous occasion because it presents substantial opportunity for New Zealand exporters. It is a huge, potential game-changer for our economy when you think not just about the amazing food and fibre sector but about New Zealand businesses more broadly. They can take up this opportunity now to access the most populous country in the world—over 1.4 billion Indian consumers, who desperately deserve the opportunity to embrace New Zealand’s amazing products.

This free-trade agreement will give them that opportunity. It’s fantastic for sheep meat and it’s fantastic for horticultural products, for apples, for kiwifruit, and for grapes, as well. It’s amazing for seafood. There are so many areas in it that have been well traversed already, and I won’t go back over them, but the point is that the economic opportunity that comes from deals like this is meaningful.

When we’re in a situation where we’ve had some pretty challenging times as a country, we’ve had really high inflation and we’ve had Government expenditure out of control for a number of years—that’s all improving. We’re making some great progress there in terms of fixing the basics so that we can then get on board and focus on building the future, but the challenge remains that there is still more to do.

We see that presenting in people’s everyday lives with some of the cost of living pressures that they face and with some of the uncertainty that businesses face around the country from an investment-decision perspective on whether to act or not to act, and that’s why this Government is so relentlessly focused on growing the economic opportunity for New Zealanders, because doing that successfully helps to increase prosperity for all New Zealanders. Lifting wages, creating employment opportunities, driving investment, encouraging innovation—these are all things that New Zealand historically used to do so well. But it feels like—certainly over more recent years—that hasn’t been the case, and we are desperately focused on restoring New Zealand’s mojo in that sense and getting us back performing like we know we’re capable of doing and capturing that opportunity for future generations.

That trade agreement has just now been presented to the House. It will go through the select committee process, and I’m looking forward to having that come before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We’ll be meeting tomorrow, and, as we do with all treaty examination processes like this, there will be discussion around submission time frames. We’ll be welcoming contributions from the public to scrutinise the detail of this deal because that’s an important part of the process too, to give confidence to the New Zealand public that we are indeed acting in their best interests. This deal will deliver the many benefits that we have been talking about in this House and out in the public, as well.

I look forward to that process over the coming weeks as we traverse that, before coming back to the House with the legislation to then give effect to it, and, hopefully, it will come into effect in only a few months’ time. I think that would be a magnificent opportunity and a very good way to wind down this parliamentary cycle, given that only three years ago we made the commitment, as the National Party, to secure a free-trade agreement with India. At the time, the Labour Opposition, then Labour Government—dark days, dark days—said it couldn’t be done, but, of course, we have proven that it can be. That has been delivered just this week.

That brings us a bit to the election choice later this year, as well, because I think there is a clear opportunity for New Zealanders, where either they can choose a Government that is fixing the basics and building the future or they can choose an Opposition that caused a lot of these challenges that currently need fixing and that didn’t deliver on promises. We just heard Mr Twyford get up and talk about what people in West Auckland are talking about. Well, I bet they’re talking about the lack of housing, the 100,000 KiwiBuild homes that the member was unable to deliver—just one of the many failed promises under the last Government. Labour opposes a lot of what we’ve been doing, but, ultimately, it comes down to a matter of perspective. Our view, very clearly, is that we want to enable New Zealanders to grow, to succeed, and to determine their own future and their own success. Less Government is better, whereas, on the other side of the House, Labour craves being wanted. They want everyone to be entirely dependent on them for their success for their future. We have greater ambition than that on this side of the House.

I can’t finish any speech without mentioning the mighty Waikato, of course. Our region is poised for growth. There is huge potential in the Waikato region. We have a fantastic rural sector—a lot of infrastructure going on as well, with the expressway, the airport, and, hopefully, a Great Walk coming as well. The opportunity is there, and we look forward to continuing to deliver that after the election later this year.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Minister for Land Information) (16:02): I move, That the Carter Trust Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I rise today to address the House on the third and final reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. This marks the culmination of a very thorough legislative process, and it really is a privilege to stand here in support of a bill that encapsulates the spirit of Carterton, reflecting the values of the community, their compassion, and continuing to build for a stronger future.

I wish to acknowledge the robust process that has brought us to this point today. The drafting, the scrutiny, and the refinement of this bill has taken many hours of hard work and dedication from those involved. My sincere thanks go to the Carter Society for their unwavering commitment to the Carterton community, guiding this legislation. I’d also like to acknowledge the Public Trust for their stewardship over the last 129 years, and St Mark’s parish for their foundational support. To members of the Social Services and Community Committee, I would give my thanks, and also to my parliamentary colleagues for the constructive debate and bipartisan support. Last but not least, I want to thank the Carterton community for their unwavering support of the Carter Trust and the Carter Society.

At the heart of this bill is the enduring legacy of Charles Rooking Carter. Carter was a visionary and philanthropist deeply invested in the wellbeing of Carterton. He devoted himself to public works, education, and the betterment of his adopted community. Carter recognised that the true measure of a town’s success was how it cared for its most vulnerable, a conviction that led him to create structures for the community well before this was an expected obligation or duty in society. Carter’s contributions laid the foundation for the very vibrant community that we cherish today.

The inscription on his headstone, from 1896, reads “Carterton Borough was named in honour of Charles Rooking Carter. His benefactions to Wellington Province include the Wellington Observatory, the Carter Home Parkvale, Carter’s Bush at Gladstone, and many valuable books to Carterton Public Library.” This is just a fraction of what he was remembered for. Following his death, his will affirmed and formalised his commitment to build a home for aged men by establishing the Carter Trust. The assets, including land, funds, and household items, ensured the success of the home and its services, cementing Carter’s legacy as a benefactor of communal wellbeing. The Carter Home was established as a place of refuge and dignity for the elderly in Carterton, later known as the Carterton Home for Aged Poor Men. This home provided care and companionship for those who had contributed a lifetime to the community and now sought comfort in their later years.

To appreciate the impact of the Carter Home in the early days, we look to the documented experiences of residents from that time. James Cox was described as a permanent member of the colonial working class, who moved to New Zealand in 1880 and spent his life as an itinerant worker not willing to be housed. James’ personal diary, of some significant 800,000 words, documented his daily life until his death in 1925. Upon entering the Carter Home in 1918, James noted, “With sad resignation, now I am stalled here, I must make myself content.” We must understand that the standard care of the elderly in the early 20^th century was known to be at times substandard and appalling. New Zealand had a disproportionately large adult male population with no family ties that was indeed ageing. This stretched the resources of society to deal with what to do with them in their later years in life.

The solution was old men’s homes, most of those controlled by hospital or charitable aid boards or churches. A very grim picture has been painted of what went on inside them at times. They were usually located in rural areas, remote from shops and other social amenities, quite often underfunded, quite often understaffed, dirty, and those residents who at times were bedridden were sometimes quite neglected. In stark contrast, the Carter Home was run by a local couple, supported by a committee, and did not bear the slightest resemblance to the institutionalised care of the elderly poor described elsewhere. Rather, it was seen as a seventh heaven. The home was not crowded, and with a generous endowment from Charles Rooking Carter, the home had enough rental income to employ staff who cared for the residents. Basic clothing was provided, medical care was paid for, and transport by wagon, and later a motorcar, was provided for taking residents on joy rides, visits to the Carterton shops, rugby matches, and, of course, the good, annual A & P Show.

Carter Home had a good reputation in the community, and local groups of volunteers would visit and put on evening entertainment for those in the home. The residents with relative freedom of movement were expected to do a few chores around the place which could be done—and I quote—“at their pleasure”. Cox’s diary describes how undertaking these chores became integral to his daily life, helping in the gardens, sharing stories, and rediscovering community in his later years. James Cox’s journey reminds us that the Carter Home was, and remains, more than a service; it is a lifeline. His experience exemplifies the transformative power of community care, turning isolation into inclusion and hardship into hope. The legacy of Cox and others like him endures in the values that guide Carter Court today.

As the decades have passed, Carterton’s needs have evolved, and so did the Carter Trust. The transformation of the original home into Carter Court marked a significant step forward, reflecting advancements in elderly care and a growing appreciation for holistic support. The Carter Society, formed to oversee these developments, has continually adapted its services to changing expectations, ensuring the residents receive not only physical care but also emotional and social support. Today, Carter Court stands as a vibrant facility offering a wide range of services, from independent living units to high-level care. The society’s commitment to continuous improvement is evident in every aspect: staff training, resident engagement, and partnership with health providers. This evolution proves the society’s dedication to upholding the values set forth by Charles Rooking Carter.

At this point, I would just like to give a shout-out to the residents of the Carter Court, who may be watching right now. I was lucky enough to catch up with a current resident, who has been living there for the last 12 months, at a local Anzac Day rugby match recently, and he could not speak highly enough of the Carter Society, of the staff, and of the fellow residents, and such testimonials are echoed throughout Carterton. Families speak of the peace of mind they feel knowing their loved ones are indeed in caring hands. Residents describe a sense of agency and belonging supported by the programmes that foster social connection and lifelong learning.

These stories affirm that the Carter Society’s mission is not only being fulfilled but continually strengthened. The passage of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill is not merely an administrative milestone; it is an investment in Carterton’s future. As our population ages and the demand for quality elderly care rises, our legal and organisational frameworks must keep pace. This bill provides the Carter Society with the flexibility and the security to meet those emerging challenges: expanding facilities, adopting new care models, or partnering with other service providers.

The progress we celebrate today is the product of genuine collaboration. Community consultation has been a cornerstone, ensuring the voices of residents, families, and staff have been heard and respected.

I wish to also highlight the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that’s characterised the passage of this bill. Members from across the House have recognised the importance of the Carter Society’s mission, setting aside political differences to serve a common good. This unity reflects the best of our parliamentary tradition and the shared values that bind us as New Zealanders.

In closing, I return to the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter, measured not only in buildings or bequests but in lives touched and community bonds strengthened. The Carter Trust Amendment Bill honours that legacy, equipping the Carter Society to continue its vital mission for decades to come.

I extend my deepest thanks to all who have contributed to this journey: the Carter Society, the Public Trust, St Mark’s Parish, the legal advisers, the Social Services and Community Committee, and my parliamentary colleagues. May the Carter Trust and the example of Charles Rooking Carter continue to inspire us all. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:12): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Throughout the passage of this bill, the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter has been highlighted at every step of the way, and deservedly so. There aren’t many people that can lay claim to the contribution that he has done, and the foresight that he had at the time. Carterton owes so much, as does Wairarapa, to that which he bequeathed our region.

It wasn’t that long ago that I was walking around a nature reserve that was his land, which he gave to the people that is still freely available for everybody’s use, and, of course, the reason why we’re here today is to discuss the work that the Carter Society do and that they will be able to do as a result of this bill. The Carter Society do a tremendous job, and there are many families that are grateful for the support and the dignity that the Carter Society offer their loved ones.

I first had a conversation with the Carter Society about the need for this bill and the prospect of it progressing through the House, I would guess, four or five years ago, or possibly slightly longer. Nevertheless, what that shows is that they identified very early on the need for there to be some changes, and they knew—as is customary and, quite rightly, the case—that a local bill is shepherded through the House by their electorate MP. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Mike Butterick for what he has done to get this through and to bring other people in the Parliament alongside in support.

It’s not uncommon, as members would know, for a local bill to come before the House that makes a change that many people look at and think, “Why is this required?”, but it is. Even with the foresight that they had at the time, they might not have anticipated the changing nature of the need, the changing requirements of the care, the changing requirements on those that provide the care, but the needs of the community is at the forefront of what the Carter Society wants to do here, and it would be unfathomable for this Parliament to say no to a society that exists to care for those in need and in their autumn years when, really, they are hamstrung by the way in which they were set up. They no longer have to go and seek permission to simply meet the needs of their community.

I think that simple premise is that the Carter Society, which is the last remaining community-owned aged-care provider in Wairarapa, which is up against corporate providers—and which have in recent years seen the provider in Martinborough and the provider in Greytown fall over—have to go through hoops that others don’t. It made no sense, and it does, I think, bring cause for us, as parliamentarians, to reflect on whether there might be an easier way to do this when it is so clear-cut and when the case can be made that, through no harm or whatever else, the rules that were put in place at the time that might have been fitting are so now out of date. But these simple changes, which just make sense and aren’t controversial and which have the full support of Parliament, still have to go through a full process. Perhaps that’s something we could look at.

Nevertheless, the Labour Party fully supports this bill, as it has done its whole way through. We won’t be making full contributions, simply because—like we did in the committee stage—we want to acknowledge the work that the society does. We want to acknowledge the changes that this bill does, but we don’t want to hold up the progression of this bill any longer than it needs to be. It’ll be a good day for the society and for Carterton when this is passed into law, and we look forward to that happening.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a resident of Carterton and a list MP based in the Wairarapa, I’m pleased to support this bill at its third reading—its third and its final reading. This is going to be the last time we hear about it in the House, so, as I did before, I want to again put some thankyous out to Sharon Parker, who’s the chair of the Carter Society; Peter Croft, the treasurer, and the rest of the board; and also the staff and the volunteers at Carter Court—they do a lot of good work.

It is strange, as my colleague from the Wairarapa has also said, that we have to go through, in fact, a longer process than some of the bills rushed through in urgency over something that we actually all agree about. I’m not sure how we could amend the Standing Orders or other processes so that really non-controversial bills that still need some scrutiny and still need some input from the community, but they are, basically, where a good thing is done. Or maybe we should just enjoy the fact that we all agree and are supporting it, for a change.

I want to say some things about Charles Rooking Carter, who left his money to some many good causes. You’ve got the Carter Observatory, you’ve got the Carter Reserve—that beautiful bit of ecological wilderness that I nearly was late for the Anzac ceremony at Anzac Bridge because I was doing a bit of iNaturalist week at the Carter Reserve. He had a broad range of interests, he was also a champion for workers’ rights—what’s not to like? You’ve got reserves, you’ve got housing, and you’ve got long-term investments that have also created the land trusts in the Wairarapa, which really go a long way to help the communities.

Let’s look at what stands out about Carter’s Court today. In a landscape of, I think, just under 700 different retirement homes in New Zealand, Carter Court is a shining example of a community-led facility that is run for the community by the community, rather than for the shareholder. There are some much bigger questions we should be asking about aged care, about contracts, about what proportion people pay for their own care depending on their situations, what assets they may or may not hold, but I love it that we have got a not-for-profit care home offering a range of accommodation options, and there are a number of different options, from independent living through to complete care, which means that you can age in place.

You can stay there with the people you’ve got to know in the town that you’ve got to know. It’s very convenient for getting to the medical centre, the dentist, the rail station, the cafes, the library. It’s not far from these places and there is a Carter Court van with wheelchair access and so on. So even if you can’t walk to the Carterton Club, you can still get there. It is a bit of a pay in to Carterton that it’s a small town with quite so many facilities, but then I must admit that I am biased about Carterton.

Lastly, I just want to say that this bill ensures that Charles Rooking Carter’s vision continues, but in a contemporary form. So thank you to the Hon Mike Butterick, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, and all the other MPs who will be supporting the Carter Trust Amendment Bill.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand on behalf of the ACT Party and support the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. It’s making just a few moderate changes in order to allow the winding up of the Carter Trust. Listening to members here speaking about Charles Rooking Carter and his ability to use his estate for the benefit and betterment of New Zealanders is quite outstanding. As the Minister who has oversight for the Public Trust and also hearing that they’ve spent 129 years looking after this particular trust also gives me some pleasure to see that they’re able to wind it up in such a good way, including paying $50,000 to the Anglican parish of Carterton.

So to not prolong this any longer, I’d just like to say that we do support this bill. We commend the member for bringing this about and also thank the Public Trust for 129 years of looking after this trust. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:22): I was watching very carefully. I had a meeting that I had to run down from, so I was like, “How close can I go?” I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the bill. I wanted to start off by congratulating the Hon Mike Butterick. Actually, Mike, I’ll congratulate you for both being an honourable now but also for the work that you’ve done on this bill. Well done. I really enjoy just listening to the presentation you gave and the story and the background and the extra depth that you provided to that, so thank you.

I also wanted to congratulate the Public Trust for what is, essentially, its 130 years of service to this trust. I think that’s a fantastic service that they’ve given, and to the Carter Trust and the Carter Society for all the work not only for what they do on a day-to-day basis but also the work that they’ve done before this bill even came to the House with Mike Butterick but also the work that they have done with Mike to help shepherd this bill through the House. So I thank you all for that work.

It’s great that we’ve got to the stage of a third reading today, and knowing that this is a piece of legislation which will go through today, will get the Royal assent, and then become law. I think that is always great to see, also, that it is with the unanimous support of this House, as it should be, because it’s something which is for the community benefit.

I did notice, if I look back to the discussions that the select committee had, every time, I think, we’ve seen a bill—whether it’s a private bill or a local bill—the question gets asked, “Did we need to have the time of Parliament taken up with this bill? Is it something that required Parliament?” Well, in this case, because there is a Carter Trust Act, which is the thing we’re amending, of course, it’s an Act of Parliament, so you actually need Parliament to amend it. So, yes, the answer to that and quite clearly the select committee has said that they were satisfied on that matter, because, being an Act, you need Parliament to amend that Act.

Look, I wanted to say just a few words about Charles Rooking Carter, as some others have. Every time I pass through Carterton, which is very, very regularly these days, passing the statue of Charles Rooking Carter, which has been there now for the last 10 or 11 years, who watches over the town of his name, it’s a reminder of the legacy that the man left to the Wairarapa—and to Carterton, in particular. I think it’s a fitting memorial of gratitude to a man who had such an immensely positive influence on the early development of Wairarapa. The fact that we’re doing this bill today says that that influence continues through this time, which is now 130 years after he died. So that is a really significant legacy.

We’ve heard the story: born in the UK, came here as one of the early pioneers, builder’s son, carpenter, man with a strong interest at a young age in worker’s rights, and then clearly developed that interest in care for older people as he went through his life. Clearly a visionary and a man who was ahead of his time. He arrived in New Zealand in 1850 with his new wife Jane Robieson and walked through to the Wairarapa, as they did in those days. They were hard men and hard people as well. He continued to be a builder and built a lot of things, including part of building the predecessor to this building, which is here, the House of assembly for New Zealand. As the community’s political representative, he represented the Wairarapa in the Wellington Provincial Council from 1857 to 1864, the General Assembly for Wairarapa from 1859 to 1865 and, of course, that legacy is honoured still in the name of Carterton.

He was a generous benefactor. We’ve already heard that he—we always called it the Carter Observatory rather than the Wellington observatory, but the Carter Observatory; that is his name. He was a generous benefactor to libraries as well, to museums, being involved in the Greytown Lands Trust and Masterton Lands Trust—again, a legacy which is still being enjoyed by the people of the Wairarapa today. In Carterton, he was involved with obtaining land for a whole lot of public works, police stations, cemeteries. We’ve heard the Hon Kieran McAnulty talking about the reserve that he walked through which is in the name of Charles Rooking Carter. So Charles Rooking Carter: builder, contractor, farmer, politician, and in this case a philanthropist and a generous benefactor to the community of the Wairarapa. He died in 1896, but his legacy is still there.

So right the way through this time, when he set up the will, the executor and the trustee was the Public Trust. That’s still the case today. This bill will change that so that is no longer necessary. But, again, I thank the Public Trust for the work that they have done over that 130. His will established the home for “aged poor men”. The Hon Mike Butterick has talked about the great work that was done there and being a man ahead of his time and the great work that is done now in its successor, which is the Carter Court, which has some 50 units. It provides also for aged care and respite care. So they do a great job. So that is a long legacy which has gone all the way down from 1896 from Charles Rooking Carter’s will, through the Act of 1961, and is honoured again in the bill which we will pass today.

Likewise, the support for St Mark’s Anglican parish in Carterton. Again, that legacy comes all the way through today, and then the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. Now, I understand that that was dealt with slightly differently, but there’s an undertaking to do that. Again, all of those things honour the legacy of a man who has contributed so much to the Wairarapa and to this region.

I’m going to finish there, but just to say that I think this legislation is a fine tribute to the legacy of a man who has contributed so much, and I want to commend this bill to the House and congratulate everyone involved in it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Mike Davidson.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:28): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill. Actually, when I first saw it come up, the Carter Trust, as a Canterbury boy I thought, “Maybe this is the Carter family”, so I was quite interested to have a look at it. But, no, it wasn’t. It was obviously the Carter Trust from Wairarapa. Actually, I’ve not been to Carterton—apologies for that. So it’s actually been quite good to be in here and get a bit of a history lesson about—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You need to sort that out!

MIKE DAVIDSON: I know. I need to go there—Charles Rooking Carter and Carterton and Wairarapa. It’s been quite good and there’s been a lot of long calls on this.

Hūhana Lyndon: Get over the hill!

MIKE DAVIDSON: Yeah. Ha, ha! I’ve heard a lot about the place, so it’s quite good. I won’t take as much time as everybody else, but I thought at least I’d get to a minute this time. I think last time I spoke, it was about 20 seconds. It’s actually quite good to see that with the termination of this trust, there’s going to be $50,000 going to the Anglican parish, which is actually really good. I guess it speaks to, actually, some of the stuff that the trust has been doing over the time it’s been in existence and, actually, the work of other MPs prior that have been trying to do this work. I’d like to acknowledge Mike Butterick and the work he’s done to progress this, and I also acknowledge the promotion that he’s recently had. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (16:29): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill in its third reading. It was an honour to be the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee who heard submissions on this and has helped shepherd it to this point. I just want to acknowledge the local MP, the Hon Mike Butterick, for his work and advocacy on this.

I’d just note that Charles Rooking Carter was an independent member of this House back in 1859 to 1865, representing the Wairarapa electorate. He was a very strong advocate of Wairarapa’s small farm settlers. Fast forward 167 later, and we have a very strong representative member of Parliament doing the same thing. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

In respect of Charles Rooking Carter’s legacy, I think we’ve heard a lot in the House about this, and I don’t intend to just cover it all again. He certainly made a very strong contribution to the Wairarapa, which is still being felt 170-plus years later. That’s why we’re here with the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. This is obviously enabling the Public Trust to distribute the Carter Trust’s assets and to continue the work and continue the vision that he had all those years ago to support people in their aged years with accommodation and support those who otherwise would not have that support. That vision and that desire is still strong today. It’s still the intention to carry that on, but it needs to be modernised for the modern era, and that is exactly what is happening here.

I want to thank everyone who’s done the work to help guide this through. We’ve had some very good legal advice, great support from the clerks and from justice officials. I would say that it was appropriate for this bill to come to the House to be dealt with, given that the will had been amended, effectively, and the trust was changed. I do think there is work for this House to do—I think an omnibus bill, ideally—to be able to deal with bills of this nature if there is consensus that they should be changed, and it doesn’t need the attention of the House. That is a discussion for another day, but I think there is a willingness across the House to look at that, and something for this Parliament to consider, going forward.

In the meantime, I just wish to wish everyone success in the ongoing distribution of assets and the ongoing work that Mr Carter envisioned all those years, and I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:32): I also was on the Social Services and Community Committee, which looked at this bill, and I tautoko the things that people have said and the hard work of everybody involved. I also hold the portfolio for Labour that is about community and voluntary work. It is definitely something that I think our committee was interested in—that we have these bills that come through where we can see that the intentions of the parties and the need for our community and voluntary organisations and our philanthropists to be able to bring their intention to bear in a new environment is very real.

We really do need to look at the way that we can streamline the morphing of these intentions—not in any way to undermine what the intentions of the philanthropists involved were, but to enhance them and to enhance the wellbeing of our society. It’s not the first bill of this kind that’s come to our committee—in fact, we’ve got several at the moment. It is something that we’re taking seriously as a committee. It’s something where one of the people who came in on these bills, I’m meeting with personally to talk about how we can change things, because it does seem like a really important piece of work. We need to think very carefully about philanthropy in this country. We don’t have enough people donating to our society in this way, and what they give is so rich and so important.

I look forward to being able to work collaboratively with the people who’ve been through this experience, and been careful about those intentions, to come up with a better solution that is systemic change—that might mean that we are able, as a Parliament, to do something to make sure that when money is left like this, we not only honour the people but we honour the intention and we honour the wellbeing that they are trying to imbue in our society. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (16:34): I haven’t had the privilege, until this point, to speak on this bill, so I’m really pleased to be able to do that in the third reading. Can I just acknowledge, as everyone else has, the Hon Mike Butterick and his sponsorship of this bill. For those of you at home who don’t understand how private bills work, they’re community bills that we don’t really see anymore and that often need our intervention to modernise them. It’s wonderful members, like the Hon Mike Butterick, who come to the rescue of these organisations. They’re usually quite old school, but set up for the right reasons, and we end up having to intervene in modern days, like we have now, to try to make them realistic.

We’ve heard time and time again about the reasons for the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. I just want to say, when they’re established, they’re established for the right reasons, and when they are changed to be able to terminate them, like in this particular case, it’s done for the right reasons. It’s done so the Carter Society can actually continue to operate as best it can, because it no longer needs to get the sign off and approval from the Minister of Health on every single occasion it wants to make a change, which we know was not the intention in the first instance.

I think this is where we come to as a National Party within the Government. We don’t believe in extra Government; we believe in limited Government. It is one of our values. Community organisations, philanthropists, and the societies and trusts that they establish and that go on to contribute in communities don’t need the Government. They haven’t, they don’t in the future, and it is wonderful to make sure that they’re independent and continue to be independent, so I am very, very supportive of this change.

Can I also just say, we hear a lot of times from the House—particularly from members opposite—that you must legislate to ensure that these things happen, because otherwise they won’t. I’m really buoyed by the fact that there was complete agreeance that the area within this bill about the protection or the care for the grave of Mr Carter would be maintained and cared for regardless of it being legislated. In fact, it wasn’t the intention of his will to have that be the case, of course. I don’t think anyone would be so vain as to say that their gravesite must be maintained, but the community feels so fondly towards this individual that they would do that of their own kindness and their own sense of duty. I think that is important to note.

Philanthropy is alive and well. This is a wonderful organisation within Wairarapa, and it’s great to hear that there’s support around the House for the Carter Society and Carter House, and the genuinely deserving people that live in Carter House, and that there is longstanding support for Mr Carter that has gone well beyond the need for this particular bill. I think it’s brilliant that we’re here to debate it, that it’s in its third reading, and that this goes back to the Carter Society, who no longer need Government intervention, because that is the point that we are for today. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shanan Halbert—this is a split call.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. Just to open, can I acknowledge my colleague across the House Mike Butterick, MP for Wairarapa. Congratulations on getting to this particular stage, my friend. I know that both members’ bills and local bills in this House really speak to the direct needs of our communities across the country, and I know that one of the more recent bills that we moved through was not too dissimilar to this—the bill for Takapuna Boating Club on Auckland’s North Shore—where we just needed to make some technical changes in order to enable them to continue to serve our communities. It’s good to see this particular piece of legislation before us all in the House today.

Can I acknowledge, out there, the community and voluntary sector—particularly those that have a charitable status—and the work that they do to help our communities thrive, whether it be seniors or whether it be young people.

Today, Labour supports this bill as a set of technical but very useful updates that simplify the administration of a historic trust. I know that it will make a significant change and make things easier for the trustees and the organisation itself that they will no longer need ministerial sign-off—albeit a minor administrative task. They will no longer have to do that, and, no doubt, that will save them days, weeks, months, and potentially years not to have to go through that process. On this side of the House, we’re very supportive of this bill today, supportive of the community and voluntary sector, and I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:39): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. Firstly, to acknowledge my friend and colleague—last time we considered the legislation, actually, at the committee of the whole House stage, Mike Butterick was just Mike Butterick, and today in the third reading, after the intervening period, he’s become the Hon. He’s always been honourable to me, but it’s very well recognised for him, and it’s good to have this legislation—

Shanan Halbert: Oh yeah, he’s looking a bit cute—hug it out!

TOM RUTHERFORD: Don’t make me blush—don’t make me blush. I just want to recognise him for his leadership on this local bill, which, like many members in their previous contributions have said, is sort of an archaic process that Parliament has to go through just to, in this case, wind something up which has been a great benefactor to the local community, but we have to go through this sort of long, drawn-out parliamentary process to enable something that’s quite simple and a rather necessary fix and, actually, which, universally, political parties across the House actually agree with. So I think there are some learnings, potentially, for us as parliamentarians as to the way we operate in Parliament, to consider whether that is the way we want to operate moving forward in the future.

One of the things I thought was really interesting in the process and progress of the legislation was during the committee of the whole House stage—because for us, yes, whilst it is a local bill and you don’t filibuster the committee of the whole House, for many of us who haven’t been involved in the process involving the legislation, there needs to be an opportunity for us to gain an understanding of why it’s come to Parliament, what it’s trying to achieve, and what it’s going to deliver for the local community. That’s the viewpoint I took through the committee of the whole House stage when Mike Butterick was sitting in the chair.

A couple of questions I asked, and I think I really want to tease out in this contribution, were firstly about: why are we here? What is the purpose and the background of what we’re actually trying to achieve with this private bill? It was about the bill being in relation to the Carter Trust Act from 1961 and that, effectively—and as Mike Butterick clearly outlined in his response to me at the time—that was now out of date and it was actually impeding the efficient operations of the Carter Court Care Home. Once you hear that sort of response, you get an understanding of, OK, I get why this legislation has had to come to Parliament, why we’ve gone through this process, and what we’re trying to achieve.

One of the interesting pieces I picked up when I read the Social Services and Community Committee’s report on the legislation was around the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave, because in their report the select committee noted that the upkeep of the grave is not actually included in the legislation. So I really wanted to know, to honour the legacy of Mr Carter and everything he’d done, why the upkeep of his grave wasn’t included. It was reiterated to me that the Carter Society has already given a formal undertaking themselves to continue to maintain the grave, and the select committee themselves were happy with that and satisfied with the assurance that they’d received. The obligation actually was in the original 1896 will, and then it was added in the 1961 Act. So the society will just continue to respectfully practise as the condition of the scheme around Mr Carter’s grave.

The other one, and the final one, I want to touch on is around the impact on those residents who live in the care home. It would never be the intention of us in this House or with this piece of legislation to want to impact on their level of service or the level of care that they receive whilst in the care home. So I asked Mike Butterick, when he sat in the chair, around how the bill would affect the residents of the Carter Court Care Home, and whether any residents, for example, will face higher fees or reduced services. I was given the assurance by the member in charge of the bill that residents will see no negative impact. Fees for contracted, long-term residential care are already set nationally under the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act, and removing the updated ministerial power does not change what residents pay. I was really pleased to receive that assurance from Mike Butterick himself.

It’s taken a long time to get here, but I think we’ve finally reached the last hurdle. It feels like this has been a protracted and drawn-out process, but it’s been really well worth doing in the sense of getting to this point. I commend the local MP Mike Butterick for his leadership on it, for everybody involved in getting it to this point, and I’m really pleased to support this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of this bill at its third reading. They’ve been working on this for quite some time, and I’m really pleased to be speaking to it today; also, like everyone in the House, acknowledging the Hon Mike Butterick for bringing this on their behalf.

At its heart, you know, this is modest, but it’s an important piece of legislation. It’s not trying to reinvent the wheel, and it’s not some kind of sweeping reform, but what it does is what we’re all often called to do: tidy up arrangements and align them with modern practice, and make sure the intentions of the past can still serve the needs of today. That’s exactly what this bill does. From time to time, this House is asked not to create something brand new but to be a careful steward of what has come before us. We’re also asked to look after legacies—you know, legal, financial, and social, as well—and to make sure that they’re still working for the people that they are intended to help. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about stewardship; it’s about making sure a historical charitable arrangement continues to deliver real value to the Carterton community, and Labour supports that approach.

I also want to quickly acknowledge the Carter Society, which does tremendous work in the Carterton community. They have been working towards these changes for quite some time, and it’s good to see that effort now reaching the finish line. Also, you know, this is exactly the sort of practical, community-focused legislation that members’ days should be used for. It may not grab the front page, but it will make a genuine difference to people’s lives. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (16:46): I rise to take a call in support of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill in this, its final reading. I want to start by congratulating my colleague the Hon Mike Butterick, Minister for Land Information, Associate Minister of Agriculture, and MP for the Wairarapa—a champion of his Wairarapa electorate, a champion of rural and provincial New Zealand, a practical man with a quintessential number eight wire mentality. Mike gets stuff done, and this bill is a shining example of what a dedicated local MP can achieve for their community, taking a complex, decades-old issue and navigating it through this House to a very sensible conclusion.

This bill is also about honouring a legacy and empowering a community to look after its own. Charles Rooking Carter was a man of vision, leaving a bequest that has supported the Wairarapa for over a century. However, times change, and sometimes legislation has to change with them. The 1961 Act has become a hindrance rather than a help.

As regional MPs, we know that community assets are best managed by those who understand them and their communities, and this bill does exactly that. By winding up the antiquated trust structures and transferring management to the Carter Society, we’re ensuring that the spirit of Mr Carter’s gift is maintained and, indeed, enhanced for the future. This bill futureproofs Mr Carter’s legacy.

At the heart of this bill are the people who call Carter Court Care home and the whānau who rely on it. What began in 1901 as the Carter Home for aged poor men, housing around 20 residents, has grown into significant community asset that now supports more than 100 people aged 65 and over. This bill puts governance where it belongs: closer to the community it serves so decisions can be made promptly, transparently, and with local knowledge. By modernising the 1961 settings and removing unnecessary hurdles, the Carter Society can focus on what matters most: stable operations, quality care, and long-term planning. Above all, it provides continuity and certainty so residents and their families can have confidence that Mr Carter’s legacy will continue to support the Wairarapa for generations to come.

This is a proud day for the Wairarapa, for the community, and it’s a testament to the Hon Mike Butterick’s persistence in delivering on his promises to his electorate. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Congratulations to the Wairarapa.

Modern Slavery Bill

First Reading

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:50): I move, That the Modern Slavery Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 August 2026.

This bill has been the work of many, and it has also been many years in getting to this House and getting to the stage of first reading. I think it was back in March 2021 when 100 businesses signed a letter asking for the Government to introduce modern slavery legislation. For myself, I’ve probably been working on this particular issue for the last three years—a lot shorter than many other members of the NGO community and those who have been advocating for action on modern slavery in New Zealand.

Now, it won’t be lost on anyone today that this bill has come to the House through a slightly different path, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that this is the first time that the Standing Order 288, as it currently is drafted in our Standing Orders, has been used to bring a member’s bill to the House. I hope very much that it won’t be the last time that this happens. I think, often, when we can find common ground and we can stand together on important issues, that is when we can truly make enduring change for New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the parties that got us over that threshold, which we passed quite comfortably in the end: the National Party, the Labour Party, and the Greens. Thank you for standing with us to get this bill across the line, and thank you for those other parties that hopefully will support this bill moving forward. I have to also acknowledge my colleague whose name is also on this bill, Greg Fleming. Greg, ka nui te mihi ki a koe, e hoa, mō tō mahi i tēnei kaupapa.

[Greg, many thanks to you, my friend, for your work on this initiative.]

This bill has a journey to go through in terms of the select committee process, but because it feels like we’ve been working so long on this, I feel I should at least acknowledge some of the people who have worked on it to date, because it is a significant achievement. I want to acknowledge especially Rebekah Armstrong from World Vision, who I know will be watching this debate. I want to also thank the other members of World Vision and also the young ambassadors, some of whom are present in the gallery. Thank you for your very strong advocacy in this matter.

Also, I want to acknowledge Tearfund. Tearfund have been working on modern slavery and advocating against modern slavery for many, many years. I want to acknowledge legal experts Rebecca Kingi and Jacob Parry and, additionally, the members of the modern slavery leadership advisory group that was chaired by Rob Fyfe; the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Public Service Association Youth, who have been actively campaigning on this issue; the Human Rights Commission; and also faith communities, such as the Anglican Church. This list of people indicates the broad support that this bill has in the community and the need for action on it.

What is modern slavery? Obviously, it’s something that this bill is opposed to. It’s some of the worst forms of conduct that an individual can conduct against another person—slavery, forced marriage, child labour, trafficking in persons, debt bondage or serfdom, forced labour or exploitative labour, servitude, and sexual exploitation. That’s the modern slavery that is covered in this bill, as defined by this bill.

Is it a problem in New Zealand? Well, unfortunately, it’s a problem around the world and also in New Zealand. There are 50 million people who are trapped in modern slavery globally, it’s estimated. Many of those people might be involved in supply chains that New Zealanders interact with. It’s estimated that New Zealand households spend $77 per week on products associated with modern slavery. I should also note that one in four of those people who are estimated to be living in modern slavery are children. Two-thirds of the people who are living in modern slavery live in our region, in the Asia-Pacific region. We know that we trade extensively with that region and, also, that we have responsibilities and we play a leadership role within that region, so it makes it especially important that New Zealand takes action on modern slavery.

Of course, I’ve been talking about this being a global problem. This is also an issue within New Zealand, as well, and it’s estimated that 8,000 people currently live in modern slavery conditions in New Zealand. One is too many, and so this bill is a good bill. It’s not a perfect bill, but it is a bill that will address these very, very serious and significant issues for people who are living through some of the toughest of times.

How will this bill go about addressing these significant issues that the world faces and, also, New Zealand faces? It will bring New Zealand into line with comparable jurisdictions like the EU, the UK, and Australia, who already have anti - modern slavery regimes and regimes to address these issues. It would establish a statutory framework to require large businesses to report on their supply chains. It would also create a register.

Now, it’s important to note that this is about trying to find issues of modern slavery when they arise so they can be addressed. It is not about finding modern slavery and saying, “Well, that company is now blacklisted, and we’re not going to trade with them at all.” It’s actually about encouraging those companies to identify instances and actually address them. That is how the important change to reverse these horrendous conditions for people is actually achieved.

This bill will also increase public awareness and also support victims of modern slavery. It also provides opportunities for review on the effectiveness of the bill, and it also requires consideration to set up a specialist body to combat modern slavery and for a Minister to actually report on modern slavery, as well. This bill is not toothless. There are consequences for those organisations and individuals who it applies to and that do not comply with that. That’s in terms of offences and, also, with accessing public funds and public contracts.

I mentioned that this bill is not perfect. This bill was hard for us to draft because we did it as a member’s bill; we relied on expertise of people outside Parliament, and we also relied heavily on our very excellent drafters within Parliament. This is not a bill that has been drafted with the support of a ministry or an organisation who would usually advise on the drafting of a bill. This is a bill that is very good. It’s a good bill, it will make a good law, and it’s the right thing to do, but it certainly is something where I know both myself and Greg Fleming will be encouraging the select committee to look at it in terms of the way it works and in terms of the provisions that are incorporated within it, to look at its effectiveness, to listen—truly listen—to the submitters, especially those who will be impacted by this bill, and to make sure that this bill is something that is going to actually work for New Zealand, not create work but actually address the serious issues of those who are living in modern slavery. That is, hopefully, what the select committee will do. It’s actually a really big job for them, so I thank the Education and Workforce Committee for taking on that role.

The intention of this, though, is to also look at the consistency with comparable jurisdictions. We know many of these large organisations that will be covered by this bill already report on modern slavery, and we don’t want to duplicate that unnecessarily, so if there are ways of saving time, being efficient, reporting on similar things, and making sure that the organisations can utilise the fact that these reports are already being written in countries like, for example, Australia, then that is something that, I think, the committee should definitely look at.

This isn’t a bill that comes to the House with unanimous support. For those parties that may stand against the bill, I just say to them: it’s not too late to change your mind and support this bill. This is a practical bill that will address a very serious problem. There’s huge support within New Zealand businesses and with New Zealanders. I think the survey that was taken in 2002 showed 81 percent of New Zealanders support New Zealand taking action on modern slavery. It’s supported by Business New Zealand. This is not controversial. It’s the right thing to do. I say to New Zealand: those parties that do vote against this bill—when parties tell you who they are, believe them, and if they stand against actions like modern slavery, then you know that that is the type of party that they are and that they purport to be. It is up to them to—

Hon Member: Explain themselves.

CAMILLA BELICH: Explain themselves to New Zealand if they decide to do that, but, again, the invitation to join us in this bill is still there.

My 10 minutes is up. I look forward to participating in the select committee process. I want to thank, again, the many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have advocated for this change for a really long time. We’re not there yet, but this is a significant step forward. This is an historic day for the New Zealand Parliament, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (17:00): E te Māngai o te Whare. This is indeed—as my friend and colleague Camilla Belich has just said—an historic day, both in terms of how we have arrived here but, even more importantly, it is the legislation that now begins its journey at this point.

Tēnā hoki koe, Camilla, mō te whānui me te roa o tō mahi i runga i tēnei kaupapa.

[Thanks to you also, Camilla, for the breadth and length of your work on this initiative.]

It’s been brilliant to work with you for the last year and a half now, so thank you so much for your support.

I do want to add my acknowledgements and my thankyous to those of Camilla. I want to start with my boss and my friend, and that is the Prime Minister, for the simple truth is that without his support and his urging on this issue, we wouldn’t be here today. This really has been a whole-of-Parliament process to get us here, and Camilla has laid that out in terms of us being able to use Standing Order 288 for the first time to actually be able to co-sponsor a bill. But none of that would have been possible without the support of my caucus, so thank you to my caucus—thank you to every one of you for giving me the chance to do this.

And thank you, particularly, to the Prime Minister for the urgency that you have brought to this. I remember speaking to the Prime Minister many years ago about this before he came into Parliament, and I knew that this was a passion of his. For political reasons that have been well canvassed now, we weren’t able to bring this forward as a Government bill, and so the opportunity to bring it through the track that we have and through to today is something that he has been 100 percent behind. I thank him deeply for that.

To Barbara Kuriger, who moments ago was in the chair: I wanted to thank her for agreeing to take the bill out of the member’s tin that she had had in there for quite some time so as to allow this bill to make its passage. In fact, that bill had its own genesis in the outstanding and long and dedicated work of Simon O’Connor. Simon, I know that you have stood in this House for 12 years and advocated on this matter, and I want to acknowledge the groundbreaking work that you did there and the foundations that you laid, that we now build upon.

To Alex Prendergast and Kaylee Hill—two remarkable students from just outside of Christchurch, who six years ago approached their then very new and local MP Nicola Grigg with an idea for a member’s bill. That member’s bill became my member’s bill three years later, and that was the bill that has since been picked up by Minister Paul Goldsmith and is now making its way through the Government Order Paper, and that addresses the inconsistencies in the prosecution of human trafficking both domestically and internationally. It was working with those two students on that bill that opened, for me, the doorway into this far more substantive piece of work that is before us now. Thank you, Alex and Kaylee, for your vision and for your application. I really hope that the two of you do choose to serve in areas adjacent to this House and maybe even one day here, because you certainly have proven that you have all that it takes.

To Selwyn Coles, my friend at Te Ana Tapu in Tāmaki Makaurau; it was about two years ago that he handed me a copy of his master’s thesis that he had completed at the University of Oxford in pursuit of a Masters of Laws, and his thesis topic was looking at the arguments for and against introducing a modern slavery reporting framework in this country. It was an incredibly thoughtful piece of work. He spent a year of his life on it, and it canvassed well all of the objections and the doubts about the efficacy of the proposed law. During the select committee process, I look forward to bringing that work of Selwyn’s forward.

I don’t pretend, and neither do most of us here, that this is a silver bullet. There is no single action that can overcome and address the scourge of modern slavery, both here in New Zealand and, even more worrisome, abroad. But it is an important part of addressing that evil. It does turn the attention of companies to their supply chains on a regular basis. It has been proven time and again, in our trading partners from Australia to the UK to Canada and across Western Europe, that when companies look for these things, they see things that they hadn’t previously seen. That is the fruit of this modern slavery reporting framework. And I thank, again, Selwyn for his work on that.

Camilla has already mentioned Rebekah Armstrong, Becky Kingi, Jacob Parry, and Clayton Walker for the incredible work that they did on that Modern Slavery and Trafficking Expert Practitioners Group bill. We acknowledge that this modern slavery reporting framework is but one part—a very important part—of that overall approach that addresses modern slavery in here and in our international supply chains. The other parts we are addressing, both as a Government and, in fact, in this bill—and this will come out the select committee stage—we are looking forward to a conversation with the Human Rights Commission in terms of their possible contribution around the oversight and the enforcement of this proposed framework.

To that extent, I want to acknowledge Stephen Rainbow and Gail Pacheco, and also David Rutherford, the former Human Rights Commissioner, for the work that they have done on this and the counsel that they have provided. It’s been enormously appreciated.

To Claire Gray at Tearfund, thank you. I know that Claire wanted to be here today. I’m sorry you couldn’t be, Claire. I know you’re watching online. Thank you so much for the technical expertise that you’ve offered and the constant encouragement. You’ve been brilliant.

To Matt Friedman at the Mekong Club—he’s been working in this area for over 20 years and it was my engagement with him and the first-hand accounts of the difference that these reporting frameworks have made across the world that really urged me to work harder and more urgently to bring this kind of legislation before our House.

I am reminded of a conversation that I had at Waitangi—Mr Speaker, look at that—conversation at Waitangi this year. Waitangi week is filled with challenging and wonderful and inspiring conversations. This one was of a different kind, in that it wasn’t looking at the normal issues of Waitangi week. Instead, it was a long dinner at CBK, down there beside the helicopter terminal there, and I was with Jenny and Justin Duckworth. Justin is the Archbishop of the Anglican Church—

Carl Bates: From Whanganui.

GREG FLEMING: From Whanganui, that’s right—that fine electorate with that outstanding, local, hard-working, seen-everywhere MP.

Justin and I have been friends for several years now and he is an advocate par excellence for all these kinds of things. He and his wife, Jenny, have passed this on to their daughter Maya, who works with Claire in advocacy work at Tearfund. Jenny asked me a question—we were talking about this modern slavery reporting bill and the opportunity to bring it before the House using this bipartisan approach. Jenny said to me, “You know, Greg, can you tell me honestly, you’ve worked in this space for years”—because those who don’t know me, I worked in the community sector for 25 years before I came to serve here. She said, “All of this advocacy, all of this work that is done by thousands of young people, all this stirring that happens, does it really work? Does it really make a difference?”

I told her about what was coming up, what it was that we’ve been working on here, what Camilla and I and my caucus had been driving through. I looked at her and I said, “The reality of it is, Jenny, that without that advocacy over the years of all those people,”—all those people that we’ve mentioned here and the thousands of others that we haven’t directly named—“without their work, we wouldn’t be here. So yes, it does work. It really, really does.” I oti i a koutou—you did it; we did it. I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:10): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this first reading of the bill. First of all, I want to acknowledge the victims of modern slavery and the linkages there between those that are pushed into forced servitude, forced labour, unfair exploitative labour conditions, trafficking, and all of those horrendous, horrible things which many have advocated to prevent and to stop and to highlight over the many, many years. I’m sure I’m not the only member of Parliament that received the emails from World Vision, Tearfund, and others who support us, such as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. I’ve got emails from them as well and also from faith-based organisations and, of course, the Human Rights Commission as well. To get to this point is an important step. I do want to acknowledge the two members who brought this bill to this place. Tēnā kōrua, Greg Fleming and Camilla Belich. I think this is bill number three or four, maybe—I’m losing track at the success of Camilla Belich’s ability to get things out of the biscuit tin.

That was the first time that this has happened under Standing Order 288, but I do note that there could have been another pathway for this bill to get to the floor, and it could have come to the floor via a Government bill. Good on Greg Fleming and good on Camilla Belich for going around Brooke van Velden, who has been very busy in the area of workplace relations, doing all the wrong things, eroding workplace relations here, there, and everywhere. Unfortunately, she did not have enough time at all to address the very basics of what people would expect to oppose modern slavery. I’m sure the House will look forward to the contributions from the ACT Party as they try to explain themselves out of this little corner.

This bill will require reporting entities to report on how they identify, address, mitigate, and remediate incidents of modern slavery. It will require the Minister to report annually on progress towards combating modern slavery and to issue guidance on reporting suspected incidents of modern slavery processes that Government agencies should follow in response. It, as the two speakers before me said, will focus on those big businesses, but I do note some of the comments that have been made: when this is the pathway for legislation to get to the floor, members themselves don’t have the full backing of a whole Government department to help them to draft it. The workload will be on the select committee to make sure that we iron out all the different bits and pieces of this legislation, and I expect there will be some—there will be some. As was talked about earlier, there are issues around modern slavery with links with child exploitation, but I note that, actually, we’ve ratified some of the international agreements on that, so that has been taken care of in other parts, but how it links forward to this particular bill, I think, will be an important question—and also all the other international instruments that deal with trafficking of people etc., etc., as well. These are issues that we will need to tease out at the select committee because we don’t have a Government Minister with the backing of a whole lot of officials to make sure that we can iron that out.

One of the questions I do have is around the scope, and I get it. You have members’ day, and the members’ bills tend to be as narrow in scope as possible to be able to get enough support to get over the line. One of the issues that we could be talking about as well is: why are we just looking at bigger companies when, actually, exploitation in the form of modern slavery can often happen within small businesses and it could often happen in other circumstances which are not part of the supply chain? These are issues that we should be able to tease out within the select committee.

This is an important bill. This is an important step. I do want to, once again, acknowledge the two members for finding a very creative way to bring this to the floor. Well done. It had to come to the floor sooner or later. It could have come with the full resources of the Government, but congratulations to those two members. We will be debating these issues on the floor and getting into more and more of the detail at the select committee to make sure that we can actually start the step to stopping modern slavery. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I start my speech, I just want to thank the organisations for the work that they do in this space. I know that it is a really hard area to be in, and I hope that you take care of yourselves with some of the things that you might be confronted with. Let me be absolutely clear: modern slavery is a moral abomination. The exploitation of human beings has no place here in New Zealand or around the world. There is not a single person in this House who is soft on slavery. I don’t believe there is a single one.

That is actually not the question before us today. The question is whether this bill as it is drafted will meaningfully make a difference here in New Zealand or whether it will simply make us feel like we have done something about modern slavery. This bill is a near perfect encapsulation of what Milton Friedman warned us about when he said, “One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I will say that there are really good intentions behind this bill, and I know both of the members that are involved have the very best intentions. Had you maybe come and talked to me about this, we may be in a different position, but I haven’t actually spoken to either member about this bill and nor have a lot of my colleagues. As much as we’re doing a bit of a “Kumbaya” here, and you feel like the party is out on their own, we actually weren’t. We weren’t consulted on it. We weren’t consulted. What New Zealanders deserve from this House are not good intentions but actually good policy, and on the evidence before us, this is not actually good policy.

First, the title of this bill certainly sounds very nice, and many New Zealanders out there will be thinking that we’re going to be doing something about modern slavery and we should be doing something about it. New Zealand already does actually have robust laws against slavery. In fact, it has been almost 200 years since slavery was abolished in New Zealand when we became a British colony back in 1840. Since then, these laws have evolved to a multitude of different offences. We have obviously got the Crimes Act. This bill explicitly acknowledges that in its own definitions. There’s always a case for these punishments to be reviewed, especially if it seems like we are being too lenient, but this bill doesn’t do that. In fact, we know that we have modern slavery here in New Zealand, and we should be tackling that first.

There was just a case the other day—and most of you will be familiar about it—around the Thai massage parlour and the immigrants that were being exploited there. It’s absolutely horrendous. This problem here in New Zealand is happening. We do have the labour inspectorate, who are doing a very good job, but it could be, actually, that we should be increasing our penalties and we should be coming down harder on what is actually happening here in New Zealand.

Under this bill, a company may not exploit a single human being, it could even be a model employer, but if it misses a paperwork deadline or files a deficient statement, it faces up to $200,000 in fines. This is around administrative or non-administrative punishment. This is not a policy brought on a cornerstone of freeing victims; it is built on filling in forms and ticking boxes. I know this bill is going to go to the select committee because it has the support of the other parties. I’d be very keen to see the evidence that this bill actually makes a difference. We can’t just blindly follow other countries down the path, because we think it is the right thing to do. We need to actually assess what is happening and whether it will have any actual impact here in New Zealand.

The other thing that I think is the most concerning point is that discretion is handed to the responsible Minister over what a company’s revenue is. This bill, as it states, is set to $100 million, and a lot of us could probably agree that when a company earns over that, they can afford the administrative duties, and I think there is a good argument in that, but do we really trust that a future Minister, with the stroke of a pen, won’t actually change that to $100,000 or $10,000? That in itself is really concerning. I know the opposite side of the House have been arguing within other pieces of legislation around Ministers being awarded that power and when something should actually be Parliament’s duty to decide, so I really do hope that the select committee look at that. We’re not really data debating a $100 million threshold here; we are actually debating something bigger than this.

Finally, New Zealand is not the first country to run this experiment, and despite the ability to look at other jurisdictions, like Australia and like the United Kingdom, it seems we’d rather be a fast follower than a smart follower. We can do better. We could actually tackle modern slavery, and we should be doing better right here in New Zealand first.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration) (17:20): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Modern Slavery Bill which we, of course, will be supporting. New Zealand First has always advocated for the rights of the worker and we think this is an important piece of legislation. I do sincerely commend the members Camilla Belich and Greg Fleming for working together to achieve this piece of legislation. I acknowledge the members for talking about the fact that this is a starting point. This is an important starting point, but it is a starting point.

I reflect on 2020, when New Zealand saw its first slavery conviction in New Zealand and we were appalled. We found it abhorrent and we couldn’t believe that it happened on our shores. Moving on from that, over the past six years, we have seen a growing trend and it is why I’m advocating so hard on our response to organised crime. Where people are a commodity, as in any commodity used by criminals to make money, people have now become that commodity. Slavery is not new. It has been around for thousands of years, but we are a society that’s moved on and we should be judged by how we deal with this issue now.

I would like to personally acknowledge Dr Christina Stringer from Auckland University, who was a great educator for me when I first started working in this space. She was an incredible academic with a lot of wisdom in this space and wrote one of the first white papers on modern slavery and Governments’ response to it.

It is a complex issue, we acknowledge, and it is a complex issue because we want to ensure that our outcomes achieve the impacts. I do acknowledge the ACT member for talking about being judged by the outcomes of our legislation, and not just that we have legislation, but I think it has been traversed clearly in this House that this is the starting point that we need.

It is recognised that reporting and accountability will be necessary, but I’m old enough to know when we first introduced health and safety legislation and we fundamentally started with a reporting mechanism and a policy development. Over time, that legislation grew teeth, it grew strength, and it grew, most importantly, accountability for those who do wrong.

The challenge we have with modern slavery is it is complex. It has many forms. It is fundamentally abusing human rights and the individuals’ rights for freedom through coercion, through violence, through intimidation, through a range of things where we take vulnerable people and make them our playthings, effectively. This is why I think it is necessary to bring the legislation forward. It is a good starting point.

We look forward to the select committee process. I think it is important to understand that we want to gain visibility in this process and our reporting mechanisms have to ensure that we encourage transparency and reporting, that those who do good, who delve into their supply chains, who audit, who do all the right things should be commended for that effort, not condemned when they find slavery within their supply chain. That is an important balance we need to strike, otherwise we will end up with perverse outcomes where we would be choosing to not see it rather than see it, report it, and therefore risk being held accountable for it being in your supply chain.

We’ve talked about the big businesses and how they have the capacity to deal with this. They also have brand exposure. They also have the risk that when it is found in their supply chain, they will be condemned in the international markets and they will be held accountable. But we want to ensure that those big businesses have independent, strong auditing within their supply chains so that they are driven and incentivised to make sure that they weed it out, they look for it, and they’re encouraged to do so.

I also look forward to working closely to deliver better outcomes around how we respond to the organised crime component of modern slavery, that we recognise those bad actors that are manipulating human beings and that have some degree of anonymity within big supply chains, that we do more to weed out the slavery that is occurring in New Zealand. We recognise that there is domestic trafficking within New Zealand. We recognise that this is not just across borders, that exploitation is a reality and we need a legislative solution that will deliver those positive outcomes.

I really do acknowledge and support the members for bringing this to the House. I think there is a good opportunity through a select committee process to ensure we have good engagement and therefore New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:25): Tēnā koe. E tautoko ana, e tino tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki ngā mema Pāremata nā rāua tēnei kaupapa. Ki a koe, Greg Fleming nō te Rōpū Nāhinara, kōrua tahi ko Camila Bellich. Tēnā kōrua i tēnei mahi.

[Thank you. I support, I very much support, the acknowledgements to the members of Parliament to whom this initiative belongs: to you, Greg Fleming from the National Party, to yourself and Camilla Belich. Congratulations to both of you for this work.]

It goes without saying, we are not just discussing a bill; we are discussing the integrity of our nationhood. We often speak of Aotearoa as a beacon of human rights, yet our daily lives are quietly fuelled by exploitation. The latest Global Slavery Index estimates that 50 million people globally are trapped in modern slavery, and 8,000 of them are right here in Aotearoa.

Look at our streets. Look at our tracks. We know that global entities like CRRC, which supplies the very buses and trains that make our cities go around, have been linked to alleged forced labour in international supply chains. When our own public transport is potentially built on the backs of oppressed peoples, we’re not just observers of injustice; we are participants in it. We cannot preach freedom while riding on the results of bondage.

This bill is our chance to say enough; we’re not just following the world. Contrary to popular belief, we are leading. Unlike the UK or Australian models, this bill introduces real teeth: director liability. This bill goes further by including penalties and liabilities for directors. If you profit from slave labour, the buck stops at the boardroom table. Thresholds for transparency: it targets large reporting entities with $100 million or more in revenue, requiring them to be transparent about how they identify, mitigate, and remediate incidents of slavery. Specialist oversight: it explores the establishment of an independent anti-slavery commissioner to lead this work with the enforcement power it requires.

For Te Pāti Māori, our support for this bill—and, yes, we absolutely support this bill—is a matter of mana motuhake. Slavery is the ultimate theft of a person’s authority over their own life. It is that antithesis of everything that we stand for—mana ōrite. We must confront the inequality that allows $8 billion worth of goods made with forced or child labour to enter our ports every year. No person’s mana should be diminished because they’re desperate to survive. Mana mokopuna: bringing an end to modern slavery will benefit mokopuna across the world, not just here in Aotearoa. We owe them a legacy of liberation, not a supply chain of suffering.

In conclusion, we hear the ACT Party. We hear that they will vote against this, preaching personal liberty. But Te Pāti Māori, in this House, we ask, “Whose liberty—the liberty of a business to ignore blood in its supply chain, or the liberty of human beings to live without chains?” We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. If one person is enslaved, the freedom of all of us is a hollow promise. It’s time to clear our consciousness and our cupboards of slave labour. Te Pāti Māori absolutely supports this bill and we support the emancipation of all people. Tēnā tātou.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Often, when we hear that word “slavery”, it’s something that creates a really physical response in most of us. It’s something that we see as being horrific and horrendous. Often, we will think about it in terms of we don’t hear it, we don’t see it here in New Zealand, so it doesn’t exist, and yet that’s not the case—that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. We know, as the previous speaker and other speakers have said, that not only does it exist in supply chains and across the globe, the 2023 Global Survey Index recognised that there would be approximately 8,000 people living in modern slavery in New Zealand. That’s 8,000 people living on our shores who are living in the most horrific and horrendous conditions that we could imagine.

I want to say, firstly, a big congratulations to my colleagues across the House: to Camilla Belich and Greg Fleming. Thank you for the work you have done, and congratulations on getting this bill to the point that we’re here debating the first reading this evening. As many others have said in this House, this is a start. I acknowledge that both of you have said the bill’s not perfect, and we know that, but, hey, it’s more perfect than having nothing. Before that, we had nothing; we currently have nothing; and this bill is the start of us acknowledging and putting this right.

I also want to acknowledge before I move on, because I am talking about those two members—congratulations on the work that you have done to create history in Parliament. This is a really, really big day for Parliament, that we have bypassed the ballot and we have used the Standing Order for the first time that enables this bill to go straight to first reading and then through to select committee. I’m really proud that we can stand here as a Parliament and do that, so well done. I happen to know, because I work closely with Camilla Belich in the workplace relations portfolio, the work that both of you have done, and I’m really impressed, because you’ve both been very tenacious in this. So, congratulations.

I also want to say a big thankyou, as others have done, to all the NGOs and the lobbyists who have really, really made this a big focus in this Parliament. I have been to several events they have run in this area to highlight just how big of an issue this is in Aotearoa New Zealand. I have grown my awareness over that time, and it is thanks to them. I think, before all of this, I probably was one of those people that thought this does not exist on our New Zealand shores. I think, if we’re all honest, there was a point that we came to believe, through their lobbying and through their activism, that we understood the rationale and the reason why this bill is so important for us to progress within this Parliament.

We’re talking about protecting vulnerable people, people who have very few other options in their life to get past this. They are being exploited. Because they’re in vulnerable situations, they are accepting in many cases, and it’s not on them; it is on people that are putting them into these positions in the first place. They have to be accepting because they can’t see any other options. Well, today we’re saying that we see them—we see them and we are prepared to stand up for them, and we are prepared to stand up with them. That is something that is, again, a very historic day for us, and it sits at the heart of all of our values in this Parliament. I know we all come here to support people and to put people at the centre of what we do, and the fact that we can come together across the parties—well, most of the parties—is a really, really historic day. This is what’s good about politics. Sometimes people don’t see that; sometimes we don’t see that ourselves, but this is what’s good about politics. I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (17:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really pleased to be able to stand in support of this bill and to acknowledge both Camilla Belich and my friend and colleague Greg Fleming. When Greg talked to me about this bill potentially coming to the Education and Workforce Committee, I explained why that was a really exciting thing and something that I knew the committee would support. One of the reasons for that is the committee—and I think we’ve got a very constructive committee, and I’ve really enjoyed that over the last couple of years. One thing that we have all agreed on is our position against and on migrant exploitation. We’ve followed that really closely when we review Immigration New Zealand and where that’s going and the work that we’re doing around that. Now, that’s just a small part of modern slavery that’s addressed in this space, but it is something that I know we have followed closely and would find a lot of similarities, certain issues where, if we address this, we can certainly go in the right direction towards addressing migrant exploitation in general.

I just want to say, too, in terms of the select committee process, before I move on to some of my own reflections, that it’s something, in a wider sense, in the way we operate in New Zealand that I think the committee will be in some cases not surprised, in some cases really disappointed, but really inspired by our ability to make the change and what this is going to genuinely turn out to do. When we open for submissions, which we will do shortly, we really want to hear from a breadth of organisations, whether it’s NGOs, the people that have lobbied and advocated for years and years on this, but, as well as that, organisations that maybe are already doing this really well and can set an example and show us how this works and what we can do to make it right; or those that will be working with this, those large organisations, and how this would look for them. We want to make sure that something like this genuinely works and has sustainable outcomes, because that is what this is about. We don’t want opposition in the business world or in various sectors; we want this to be supported for all the right reasons.

That brings me to my point, my own personal reflection. We have these large organisations—we’ve talked about this in the bill. They have the resources to be able to do this kind of thing, and anyone that’s studied business understands—or anyone that hasn’t studied business should probably understand the triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility, something I’m personally really passionate about. It is in a lot of our businesses’, if not all of our businesses’, best interests to do what’s right by our communities and our country. Unfortunately, unless we raise awareness and shine the light on this kind of situation, a lot of people can blindly purchase commodities in New Zealand not knowing the supply chain, not knowing the impact that things have had in their path to our dinner table, to our frames when we wear clothes—whatever it might be. When Kiwis buy products, they should, and they deserve to, know the origin of them.

I was a high school student in the 2000s, and I watched China Blue—and this is no disrespect to the country mentioned in that title, but that was my observation, when I was in fabric technology, understanding the clothes we wear, where they come from, and what that means. Now, we talked a lot about the 8,000 people, and no doubt there are more, sadly, that suffer modern slavery in New Zealand, but it’s the people around the world that we continue to enable to be in this position that we don’t believe deserve to be. When we’re buying products that facilitate and support modern slavery, whether it’s what we wear or what we use, we deserve to know that, to call those organisations out, to encourage them to see it if they don’t see it, where they’re just looking for the best possible price on behalf of their consumer. This is something that we absolutely deserve to address, and I’m really looking forward to doing that.

Can I also say, as well, what I’m looking forward to in addressing this through the select committee is hearing the very real difference that it’s going to make. A little something closer to home: this is not just migrant exploitation, this is not just supply chain; when I was managing a school bus company, I observed students in some remote communities, and some not so remote communities, who were kept out of school for various reasons, not travelling on the school bus when they should’ve been, who were then being, in some cases, used by their parents to work in spaces, whether they were illegal or not, for no employment. There was a benefit to them not being in school. This happens in New Zealand, and it might not even be something that the police are necessarily looking out for or is a part of that 8,000. There are broader impacts of this piece of legislation, and we talk about this being the starting point—the baby teeth, maybe, when we’re talking about the teeth that this has. I’m pleased to be a part of it; I know our committee is pleased to be a part of it as well. With that, I commend it to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (17:39): This is a very important issue, and I would march in the street on this issue—but that’s probably not saying much, because I would march in the street on lots of different issues. Like my colleagues, I want to acknowledge Camilla Belich and Greg Fleming for their work, the historic use of rule 288, bypassing the biscuit tin—this bill will go down in history for that, if nothing else.

I want to say something about the basic principle at play here. I was staggered to hear the ACT Party member saying they’re not even going to support a bill that’s only about transparency and disclosure of modern slavery—slavery—in supply chains.

I say to the people who are fans of free-market capitalism: if you want to have the free flow of capital around the world, for goodness’ sake, do something about maintaining social licence for that, like actually protecting some basic ethical standards, which is what this bill does. If you don’t, you risk losing public confidence and public support in the very system that you want. I think the Super Fund had a little lesson in this recently when the High Court found that they had not actually met their mandated legislative obligations to ensure that the investment of New Zealand Superannuation Funds should not be in things like Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.

What this bill does is it ensures that the supply chains that deliver products to New Zealanders should not rely on modern slavery. I wanted to just add to the debate a little bit of commentary about what we mean by “modern slavery”, and some colleagues have talked about the 8,000 people in New Zealand who suffer the most egregious forms of oppression, particularly in work, but internationally, what are we talking about? One of the biggest issues that campaigners have spotlighted in relation to modern slavery is the use of State-imposed forced labour in Xinjiang province in China—Xinjiang province, which produces about 20 percent of the world’s cotton consumption. Campaigners allege—the Chinese Government denies it, but campaigners allege and have produced evidence—that there are hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, people engaged in State-imposed forced labour in Xinjiang province. North Korea is another obvious example where there is mass forced labour in action.

The South-east Asian fishing industry, where hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in an industry which produces huge global seafood exports, including to the consumers of this country—they find themselves trapped at sea for months and months on end with no pay and their documents confiscated. In South Asia, there are many, many hundreds of thousands—in fact, many millions—of people who are trapped in debt servitude, bonded labour and child labour, and forced marriage in South Asia, including in India, where this country is in the process of finalising a trade agreement. That, folks, is what we’re talking about—those are the big ones, internationally, where millions and millions of people find themselves trapped in servitude and bonded labour.

I’m looking forward to the discussions that we have at the Education and Workforce Committee on this bill, and I want to finish by saying that I suspect some of the most interesting discussion at the committee will turn on this issue of whether this bill goes far enough. Is it enough to impose transparency requirements—that businesses are required to report and disclose whether or not there is modern slavery in their supply chains? Or should they, and this is the big issue internationally on this issue, be required by law to undertake due diligence—that is, to find out and prevent or remedy the harms caused by modern slavery? Ken Roth, the former director of Human Rights Watch, is one of the international experts on this, and he was in New Zealand only days ago. He argues that due diligence should be the target, not just disclosure.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (17:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been said in this House already this evening, congratulations to the two members, our colleagues, who have brought this bill to the House this afternoon. I did try and attempt not to get up and make any political comment around that, though. However, unaccustomed as I am to making political statements in the House, I cannot sit here and not note that it is my colleague Greg Fleming, a member of the National-led Government, the National Party, that has actually got this to the House during our Government. Labour had the opportunity in 2021; they didn’t get it there, so well done Greg and well done to Camilla. I know that the two of you have worked closely to make this happen.

There has been much said of Standing Order 288, which has been used to make this happen, and I might just note that I think it’s a little bit like a mountain that’s about 288 metres high to be able to use that clause. I’m sure it won’t become a regular occurrence, because it is a significant piece of legislation that’s enabled that Standing Order to be used.

Modern slavery is abhorrent. We know that, we all agree to that, we appreciate that, and we don’t want it in our supply chain. The question here is: how do you know when it is, how far do you go to make sure it isn’t, and what is the responsibility in reality on companies that are going to be implementing this? I’ve shared, through the process, feedback to Greg Fleming as he’s developed the National Party’s contribution to this piece of legislation, having sat on the board of a company in Australia that was required by the Australian legislation to report under their version of what will soon be law here in New Zealand. It is a conversation that occurs around that table, of “Have we gone far enough visiting the factory in Vietnam? Do we actually know X, Y, or Z from that part of our supply chain in Europe? Are we sure the German manufacturers of the machinery we’re buying are clean?”

I think it’s going to be important for the process, through the select committee and through the passing of this legislation and then the Government implementing it post that—hopefully later this year—to be clear with business where that line is. A saying that, I suppose, comes in the court space often: principles are expensive. This is a principle that it is fair to have a cost on, but we need to make sure that cost is realistic, that we are clear, and that we can ensure it can be practically implemented. Every cost that is incurred increases the cost of the supply chain, and ultimately of the products that New Zealanders are buying. There is a way to do this and make it practical and ensure that cost is minimised but the outcome is achieved, and I don’t think—I hope that no one takes offence or takes what I’ve just said out of context. It is about ensuring we get modern slavery out of our supply chains, but we have to make sure we manage the process of implementing that so that New Zealanders at the till are not paying more than they need to.

The teeth in this piece of legislation is around the directors’ liability, so it will be interesting—I’m sure the Institute of Directors will submit on that. Again, we don’t want to have the wrong drivers of director activity around the boardroom table, and being clear where that line is for directors and understanding their director’s liability—ensuring they are clear on how they make sure they have not only complied with the letter but the spirit, at the same time as not going so far that it creates unnecessary compliance pressures on our companies here in New Zealand. It will be really important to the success of what I know is going to be a great piece of legislation on the book here as a result of the work that these two members have done. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In reply, Greg Fleming.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (17:49): Thank you so much to every member of the House who has contributed to this. I appreciate the encouragement. I appreciate the already insightful comments on the bill. I particularly want to thank *Laura McClure for her very thoughtful comments.

I want to observe two things: one is I love it when we have “Kumbaya” moments in this House—that’s why I love Treaty settlement days most of all—but we are a debating chamber for good reason. When we debate things and we debate them well and we debate them faithfully, we actually get better law and we get better policy. I think it’s good that we’ve got a thoughtful party that is not yet convinced by this. I accept—

Laura McClure: You might convince us.

GREG FLEMING: Yeah, exactly, and I heard Laura McClure very clearly when she said it is not modern slavery that she is in any way anything other than completely opposed to. It is that she has doubts as to whether the proposed legislation will actually be effective. Will it be a good use of people’s time? Will it be a good use of business time?

That is the struggle I had myself. I was not immediately convinced by the merits of this legislation when I first saw it. That’s why, in my opening remarks, I mentioned my friend Selwyn Coles’ Master’s thesis and the work he did for that year at Oxford, really wrestling with that question—does this work?—and actually looking at dozens and hundreds of contacts around the world. His thoughtful conclusion was that, yes, it would add real value here in New Zealand. It was that work that persuaded me to push on with it. I hear those concerns, and I look forward over the coming months to addressing those concerns and seeing whether, come the third reading, we can as a full House be right behind this.

Phil Twyford, thank you for your comments. You weren’t able to carry on towards the end, but I appreciate that you started to drill down into wanting to see due diligence. That is precisely what I want to see through this—precisely. Absolutely. I want to see companies doing annual due diligence on their operations and supply chains. It’s when they actually go to look that they identify things that they are usually horrified to find there. One recent example was from Country Road in Australia. As my colleague Carl Bates, the wonderful member for Whanganui, mentioned, regarding his experience on that board in Australia, there were a lot of doubters when the Australian legislation came in. Country Road did their check, and they were horrified to find that their main sock supply did actually have a clear instance of modern slavery. They were able to address it because of the requirement on them of this kind of reporting.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will you require due diligence, not just disclosure?

GREG FLEMING: Absolutely. Let’s make sure that, through the select committee process, we require it in there.

To the select committee process, can I echo my colleague and friend Katie Nimon’s—who will chair the Education and Workforce Committee through this process—call for really thoughtful submissions. There has been a tendency that, during my brief time serving in this House, I’ve seen often quality and quantity get confused, get conflated, when it comes to select committees. The problem with that is twofold. Sometimes, of course, this is what people are wanting to do. You end up crowding out the really thoughtful submissions, but, secondly, you end up slowing the whole process down. We don’t want either of those things in this case. We want to make sure that the very best submissions and the most thoughtful quality comes through, and we don’t want to slow the process down, because—who knows?—we could be back here sooner otherwise. The sooner we can get this legislation in play, the sooner we can begin to seriously address modern slavery both here and, even more importantly, abroad.

On that, I want to acknowledge again, as I did in my opening remarks and as did Camilla Belich as well, the extraordinary and relentless work of all those advocates we mentioned before. Without you, we literally wouldn’t be here. Those advocates include the likes of Rebekah Armstrong and Claire Gray, who represent World Vision and Tearfund. To those people who are passionate, can I encourage you to maybe look at sending your submissions to them so that they can collate them into really powerful, detailed, insightful submissions that come to our select committee. That would add the greatest help. Finally, can I say that each time I’ve looked up here over the last hour and I’ve seen those words “Modern Slavery Bill” scroll along the bottom of the screen—“First Reading, Modern Slavery Bill”—I can’t believe we’re actually here. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Modern Slavery Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

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

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor) (17:55): The question is, That the Modern Slavery Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:56): I move, That the Modern Slavery Bill be reported to the House by 31 August 2026.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Congratulations, both members. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 1 April.

NANCY LU (National) (19:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am standing to speak on the very first reading of the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill. As suggested by the title, it is very specifically about international money transfers. Now, I’ve had a read, obviously, of the notes related to the bill. I have to say, I am rising to oppose this bill.

I want to start by acknowledging the intention behind the bill. The bill is to make sure people understand exactly the components of the cost of what they are paying when they send money overseas, hence the international money transfer. Now, the intent sounds reasonable. Most New Zealanders would agree they would want to understand the component of the cost that they are paying, but ultimately it is one final cost that they will be paying. Understanding how it is made up, component-wise and ratio-wise, I don’t think necessarily adds any benefit to people who are using this service.

However, the question we have today, and the reason why I oppose this bill, is that it’s not improving any safety measures with international money transfers. It is not improving any speed of making international money transfers. It will not actually do anything to reduce the cost of making such international money transfers. Actually, on the contrary, if the bill goes through and it becomes law, the financial providers will now have to do the extra administrative work to provide the breakdown of the cost involved with making international money transfers. They will end up having to have additional staff, possibly, working on the cost, have people who are aligning to make sure that their cost component is actually following the requirements of the legislation, and therefore adding additional cost.

Overall, if this becomes law, we are actually asking for the financial service providers to be providing additional administrative costs, therefore, ultimately, the responsibility of that cost will be borne by New Zealand consumers who will be using the service. Ultimately, I don’t agree with the amendment in this bill, because we are seeing that the impact of this bill is to add the additional layers of rules, therefore requiring additional layers of costs, and therefore ultimately, they will be passed on to everyday New Zealanders.

Now, if we think about how this works in real life for New Zealanders, the people who regularly need such a service to transfer money internationally to a different market would be a lot of people from the community that I work with very, very closely, particularly the migrant ethnic communities, some of whom work very, very hard. Like our Prime Minister said, working hard in one job, two jobs, and three jobs to find and to save and, ultimately, possibly send the money overseas, back to their home country to support their families overseas. What these people want to see is that their money will be transferred safely, it will be transferred timely, and at a minimal cost, because every single dollar that they pay for the bank’s service or pay for international money transfer will be $1 less that their family members will receive on the other end.

It also applies to many New Zealand companies who send money overseas for, for example, their international suppliers. They have purchased something from overseas and they will therefore be sending money overseas, and therefore every single dollar they are paying additionally for making the international money transfer will be $1 that they won’t be keeping as profit for the New Zealand company or to grow the business they have in New Zealand.

Now, no matter the migrant community workers or the New Zealand businesses, they won’t want to see more complexity, more layers or burden that they need to go through. They obviously don’t want to see the higher fees caused by additional compliance requirements. Therefore, as a member of the National Party, when I talk to businesses, my understanding would be that this is not a bill that will be welcomed, because it doesn’t address or improve any of the key requirements that they want, which is safety and speed and reduced cost. Therefore, I don’t believe this bill is fixing any basics that we have in New Zealand right now. It’s definitely not building any future for a faster, safer, and more cost-efficient service for international money transfers. Therefore, I do not support this bill. Thank you.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (19:35): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill at its first reading here. This is a practical bill, it’s a sensible bill, and one that could make a real difference to everyday New Zealanders. At its heart, this bill is about fairness, transparency, and making life a little bit more affordable for people who are already doing it tough. Every day, people across Aotearoa send money overseas. They are sending money to support parents, children, brothers, sisters, and loved ones. They are helping with rent, food, school fees, medical bills, or simply doing what families do: looking out for each other. Very often, the people making these transfers are migrant workers, who are contributing hugely to New Zealand. They are our cleaners, our aged-care workers, our nurses, and our hospitality workers, and many others.

Just contrary to the earlier contribution there, the communities that I’m talking to are looking at this bill with anticipation, particularly in South Auckland, especially Pacific communities. Our migrant communities are the backbone of the local economy. They work hard, they pay tax, and they contribute, and many quietly send a little bit of money to the Pacific Islands each week to help with family, but, right now, too many of them are feeling that they’re stung by fees they cannot clearly see. That is the problem this bill seeks to fix. At the moment, some providers advertise zero fees, but the real cost is hidden in the exchange rate spread. People think they’re getting a bargain, but they’re not, and they only realise later on that far less money has arrived than what they expected.

That’s not a properly functioning market. A market only works when consumers can compare prices, make informed choices, and know what they’re actually paying for. If the real fee is hidden, there’s no real competition, and that’s not a fair deal. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (19:38): I was caught up in the moment of what the previous speaker said. Ha, ha! He even wrote down his speech!

It is a privilege to contribute to this debate today, which might be my only contribution in the House tonight. I do want to start out by acknowledging the member Arena Williams. Well done for getting your bill drawn from the ballot. Knowing the member reasonably well, I know this is definitely within her general wheelhouse of areas of responsibility.

Arena Williams: Yeah, stop getting in my wheelhouse with your other bill!

DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! Look, we are here to discuss what I think is an issue. I actually had a professor in the United States, Ricardo Hausmann was his name, and he used to say two things: he would say, for Government policy, you want to look at whether there is a problem to be solved first. Then, the second thing is: is there a role for Government in solving the problem? To this first issue that my professor would say, this is a problem. It is clearly a case of differential rates when you transfer money, particularly for remittance purposes. We do acknowledge not just our Pacific neighbours, there are people from around the world who come and work here and send money back to Ukraine, developing countries in Central Asia, right across the world. We certainly acknowledge their contribution to our society. It is another thing to then say whether the Government can and should intervene and solve this problem. In New Zealand’s context, we answered that as a partial yes, the Government should do that. The reason why this side of the House isn’t supporting this bill is because there are a range of instruments from Government that are designed to help address this particular issue.

I do, for those two people at home, wish to outline those particular instruments. The first is the Conduct of Financial Institutions regime, which we brought into place in March 2025. That requires, of course, all financial institutions to operate fairly and transparently towards consumers in the products they offer. Next, we do have the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, which is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment, and it’s currently going through the House, and that clarifies obligations for financial institutions with respect to fair and transparent practices.

I do want to come back to what I got caught up with at the start of this debate, which is the previous member’s contribution when he said—and I quote—“properly functioning markets”. Yes, properly functioning markets are all about price signals, but they’re also about competition. I think, actually, in this House we rushed too quickly to say the Government must solve this. Actually, the key to a functioning market is competition. Where is there competition coming from? Well, thankfully we’ve got a greater use of fintechs out there, companies that are bypassing through technology and enabling customers to transfer at next to nothing for international money transfers. We should be encouraging this. We’ve got a huge amount of digital technology companies that are providing solutions for customers where the big companies cannot provide and where Government cannot provide.

We on this side of the House are all about free markets. We’re all about competition. We’re all about price transparency. The Government’s doing its bit. We do not need a piece of legislation like this. We think that it’s actually just overly cumbersome and it’s actually providing too much in terms of bureaucracy that is already in the works. On that basis, I don’t commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Arena Williams in reply.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. What a delight to get to the stage in the debate where it is afforded the member in charge of a bill to offer a reply. I want to use it to thank the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, ACT, and New Zealand First for coming together to recognise the principle that every dollar that goes into unnecessary costs, into these hidden fees, into the inflated margins being charged to New Zealanders, is a dollar that is not going to groceries, rent, petrol, and the real economy.

This is a simple bill. The effect is that it will make prices transparent, and it is an issue of fairness, because those costs are adding up. They’re not always obvious to New Zealanders, and when they become obvious, often after a transaction has occurred, people feel terrible about that. People feel a degree of shame, and week after week it’s adding up for people in a way they feel powerless to change. It’s also about the dignity of the people who have seen thousands of dollars being wasted on these fees because they are being ripped off in New Zealand right now because we don’t have the rules that other countries do.

Those parties who are voting for this are voting for standing up for those people who are being ripped off and are saying we can change it in this House, and we should. This is why I’m going to write to every National MP in this House alongside their constituents and the people who want it most. The organisations like our Filipino Nurses Association in Manurewa and Takanini, people like the Supreme Sikh Society in Takanini, people like the Waitakere Indian Association, those organisations are really calling for change and they want this to progress.

I know that, at a local level, National MPs can see what the cost of living is doing to their constituents, and it’s hitting everyone. This is one simple measure where a small regulatory change can impact on everybody’s costs that are adding up and do something real for those people who are least able to avoid those costs. These are people who speak English as a second language, these are the workers who are working two or three jobs. These are the people who need our help most. And this is something simple. Where banks are the ones ripping them off, where institutions that are charging their fees are getting the actual services and providing them at a low cost, we can do something about it, so we should.

The people most affected by opaque remittance fees are those who most often are the least able to absorb them. They’re low-income workers, they’re migrant communities, they’re people spending small amounts regularly, where even a few extra dollars each time makes a big difference. We talk a lot about inclusion and opportunity in this House too. This is what it looks like in practice, making sure people are not quietly overcharged simply because the system is too hard to navigate.

Now, in response to those National MPs who have given contributions tonight. This change means that prices will be known. The problem at the moment is that, when you walk down the street—there’s an interchange service just on the way down to Where’s Charlie, the Vietnamese restaurant, where I saw some colleagues tonight. Between us and there is an interchange service that is advertising zero fees. What they mean by zero fees is that, when you transfer the money overseas to your mum you’re looking after in Samoa, to your family in the Philippines, to someone you are transacting with to buy a holiday experience when your family visits in November, you will be charged a fee but you won’t know it up front. In fact, you might not know it until the money arrives in that person’s account. That is not fair. That advertising shouldn’t be allowed. That is happening in front of our eyes, but we can navigate it, because, as Dan Bidois set out, we have the right kind of information in the market to be able to use the alternatives. But lots of people don’t. Lots of people see that sign and think “Zero fees, sounds good to me.” And why wouldn’t you? That’s what’s being advertised.

There are services out there that are charging up to 10 percent in fees by the time you add on the extra costs on top of it. That should be disclosed up front, and it’s not. For most products in our market it will be, but this is a special case where it is not regulated in that way. Of course, New Zealanders deserve a Government that believes in the principle that they should pay a fair price and the one that’s advertised to them; the price you see at the shelf should be the one you pay at the till. That applies to international money transfers too.

I want to thank the ACT Party. I want to thank New Zealand First. They are coming to this for different politics than I do, but there is a principle here that we can do something about New Zealanders’ cost of living, and we will. I want every National MP to vote for this. I hope we can arrive at a position we can all agree on, which is that this is a simple thing we can do, with a simple and targeted regulatory measure that will make a difference to thousands of New Zealanders’ lives.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 49.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 54, Noes 49.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (19:49): The question is, That the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (19:49): I move, That the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

I rise in strong support of the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill. This bill proposes something that is humane and quite simple: that no boarding house in New Zealand should be able to operate while hiding in the shadows; that we do our part as parliamentarians to legislate, and to shine a light on, boarding houses and to make sure all boarding house landlords are registered.

The problem that is before us in the House of Parliament tonight is not a new one. For many years, boarding houses have accommodated some of our most vulnerable in society—people with complex health needs, people on low incomes, people leaving institutions, people without family support, and those with nowhere else to go. Yet, too often we have not had a reliable way of answering these very basic questions: where are these boarding houses located across Aotearoa New Zealand, who is running them, and are these boarding houses complying with the law?

I must say that this is not an abstract legal or policy debate—not from me tonight. We have seen the human cost of unsafe boarding houses. We will all remember what happened here in Pōneke Wellington on 16 May 2023, the tragedy that catalysed the urgent national attention about boarding house safety, the fatal fire at that 92-bed Loafers Lodge, which unfortunately killed five people and injured 20 others. It was one of the most devastating fires of its kind across New Zealand in, I understand, over 50 years. The four-storey building was originally an office and a warehouse, constructed in 1971, I’m informed, but it had no sprinkler system, and despite this, this building was given a building warrant of fitness just two months before the fatal fire. This boarding house was home to some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable, and the people who were living in it were referred from Government agencies. This boarding house is one that fell through the regulatory gap. Loafers Lodge had flown under the radar, operated in the shadows, until lives were lost.

The Social Services and Community Committee, way back in 2011, recognised that boarding houses were a problem here in Aotearoa New Zealand. In fact, at that time, they had an inquiry, and that inquiry took them about three years. Their report was finalised and tabled here in Parliament in 2014. Two of the key recommendations that they made and two of the findings that they made I’d like to speak of tonight. The first was that many of the boarding houses they looked into fell far short of the most basic of standards. The second was that there is no register of boarding houses in New Zealand and no statutory regime for oversight. In fact, one of the main recommendations from this inquiry was that we should have a national register of boarding houses.

Now, we in the Labour Party believe that every New Zealander deserves a clean, safe, and warm place to live. This is central to our commitment to healthy homes, to ensuring that people have decent jobs, and to ensuring that the cost of living is tackled here in New Zealand. Right now, there is no registration system of our boarding houses for the country. This means that anyone—and, unfortunately, I mean anyone—can operate a boarding house with no oversight, no accountability, and no way for Government agencies to know or to tell the difference between a property that is legal and one that is not complying with our laws.

Auckland Council in 2024—this is in the aftermath of Loafers Lodge—inspected 44 properties, and when they looked at these 44 properties, 40 out of the 44 properties were found to be operating unauthorised transient accommodations or boarding houses. Auckland Council also found fire safety breaches, properties that were converted without consents, and some had grown from single dwellings to over 20-bedroom dwellings. They found growing gang-affiliated occupants, and what they also found when they went to inspect some of these boarding houses was that they actually had to take police with them because some of these landlords were not even allowing them to come into their boarding houses. Some of the landlords were refusing to accept that Auckland Council and the inspectors had any authority to be in the boarding houses. What we also know from this report is that the Department of Corrections and Work and Income New Zealand actually said that, without an official register of boarding houses, it is hard for them as Government agencies to know whether a property is legal or whether a property is non-compliant. These are Government agencies.

Some of you may remember that, in Dunedin, the Otago Daily Times had a story that they called the “Houses of Horror”, where they investigated and found homeless people who were living in dilapidated boarding houses, described as one of the darkest corners of our housing system. These stories are not isolated; they are warnings, warnings for all of us here in Parliament about what happens when vulnerable people are housed in places that agencies cannot easily track, regulators cannot easily target, and the public cannot easily identify.

That is the longstanding issue that my member’s bill addresses. The bill will improve the oversight of boarding houses in New Zealand by requiring registration of all boarding house landlords under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Landlords cannot grant a boarding house tenancy unless they themselves are registered, and this registration is something that must be renewed every year. It aims to protect vulnerable tenants and ensure compliance with our tenancy laws. A public register will be created and maintained by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD), and the details include the landlord’s name, contact information, address for service, and addresses and descriptions of the boarding houses that these individuals or companies own.

Members across this House don’t always agree, but it is my sincere hope that we agree on this: when a person or a company operates a boarding house that houses particularly vulnerable people, both local and central government should know who they are, where they’re operating, and whether or not they are fit to do so. To my colleagues in the coalition Government, it is my sincere hope that you support this bill to first reading, because even if you do support it to first reading, it doesn’t mean that you have to agree with every single clause of the bill, but it does mean that it allows the bill to go to select committee, allowing tenants, councils, Fire and Emergency, MHUD, tenancy services, responsible landlords, housing providers, disability and migrant worker advocates, and community organisations to have their say. Voting for this bill at first reading sends the message to the public of New Zealand that we have heard the warnings, we have learnt from Loafers Lodge, we’ve listened to the Auckland Council inspectors’ report, we have not forgotten Dunedin’s Houses of Horror, and, more importantly, we are prepared to work together to fix a longstanding gap in our laws. I commend this bill to the House.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (19:58): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill in its first reading and just want to take the opportunity at the outset to congratulate the Hon Jenny Salesa on drafting this bill on an important issue and on having that drawn from the ballot, which is always one of the things that every member of this House who is on the backbench hopes will happen to their member’s bill. It’s a great moment when it does.

Look, I just want to congratulate her as well for grappling with a very challenging and difficult issue. Unfortunately, Loafers Lodge really highlighted some genuinely serious issues that need to be taken into consideration. That was obviously a tragic incident here in the city of Wellington, in the suburb of Newtown, where five people unfortunately lost their lives. There are a number of factors to that, but, certainly, I think the lack of sprinklers and alarm systems played a really crucial role in what happened.

Look, boarding houses—as the member who spoke before me, the Hon Jenny Salesa, mentioned—provide accommodation for some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable renters, including people with limited housing options, people with mental health issues, substance abuse issues, poor credit history, or involvement with the justice system. I’ve certainly seen that in my previous practice in the criminal justice sector. I worked as a lawyer, and I certainly saw people moving through that system and I saw some of the housing they were going through, some of which was of a very high standard and some which was not.

Evidence does show that some boarding houses continue to operate with poor maintenance, poor health and fire safety standards, and tenants can often face barriers to raising concerns, including a fear of retaliatory action due to shorter termination notice periods under boarding house tendencies, so they can be more vulnerable than the typical renter. However, we do believe that any regulatory response must be tightly targeted, must avoid unnecessary red tape, and must focus on lifting safety and quality outcomes in boarding houses, rather than creating broad compliance-heavy registration requirements. We want it to be really targeted, and we want it to be effective.

I acknowledge and welcome the Hon Jenny Salesa’s plea before to Government parties to consider this even if they don’t agree with all of it. That, basically, sums up our position at this point. We don’t think all of this quite hits the mark. However, we do think it’s an important enough issue that we agree it’s appropriate that she has brought this to the House, and we will be supporting this through to select committee and we will welcome submissions. I believe it’s being referred to the Social Services and Community Committee, which I chair, so I can say we will be looking forward to hearing submissions. We want to hear things that people think work well, things that they think don’t, things where it could be improved, and we will be listening very carefully and looking at how this piece of legislation can be improved.

One of the things about drafting a member’s bill is that there is some support that’s provided by Parliament in doing so but we don’t have the benefit of all of the advice from officials, and so this process through a select committee is a really good one to really panel beat the ideas, panel beat the draft legislation, and look at how it can be really effective in addressing the legitimate and appropriate concerns that have been raised in this bill by the Hon Jenny Salesa. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:02): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate Jenny Salesa for bringing this issue forward. I’m really stoked to hear that the National Party is going to be supporting this, at least to select committee.

I’ve spoken a bit about my life before being an MP, but when I worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty, one of the things that I often did was try to advocate for people to be given access to things like emergency housing when they were homeless. There were moments in Auckland, particularly where I worked, where emergency housing was not deemed available for people, but people were being placed in boarding homes. There were several instances where elderly people, disabled people, people struggling with ill mental health were put in boarding homes that I got to see myself. Many of them were in terrible conditions, and they clearly were not safe places for people who were just struggling to make ends meet.

We’ve heard other speakers mention some harrowing incidents like Loafers Lodge, which tragically cost people’s lives, but the overall situation we’ve got in this country is a genuine lack of adequate information over who is running these boarding houses. There seem to be very little safeguards to actually put the landlords who run these on notice if they do not provide adequate conditions or if they’ve got a poor track record of running them. They should not be able to make a profit out of providing often unsafe, expensive, poor-quality housing.

We are supporting this bill, and I want to encourage—now that we’ve had confirmation from the National Party that this will at least pass the first reading—that we hear from people who have experienced living in boarding homes. Ultimately, those voices are the most critical to ensuring that the provisions of this legislation to have a register, but also to establish a criteria by which a boarding house landlord could potentially be disqualified, are genuinely fit for purpose.

The Green Party looks forward to engaging with this bill at the select committee stage. We commend the member for bringing this important issue, and we hope that the Government, in supporting this, acknowledges the need for a comprehensive register of landlords and property managers as well. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill. Can I first thank Jenny Salesa for the time she took earlier in this process to talk with me about this bill and explain her reasoning in a one-on-one conversation, which was very helpful, including that the stated aim is to improve the visibility, compliance, and accountability within the sector, particularly for the protection of vulnerable tenants who use and call boarding houses home, if even for a short while.

I am rising and speaking in cautious support of this bill, but ACT believes that a conversation is worth having at select committee to make sure that the bill does what it says on the tin. Over the summer, I had a bit of a read through a book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson calledAbundance. They used the case study of boarding houses in certain Californian cities, and some of the rules and the prescriptions and registrations and minimum lot sizes and a lot of the things that went on in the name of protection—registering actually made vulnerable tenants more vulnerable.

We recognise that there is an impact on the community in having boarding houses and having them poorly run, but also, I think a lot of the arguments that have been made about compliance and risk are—and the fact that current regulations were looked over; like what you currently must do by law: code of compliance, resource consents if it’s a large building, every year get a building warrant of fitness. The amount of burden that puts on a lot of people who are doing the right thing—checks every month, every day, every year; getting those checked by the councils; keeping them registered as a building warrant of fitness. Those are quite a large burden, and when those are overlooked, that’s when stuff happens—bad stuff, death and pain—but that doesn’t mean that more regulation is always the solution.

We are supporting this to select committee because vulnerable tenants deserve better protection, but protection that prices them out of housing altogether is not protection at all. I hope that during the select committee discussion we hear from all those parties in a robust way, about the effects they’ve had living in boarding houses and the effects they’ve had providing them. I think we can do well, in this country, to lift the standards, but we must make sure we’re doing it in the correct way. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:08): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, also to speak in cautious support of this bill. I just want to say congratulations and thank you to the Hon Jenny Salesa, as other speakers have done, for the conversations we’ve had about this. I think we probably need to have a few more of them.

Where are we at with this? We are cautiously supporting this legislation. I note that it’s really about frustration about the lack of data about boarding houses. I mean, at the moment, if you look at the requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act, broadly, the definition of a boarding house is at least six tenants, and each tenant must be intended to stay for at least 28 days or more, but the requirements on them are pretty much the same as the requirements, in many cases, on other renting arrangements. That includes having written agreements; it includes lodging that landlords can request a bond for—although sometimes I suspect they may not do. If you’ve got a bond there, you’ve certainly got to register that with the Tenancy Tribunal, so that information should be available. That’s one of the questions which I would like to see teased out as we go through this: what information actually is already required in law? What are the outs in that law, if you like? And are we in the situation where we actually have a large number of boarding houses—it seems to be the case—who are not actually complying with the law as it is at the moment? I think that’s one of the questions: does the law need to be changed, or is it the fact that some of them are not, or many of them are not, actually complying with the law at the moment?

The second question that I want to ask as we go through this process—and I know that the mover of the bill, the Hon Jenny Salesa, has the right of reply at the end—is the intention.

Once we’ve got better quality information—let’s say we’ve got a number of boarding house owners who are not complying with the law at the moment, or they are complying with the law at the moment and this will make them go a bit further—it’s the issue there, at the end of the explanation: “In establishing a register of boarding houses, this Bill will support the monitoring of boarding house compliance with residential tenancy laws (such as the Healthy Homes Standards)”.

I know, I think, when we had the first conversation on this some months ago—I’m directing this at the Hon Jenny Salesa—there were some pretty horrific stories about the quality of some of these. Obviously, there’s been some discussion about the Loafers Lodge situation, but the question is going to be: what’s going to happen if we push the standards up higher? Do a lot of those drop out of the market? Then what happens to the people who are currently accommodated in those boarding houses? Do we end up with a group of people who then have nowhere to go and end up on the street and we’ve got another problem?

I think all of these things need to be teased out during the select committee, but it would be useful, just in the right of reply at the end of this introductory reading, to have a little bit of that teased out, if it wasn’t already teased out in the introduction. Again, on behalf of New Zealand First, we are cautiously supporting this bill, at least to the select committee, and we’ll see what we get from this, because I think we’ll get a lot of different situations which people will raise with us, and I think that will be most useful.

The other point I’d like to make is just in terms of people who actually end up on the street. We talk a lot about homeless people. Having had some conversations with some of those folks who were on the street when I was Mayor of Wellington, going around the streets of the city, many of them actually did have a place to go. They chose not to at a particular point in time; they wanted to be there on the streets. Sometimes it’s because of social reasons they want to be there; sometimes it’s for the reason they don’t actually want to be at their place of residence. The question is: there will be an interface, potentially, between this legislation requiring higher standards and potentially the impact on homelessness, so I think we need to tease out all of those things. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the select committee process.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:12): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really encouraging, yet again, to see an issue that has been brought forward via the members’ bill process where it appears the whole of Parliament agrees. It’s disappointing, and I say that sincerely, that Te Pāti Māori haven’t taken their call, because it would have been, I think, a nice signal to everybody that cares about those that find themselves in precarious housing situations to see that every party in Parliament wishes to see this issue discussed further by the select committee process. I do want to acknowledge those Government parties that have expressed support, at least to the select committee stage.

It is an important issue and, as we see homelessness increase to the levels that we have, with front-line providers saying that it is the highest it’s ever been—the likes of the Wellington City Mission say that it is the worst they have ever experienced—we’re going to have more people in precarious accommodation circumstances, and boarding houses certainly are one of those. The question as to whether they should be registered is a valid one. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Jenny Salesa, who is an extremely active and effective local MP—and I don’t think anyone would say anything counter to that—who listens to her constituents and identifies issues and brings them here to Parliament. This is one of those occasions.

Jenny has identified that this is an issue not just in her constituency but, frankly, everywhere. This isn’t just a city issue; this is just as relevant to where I live in Masterton as it is in South Auckland or elsewhere. In fact, I can think of a circumstance in recent history in Masterton where what was a hotel then became a boarding house. It closed down because of unsuitable conditions that could have all been avoided if there was a regulatory system in place that set minimum standards. But, to Andy Foster’s point, the people that left this had nowhere to go.

There is a massive question mark here: are we as a country satisfied that, for the sake of getting people off the street, any sort of accommodation will do? I would say no, we’re not. But how do we then ensure there is a minimum standard, and why should people—if a boarding house is the only option available to them—put up with standards that are below levels that other people in similar circumstances would expect to meet?

I’m pleased this is going to a select committee stage. There have been some legitimate questions raised. I know, given I know the members who are raising them, that they mean them sincerely. We want to make sure we get this right, but we’re not going be able to do this on the floor of the House at this stage, at the first reading. We’re going to do that at select committee, and we’re going to do that at the committee of the whole House. I’m really encouraged to see that this will have the level of support to get to that stage. Once again, good on you, Jenny Salesa, for bringing it forward.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (20:16): Thank you. Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and rise on this members’ day and speak, in particular, to this piece of legislation, the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill. Again, as has been done regularly tonight, may I congratulate Jenny Salesa on this bill. I haven’t had a lot to do with Jenny, apart from in the Regulations Review Committee, which Madam Speaker, you probably would, of course, realise is one of the most riveting of all the select committees that we have in Parliament.

I got to join it—it was one of my first jobs—and I really wondered if I’d made some correct life choices at that point! Fortunately, I was flanked by several lawyers—the Hon James Meager and Joseph Mooney—who helped me navigate, and of course the Hon David Parker as chair, who was very diplomatic in that role and helped me to find my feet. I congratulate you, Jenny, on this and the luck of the draw, as it were, and what would certainly appear to be favour in advancing the cause of your legislation at this point. I acknowledge you on that.

We often get a hard time in the National Party in terms of our stance on housing—that we’re contributing to rough sleeping and to those vulnerable people—but if you look at our record, even over the last two years, we can speak with some conviction to what we’ve done, because we know that housing is an ecosystem, or it’s a system of the worst affected, the vulnerable, who rely on emergency housing. I spent six years as trustee and chair of Te Whare Korowai, the Hamilton Christian Nightshelter. We saw firsthand—in fact, at the time, the night shelter operated literally as a night shelter and we’d kick people out at eight in the morning. Through COVID, we had to adapt, and actually now the organisation is run incredibly capably by the manager, Joanne, and is a 24/7 operation with several properties, including many transitional housing beds.

That whole system is designed to help those at, essentially, “the last hotel”, we would call it, where there’s no questions. If someone needs a place to stay, we’re able to accommodate them. That’s at one end of the spectrum, and of course, as we know in 2023 when we came into Government, we had a lot of emergency housing crisis across motels and hotels all over the country. We knew that wasn’t a sustainable place for children, and we targeted that as one of our priorities under Minister Tama Potaka and very quickly exceeded our target in eliminating the hotel situation and getting those from emergency housing into good social housing, wraparound support, and all those things which are needed. There’s still a little bit of work to do there, but we haven’t taken our eye off that.

Then, of course, there’s social housing, which is another piece in the system. With Kāinga Ora (KO), there was a lot of mismanagement with the financial organisation which we had to remedy; reinstate a board, set some protocols, and actually make tenants responsible for their actions, as well. One of the first things I had as a local MP was complaints from neighbours about unruly tenants. KO had, effectively, their hands tied, because they had little ability to intervene. We changed that, and now I don’t have those complaints any more; I genuinely don’t.

I know, also, the team at KO works really well with those people, placing them in the right environments and giving them the right support, and that’s fantastic. Of course, we know, with KO, 50 percent of the housing was only pumping out three- and four-bedroom units when 50 percent of people needed one- and two-bedroom units, and they were only producing 12 percent. We’ve amended that, through the work of the Hon Chris Bishop, and that’s having an incredible effect on social housing.

Then, of course, we look at what we’re doing through fast-track legislation, the IFF legislation—the infrastructure funding and financing. Of course, an area close to my electorate is Te Awa Lakes, where they’re going to be building 2,500 homes, some of which will be affordable—another key cornerstone—and I hope the IFF legislation will also be supported across the House, as it was largely a bipartisan tool to help free up funding and financing to unlock housing and not let infrastructure constraints stand in the way.

We look forward to supporting this tonight to select committee. I see it was in select committee in 2011-14. Obviously, it has been permeating for some time. Sometimes, unfortunately, this House isn’t very efficient at dealing with things that need to be changed. This is an opportunity to revisit that and take it to the select committee and, to use Joseph Mooney’s words, panel-beat the process and make sure we end up with something which we can also support. It’s my pleasure to support this to the next stage. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Helen White—happy birthday.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:21): Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. I was absolutely thrilled to see this come out of the biscuit tin, and I am so grateful to my colleague Hon Jenny Salesa for having drafted this and put it in as a priority for her. I have a constituency where this will make a huge difference. We have boarding houses in my area, and I have been concerned about the stories I’ve heard. I know this is a problem throughout the country, and I’m thrilled to see us, as a committee, the Social Services and Community Committee, get this to look at it.

I acknowledge the cautious support that we have from two of the parties here and Cameron Luxton’s comment that he was concerned, after reading Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance, that perhaps we would do some damage by over-regulating and making it impossible for people to run homes like this. It was a book that I was very attracted to in lots of ways. The problem with those books, as you settle down about them, is that they are too blunt an instrument. There might be some merit in rethinking those rules, and we should do it all the time, but we should also be vigilant about our values and our needs as a community.

I want to talk, in a way, about my portfolio of sexual and family violence prevention, which perhaps shines a light on that. I got the portfolio not that long ago—not a year ago—and it’s quite a heavy portfolio to get. I went to see someone at the organisation called Help, and they were talking to me about someone being referred into a boarding house and that it happened because their relationship was a violent one. They had been scared because there was not a lock on the door. They were told not to worry about it, and they were raped. That is a story that I take really seriously. It is about making sure that, as a society, we give people safety. People won’t leave violent relationships if that’s the option that they have.

I wanted to talk for a minute about my fear that what we’re doing when we narrow that ability for people to move into the nurture of our society through emergency housing, through alternative housing, is so damaging to the fabric of our society. It impacts on our children. One of the things that comes up over and over again is that, now, people are asked whether they contribute to, or have contributed to, their homelessness. That is a narrower way of looking at things, and actually life is really complicated and people in those situations probably already feel they’re contributing to their situation. That’s probably the reality of a lot of people’s view of themselves in that situation. Their esteem is low, and they don’t need to be asked that question. If, in fact, there is narrower criteria, they end up in their cars or on our streets.

If the boarding houses are not safe, if we don’t take adequate care, we end up with a situation which is completely, completely damaging, and it’s not just the person in that situation; it’s their kids. It means they don’t leave. Now, there’s an absolutely stunning piece of information I’d like to put before you, because it shocked me and I’m still thinking about it, and it was out of Canadian research. It said that, if somebody rings a women’s refuge and they get turned down, 80 percent of those people never come back. They never ask again; they internalise that situation, and they think it’s their problem. We have to provide a range of solutions. There will likely always be boarding houses, but we need to make sure they’re safe places for people, as a bare minimum. Thank you.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (20:26): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure who I’m going to congratulate first, whether it’s Helen White for her birthday or Jenny Salesa for having her bill drawn.

Hon Nicola Grigg: 32, is it, Helen?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, 21 for Helen, actually—and for Jenny having her bill drawn, and then actually beyond being drawn, actually getting what seems to be universal support across the House at this first reading. Obviously, noting we haven’t heard a contribution from Te Pāti Māori, but I suspect the Green Party will be voting proxy on their behalf and we’ll see how their support lines up on this legislation.

As speakers before me have outlined, both Joseph Mooney and Ryan Hamilton, we are cautiously supporting this at first reading through to the select committee stage for a couple of reasons: one, to have the opportunity to hear from submitters on the legislation, to tell us how they think it will work in practice, whether they think it is necessary, from the general public and from those who operate in the sector; and two, as rightly said by Joseph Mooney, to panel beat the legislation, to work it into a sort of tip-top shape that we think it can actually work in today’s society.

We know that boarding houses across New Zealand provide accommodation for some of the most vulnerable people in our community; people who have really, in some cases, extremely limited options to where they can choose to call home, and that may well be due to circumstances often beyond their control, whether it’s mental health issues or disability issues. Often, it relates to substance abuse and addictions. It can even be things like poor credit history or involvement with the justice system one way or another. Often, they find themselves living in boarding houses. We have some of the most vulnerable Kiwis in those circumstances living there and ensuring that they get the support they need when they’re there and that the system has their back—in a way.

Evidence does show that boarding houses continue to operate—in many cases; not all of them, but many of them—with some really subpar maintenance, poor conditions, poor health. Many people tonight have talked about the Loafers Lodge example, with really bad fire safety standards, which is hugely concerning, particularly for our most vulnerable people. Tenants often face barriers to raising their concerns, whether it’s that they can’t even access management—some of them might not even know how to go about doing so in the first place—including the fear of eviction if they raise issues with things they’re not happy with, and shorter termination periods as well, which they can be held over them too.

This is why we believe that appropriate legislation may well be needed in this space, but we want to make sure—and this is where we’re cautiously supporting it at first reading—that it’s tightly targeted to where it is needed the most. We want to avoid unnecessary red tape. We came in as a Government and slashed a number of red tapes across the sector. Now, that’s not to say that we don’t support regulation and red tape where necessary, but we don’t want to be adding it unnecessarily and as an additional burden. We want to make sure this legislation strikes the right balance, and we want it to have a real focus on lifting safety and quality outcomes in boarding houses for those that I just mentioned, who are some of the most vulnerable in our community, rather than just creating a really broad sort of compliance-heavy registration requirement, which we just think will go against that. Actually, Jenny Salesa’s intentions with the legislation are about bringing the standards of boarding houses up, rather than lowering them by bringing in additional regulation. At the moment, we don’t think it is targeted enough to where we want it to be. That’s why we’re sending it to the select committee, to give it the opportunity to get some light on the legislation so we can hear opportunities to improve it and to make it better.

I do note that it did go to the former Social Services and Community Committee for inquiry during the 2011-14 Parliament, and they did highlight a number of issues in particular. The member’s intention with the bill is to create a register that has some of the most basic information about the boarding house—such as the name of the landlord, their contact details, their address for service, and the address and description of all boarding houses that currently have been granted a boarding house tenancy—and making sure that information is publicly available, probably like the New Zealand Companies Office, for example, where you can look it up, see who it is, see what they operate, and see if they’ve got a number of other operations across the country.

As I’ve said, the National Party supports this bill at first reading. We welcome the opportunity to hear from the public on their submissions on the legislation. I congratulate the member for having it drawn, and at this stage, we commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Jenny Salesa, I wanted to make a comment. A couple of people have referred, in the House tonight from both sides actually, to a particular party choosing not to have a call. That’s acceptable in my view, but I think we need to be careful when we start predicting whose party might vote for what. It comes very close to breaching another Standing Order. Thank you. In reply, the Hon Jenny Salesa.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (20:31): Thank you so much. I would like to begin my contribution by thanking all of my colleagues from right across the House. I’ve got to say, when I drafted some bullet points for this address and reply, I did not expect that I would get this much support. Can I thank the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, as well as the ACT Party—all of the coalition Government parties—as well as, of course, the Green Party, who were the first party to give me their support on this member’s bill. I understand from the Green Party, who hold the votes of Te Pāti Māori, that they are also voting in favour of this member’s bill.

I’ve been in Parliament now for a number of years. This is my very first member’s bill to ever be drawn out of the biscuit tin. I’m not actually that fortunate. For it to actually have unanimous support is actually really unexpected, but I’m glad that I have it, because this is a really serious issue for New Zealand. I didn’t speak about it in my first contribution, but one of the main reasons why I drafted this bill is because this issue, in my own electorate of Panmure-Ōtāhuhu—particularly the Ōtāhuhu part of my electorate—is a really big issue. The issue of boarding houses is something I have had other constituents come to my office about and that I have had police in the past reach out about. The manager of the town centre in Ōtāhuhu reached out to me as the local MP.

I’ve also got to say that, as local members of Parliament, this is something we all do. I know. We go door knocking, and in doing that, I came across a house that I thought was just a house. It looked like just a normal house from the outside, but when I walked up to get into this house, there was actually no front door. The whole front door had been taken off its hinges, and it was used so that you could not fall through the actual stairs. When I walked into introduce myself as the local MP and to offer my services, I noticed, in the sitting room, which was a shared space with the kitchen, there was no running water. There were no taps. All the taps were taken off. On my way out, to go back out on to the street, in the place where there should have been a bathroom and a toilet facility, there was nothing. This was actually a boarding house that had no running water and no bathrooms, and it was not fit for human beings to live in. I know this is not the only boarding house like that in my electorate.

This is one of the main reasons why this is a bill that’s needed. There is no register of boarding houses. We don’t know how many there are across New Zealand. We don’t know who is compliant and who is non-compliant, and, as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. A public register that brings transparency would ensure that landlords who profit from housing our most vulnerable citizens will be held to a certain standard.

I will end with where I began, by thanking each and every one of the members of Parliament from all the different parties in the House of Parliament in New Zealand. Thank you so much for your support. I look forward to having this member’s bill discussed at the select committee, and I also look forward to making sure that the bill is fit for purpose for all of us, especially for all of the tenants that live in boarding houses right across Aotearoa New Zealand. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (20:36): The question is, That the Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill

First Reading

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (20:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

No one should die from a drug overdose. No one should be scared to call for help when they or someone they are with needs medical care. Around three New Zealanders die each week from a treatable, accidental overdose. Fear of being arrested can delay or stop people from seeking urgent life-preserving medical care. Normally, when someone calls an ambulance to save a life, they’re considered a hero. When someone is trying to help their friend experiencing an overdose, that should remain the case. This simple law will mean that young people won’t feel scared to call for help when someone’s life is at risk.

Thank you to all of the families and the people with lived experience for sharing your stories, to the care support workers, to the first responders, to the drug-checking services at music festivals, to the needle exchanges, and to the care support workers and organisations working to keep our communities safe from drug harm. Thank you to the New Zealand Drug Foundation for your evidence and mahi and the deep care and enduring relationships you have with families and those with lived experience. To everyone who has championed this bill to finally make it to Parliament, thank you. I mihi to former MPs who have worked on drug law reform to make our country safer—like Green MP Nandor Tanczos and our current Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.

To anyone who has ever lost a loved one to a drug overdose, this one is for you. The Greens will continue to fight for sensible common-sense laws that ensure people receive healthcare, not handcuffs. I implore all the political parties to support this bill to select committee, where we can hear from organisations like St John Ambulance, the Salvation Army, needle exchanges, health-promotion organisations, first responders, and the New Zealand Drug Foundation.

With the blessing of his whānau, I’m going to tell you about Jacob Gunnell. He was 24 years old when he died. Jacob is here in this picture today. Jacob’s mum, Shelley, told me this morning she believes that, if Jacob had had an ambulance or help called, he would still be alive today. She said that’s a sad feeling inside and now their family have to live with a big hole in their hearts every day.

That fateful night, Jacob had an unexpected reaction to LSD. He ran out on to the street and laid down in the middle of the road. His friends were trying to get him up and directed traffic around him, but they didn’t call 111. Jacob was not himself. He was clammy, disoriented, and calling people different names. Shelley believes they didn’t call for help because they were afraid of getting in trouble with the police. In a state of confusion, Jacob ran—and fell to his death. Shelley said that if someone had called 111 and they weren’t going to get in trouble, maybe he would be alive. In the eulogies at Jacob’s funeral, his family all repeated, “If you ring police or an ambulance, you could save a life.”

To all the families who have lost loved ones, I promise the Green Party will continue to fight for sensible drug laws that will save lives. Our good Samaritan bill makes narrow amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, the Bail Act 2000, and the Parole Act 2002 to ensure that when someone calls for lifesaving help during a suspected overdose or serious adverse drug reaction, they will not be charged for specified low-level drug offences, which include having or using drugs for personal use; having drug utensils; enabling premises for low-level offending, or non-commercial social supply; and breaching parole conditions relating to drug use, which recognises the heightened overdose risks after leaving prison.

This bill doesn’t protect dealing or serious crime; it’s about one simple rule: if in doubt, call for help. Evidence shows good Samaritan laws overseas increase emergency calls and save lives. With rising opioid harm, limited naloxone, and more potent synthetic drugs, this is a practical step to prevent avoidable overdose deaths here in Aotearoa. This bill sends a clear message to people that they should not hesitate to seek help, as this hesitation, brought on by fear of prosecution, is what leads to fatal outcomes. It is not only those who have fatal overdoses but people across the spectrum, including people who have an unexpected reaction. If people do not call for help when they have taken drugs and have an unexpected reaction, there is a missed opportunity to refer them to services to prevent further harm from happening. Our good Samaritan law will save lives and prevent future harm, which will make our country safer.

The Greens always treat drug use as a health issue, and we know most Kiwis see drug addiction as a health issue, too. Many of us know what it’s like to have a family member or friend who is addicted to meth, alcohol, or opioids. We know the harm this causes and the limitations to the current approach of short-term, punitive measures. The current approach to drug laws does not make our country safer. Let’s proudly hold our heads high and be a country who shines a light on the darkness and brings humanity into politics. Let’s have the guts to admit when something isn’t working to make our country safer. Let’s not be a country who hides our issues and locks them away, allowing more and more preventable harm to happen across our country. Let’s apply some common sense and save some lives and save a lot of heartache and pain with this one small law change.

We may have different views on which substances should be illegal, but I hope we can agree that, if someone is over dosing on drugs, they should receive lifesaving care. All I’m asking here is for our laws to support people to be a hero and save lives.

When I’ve travelled across the country, I’ve spoken to families who have lost loved ones and whose lives have been forever changed, like Jacob’s mum, Shelley, who might always ask, “What if someone had called for help?” I’m very aware that we still have a lot of work to do in our communities so that our young people and anyone using opioids to cope with the existence of life in an economic system where people feel the need to escape—there is a lot of work needed ahead to reduce drug harm and make our communities safer, like overhauling the 50-year-old Misuse of Drugs Act, the national roll-out of Te Ara Oranga, an inquiry from the mental health and addiction cross-party group, expanding drug-checking, naloxone take-home kits, drug consumption rooms, expanding needle-exchange programmes, decriminalisation of injection equipment, decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use, adequate rehab in prisons, more funding for drug harm reduction organisations. But, right now, all I am asking for is for people to be allowed to save lives—like Jacob’s—without stigma and shame and the fear of being arrested for being a hero. Thank you.

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

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (20:46): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak on the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the member Kahurangi Carter, who has brought this into the House: well done on having your member’s bill drawn and well done on a very impassioned speech as well. I’d also like to acknowledge Jacob, who you had in the photograph throughout your speech, and recognise his family. I’m unsure whether they are watching this evening—quite possibly they are—but, if they are, my thoughts and prayers are with you and also with all the other families and victims who have suffered harm and loss of life due to drug use, drug addiction, in all its different forms and all of the different situations that can spiral out of that.

I also want to acknowledge all of the families out there who may live with people with drug addiction or alcohol addiction, and all of the turmoil and distress that has caused in New Zealand for a number of years and continues to do so and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to do so into the future as we work hard as a Government—and I know that the Opposition is in the space as well, too—doing what we can to limit and reduce the impacts of drug and alcohol addiction and harm across New Zealand.

Now, this bill aims to ensure that those who call for lifesaving support in the event of an overdose or a drug reaction are protected from being charged for low-level offences. Often referred to as a good Samaritan bill or a good Samaritan Act, it would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to ensure those who seek help are not routinely criminally charged and they can go and make those calls for emergency services to come and help them in such situations. There are a number of provisions that would be inserted, and there is information detailing what a specified person would be. I won’t bore you by going through that; members will have had the opportunity to see that.

I will also note that the member Kahurangi Carter has nominated the Health Committee to hear this bill, so depending on how it progresses this evening, Ms Carter—we will see—I may be learning a lot more about it in the time to come. If that is the case, we will give it full consideration, and we look forward to seeing you in front of the Health Committee in due course if that is the way this evening eventuates.

There are a couple of comments I’ll make around how the police respond when there is a health crisis, and it is noted that they do routinely use discretion on minor possession in instances where lifesaving help is sought. Health services treat anyone in a crisis, without refusing them or without billing. We have a wonderful system in New Zealand, where it is largely universal and it will get out there and render those services of support to people when they need them most.

There are a number of international good Samaritan models around the world. They largely arose in jurisdictions that faced significant fentanyl-driven opioid crises. That is not necessarily the situation here in New Zealand, and while it may be growing, my wish is that we never reach the proportions or the epidemic situations that some of us will have seen on Instagram clips and the likes of what is happening in some cities around the world—truly horrific, despicable situations.

Drug harm is an extremely difficult issue to deal with, and we are working hard on this as a Government. Last year, we announced $30 million as part of a meth action plan to increase the services available to those communities hit hardest by meth. We want to be picking people up in the system as early as possible. The sooner we can identify people with addiction and get them the services they need, the better.

Workforce is a big part of this. I note that the mental health and addiction workforce has grown by more than 11 percent over the last couple of years. This is a good achievement from this Government. I will commend the Minister for Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey, for all of his hard work in this space. Vacancy rates among drug and alcohol counsellors have dropped from more than 14 percent in September 2023 to 5.5 percent as of September 2025. That’s not to say there isn’t more work to do in that space; that would just be a foolish comment, obviously.

There is a lot more work to do, and there is also a need for more addiction services around New Zealand. I think anyone here from outside of the main centres—I see my colleague Jan Tinetti over there from Tauranga—will be acutely aware of the inadequate supply of mental health and addiction services that we have in our region. It’s something I know that we will be, once again, in a bipartisan manner, doing what we can to try to promote and influence some more of those services coming to our region. I know there will be a lot of people from other parts of New Zealand who will be doing the same thing. When you look at where we are relative to other countries, such as Australia and their number of beds per population in this space, we don’t have enough. We are inadequately represented, and there is more work to do there.

There is a lot more to do to ensure that we reduce harm of meth and alcohol. In March, we announced the first ever action plan focused on supporting the addiction sector, which brings together initiatives like Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the meth plan—about $20 million of new investment under this Government each year into addiction services so that people can receive support when they need it.

Ultimately, in this first reading, the National Party is not going to be supporting this bill. I know that the member was already aware of that, so it won’t come as a surprise to her. In saying that, though, we will see where it goes. You were quite confident when we were outside of the House before. If it is that it comes to the Health Committee, I give you my surest intent that we will consider it to the best of our ability and make sure that we give it due consideration and listen to all of the submissions that come through. At this time, the National Party opposes this bill. We will not be supporting it, but we will give it due consideration if it progresses further.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start by congratulating Kahurangi Carter for bringing this bill to the House. It is an achievement to get a member’s bill through, but not every member’s bill makes the significant and meaningful change that this bill proposes. That’s an extra special achievement, so congratulations to Kahurangi Carter.

I also just want to acknowledge the heartfelt story that she told the House about Jacob Gunnell and his whānau and the circumstances of his passing. It’s also really meaningful, I think, when we can look at legislation that speaks to the experience that the community we serve has come to us with issues on. That clearly is the case with this particular bill, so thank you very much for bringing this bill to our attention.

We will be supporting this bill through to the select committee. From what previous members have said, hopefully that will be a good opportunity to look through some of the changes that it will implement. Other members have already gone through exactly what this bill will do—the member herself more eloquently than I can—but, just in short, it is a bill that does have evidence around the need for it. One of the pieces of evidence that we looked at when we were considering our position on this bill was the New Zealand Drug Foundation’s evidence and the evidence around several coronial inquiries in recent years that have highlighted witnesses’ hesitancy to call for help as a contributing factor in drug deaths. That was important evidence for us to see that there does appear to be a hesitation for some people when calling health services.

Essentially, that’s what this is about; it’s about making sure that people do get the healthcare they need, at the appropriate time, and wanting to take away that hesitation. I would also just note, for those people who might not be supportive of this type of bill, that it does apply to minor offences. My understanding is that if health services and police came to a scene and saw a significant or very serious crime being committed, that wouldn’t be included under this bill. I think that’s another important consideration, too. This is not about providing avenues for people to avoid arrest in cases of serious crime. That is another factor that we considered in our support for this bill.

Another piece of evidence that we looked at was a report from Radio New Zealand, which said that, in 2005, there were three New Zealanders who died every week from accidental drug overdoses, which seems quite extraordinary. That seems to be a very, very significantly high number of people who are affected by accidental drug overdoses, therefore showing that we do, as a Parliament, need to consider what steps we can take to make access to healthcare more accessible for those people, too.

I won’t use all of my call. I’m sure that the member is keen to hear other speeches and get progress through the House. I just wanted once again to commend Kahurangi Carter for bringing this bill to the House, acknowledge those who’ve shared their stories with her, and provide the Labour Party’s support for her in this process.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (20:58): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak on the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill. I also want to start by acknowledging Kahurangi Carter, the member in charge. This is her second member’s bill in quite quick succession, which is quite a feat for a first-term MP, so I want to acknowledge that. She’s also going to pull off another feat, I think, for a first-term Green MP: she’s going to get the support of the ACT Party on the first reading to send this to the select committee, which is quite an achievement. I just want to get that out of the way and get that up front.

I also want to acknowledge the story she shared about Jacob and obviously, again, acknowledge his family. It was obviously very generous of them to let you share that story, so I do just want to acknowledge that.

We think this bill is pretty simple at its heart. As the previous speaker said, it is actually shocking that, on average, three New Zealanders a week die from a drug overdose. These aren’t necessarily people shooting up in the streets or in the gutters; there are actually sometimes young or old people from every part of New Zealand—a wide demographic—and some of them may be long-term users, and some of them might not be. They might have just been experimenting for the first time.

Drugs are dangerous substances, and sometimes they are life-threatening, and they are obviously addictive, and there’s a lot of other consequences of taking them. The reality is that a prohibition on drugs hasn’t stopped their use. In the current settings, it is sometimes unclear, if you reach out for help, what could be the consequences. So we want to make sure that when something does go wrong, someone’s friends, family members, the people that are with them don’t hesitate in calling emergency services and that they do pick up the phone, because, again, if you can get help quickly, often drug overdoses can actually be attended to and people can actually survive. So, you know, it does actually matter how quickly people get medical attention. Actually, between 2015 and 2024, over 6,000 people were hospitalised for drug poisoning—that’s quite a large number. So we just want to make sure, where there is an unclear law like this one, that it actually is clarified.

I also do want to be clear about what this bill is not. Again, I want to acknowledge Camilla Belich. She did say this relates to low-level offences, but this is not a “soft on crime” bill; if it was, ACT certainly wouldn’t be supporting it. Obviously, we are totally against people who peddle drugs, and we are very proud of the work that this coalition Government, which ACT is a part of, has done around law and order and crime. Minister McKee has done as much as any Minister to ensure that gangs are cracked down on, that victims are put first, etc.

So, you know, this is a modest bill. It does some important changes, but we just want to make sure that the law is clear when people reach out for help, that they are going to be protected. It’s not about excusing or promoting drug use. Certainly, we don’t condone illegal drug use, but it is making sure that the law is clear. ACT is very much about ensuring, where there is bad law or uncertainty, that that clarity is obtained.

I was also very pleased, selfishly, that it’s going to the Health Committee—I thought for a minute it might be going to the Justice Committee. Again, my good colleague Cameron Luxton is on the Health Committee, and he will give this bill the attention it deserves. We commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (21:02): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill. Firstly, I’d really like to acknowledge Kahurangi Carter for her empathy, for her kindness, for her consideration, and her clarity in the message that she is sending in this space. It is important that we communicate the need to always seek help, and I think it is a very sad indictment on our society that we have a message that is taken up by anyone that they would defer or refuse to call for help on the risk of a low-level drug offence. I hope that we are a better society than that.

But in my instances of experience in this space, it is not fear of prosecution that prevents people from seeking help; it is a lack of knowledge, it is a lack of awareness, it is a lack of appreciation of the seriousness and severity of people’s conditions. I have, unfortunately, attended deaths where it has been alcohol overdose, where people have thought, “I’ll just put them in the car and they’ll sleep it off.” and they have died, tragically—young people. That is a lack of awareness, that is a lack of appreciation, that is not taking the situation seriously, that is not appreciating what harm these chemicals and substances cause to young and old bodies. It is really tragic, and I think there is a lot we can do in this space to build awareness, to appreciate what a simple call for help can do for anyone.

I just challenge the idea of legislating out discretion for police officers, for anyone who is involved in these situations. I have more faith in our police officers than I think is demonstrated here. This is not a law of clarity; this is a law of complexity. Where would this discretion apply? Who would it apply to? Everyone in the house? Just the person making the call? There are so many complexities in this bill that I don’t think this is about good, clear law; I think it is about trying to resolve a social issue.

I absolutely endorse wholeheartedly the intention of this legislation, that we need to make people less afraid of asking for help. We need a system that has more empathy. We need a system that has the passion that Kahurangi Carter has demonstrated here today. We need to know that this is harmful, and we need to know that there is help out there. Yes, there is a lot more education we can do in this space. I would hate to think that we are a society where anyone who is suffering under the influence of a substance that is affecting their bodies, their respiration, their clarity of thought—that we wouldn’t pick up the phone and ask for help. That is the message we want to share. That is the message we want to reiterate. I don’t think this is about a legislation; this is about an awareness. This is, yes, we can do better—absolutely—but it’s not just drugs that our young people lose their lives from. It is the person who’s prepared to take the car keys off them. It’s the person who’s prepared to stop them, take them in, get them to hospital, do all the things that will make sure that we don’t lose young people because of ignorance and unawareness of the harm that is caused by these substances.

Therefore, I absolutely applaud the effort and intention of this bill, but New Zealand First will not be commending it to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (21:06): I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to a bill that at its heart is about saving lives. It’s about ensuring that when someone is in danger, when a whānau member, a friend, or even a stranger is overdosing, the people around them can call for help without fear. For too long, our laws have created silence where there should’ve been action. They’ve created hesitation where there should’ve been urgency. Research cited in the 2025 Drug overdoses in Aotearoa report shows that criminalisation does not reduce harm. Instead, it stops people from seeking help when every second counts. This bill changes that, and I applaud Green MP Kahurangi Carter for her mahi—tēnā rawa atu koe [very many congratulations].

What this bill does is it makes it very clear that those who call for help, those experiencing an overdose, and those who simply are present will not be punished. Possession, use, utensils, social supply—these will not be barriers to saving a life. Even those on parole with drug-related conditions will be protected, because we know the risk of overdose is highest after forced sobriety.

For Māori, this isn’t an abstract issue. Māori are almost three times more likely to die from an accidental overdose than non-Māori. Our people are over-policed, over-charged, and overrepresented in convictions for low-level drug offences. These are not just statistics; these are our cousins, these are our aunties, these are our uncles, and our tamariki. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill because it aligns strongly with our kaupapa of mana motuhake. This bill directly addresses inequity. It reduces the disproportionate harm Māori face both from overdose and from policing. It recognises that fairness is not just a principle; it must be lived in our laws.Mana mokopuna—because more than 1,295 people have died from accidental overdose since 2016. Every one of those deaths ripples across generations. This bill will prevent some of those losses. It will keep more whānau whole. It will give our mokopuna a future, with fewer empty seats at the table. Mana ōrite—because this bill weekly addresses the inequity, as I said before.

Stakeholders such as Te Puna Whakaiti Pāmamae Kai Whakapiri, the New Zealand Drug Foundation, have been clear. Their 2025 report recommends that our legislation must enable action. This bill does exactly that. It removes the threat of criminal liability so that people can do the right thing without fear.

But let us also be honest: this bill is only one step. The report calls for a comprehensive overdose prevention programme, a national surveillance system, and major drug law reform. Many in our communities have been calling for the same. Some have asked why our Government continues to rely on punishment when the evidence shows that addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one; why prison is still treated as the answer when it has never solved the problem. These are questions that deserve real answers.

Supporting this bill is the bare minimum. The bigger work ahead is transforming our approach to drug use so that it is grounded in compassion, evidence, and tino rangatiratanga. To the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, who I represent, your voices, your lived experiences, and your losses, your hopes are carried into this House right now. This bill reflects what many of you have been saying for years: that no one should die because someone was too afraid to call for help. If we can save even just one life, if we can prevent even one whānau from burying someone that they love, then this bill is absolutely worth supporting. On behalf of Te Pāti Māori and the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to take a call on this bill, and I want to acknowledge the parties around the House who’ve given their support for it to be able to go to select committee and to hear from the New Zealanders who are affected by this.

Every year, three New Zealanders lose their lives in overdose situations from drugs. Alcohol remains the leading cause of death that is preventable and early in our communities, and this is a real health issue that calls on all parties around the House to come to some agreement about; what we can do to improve the situation in people’s lives. It affects young people, it affects older people, it affects everyone: mums, dads, and their communities—people who deserve a Government that will take on some of these tough decisions and improve healthcare for people who are suffering from addiction, who need support and need preventative action and harm reduction not only in their healthcare system but in their communities.

I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Drug Foundation, who are here tonight. It’s bills like these that continue to raise these issues on the agenda of the politics of the day and with the communities who need the support, and it’s organisations around the country like the Salvation Army who continue to advocate for sensible reform in this area that will help everyone. This is an issue where it is beyond politics; it is something we can all relate to within our own families, within our own friends. On this issue, where we are debating tonight the penalties that currently apply to people who are doing the right thing, we can help that. We can find a way through, as Casey Costello has said, where people doing the right thing are encouraged to do so, and where there is more information about people needing to do the right thing—that it’s not OK for young people to care for their friends and think they are doing everything right by popping someone in the car and giving them a shower. They need to call for help. We need better information out there for our young people, as well as for everyone dealing with these issues in their community.

I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to following the submissions closely, and I hope we can find a way through.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:12): First of all, I would like to congratulate the member Kahurangi Carter for her member’s bill being drawn and for trying to address one of the important issues in our community. I also want to begin by acknowledging the very real and tragic harm caused by drug overdose in our communities. Every life lost is a profound failure to protect those who are vulnerable, and we all share responsibility to reduce the harm.

However, while the intention behind this bill may be compassionate, intention alone is not enough. We must carefully consider whether the approach it takes will truly achieve its stated goal. I do not believe this bill will effectively reduce drug overdose deaths. In fact, I’m concerned it may do the opposite. Consider, by removing and softening the legal consequences associated with drug use in overdose situations, this legislation is sending the wrong message: that drug use carries fewer risks. While the aim may be to encourage people to seek help in emergencies, we cannot in law ignore the signal this sends.

Laws do not just punish; they also shape behaviour. If we weaken them in this context, we risk normalising dangerous activities rather than discouraging them. Consider this risk: by softening legal consequences in overdose situations, this bill creates space for exploitation. A drug dealer present could claim protection while calling for help, avoiding immediate accountability and continuing to supply harmful drugs to people. This does not reduce harm. This risks causing even greater harm to our communities.

It is also important to recognise this in practice. Our front-line response is already grounded in compassion and common sense. Police prioritise saving lives and routinely exercise discretion when minor possession is involved in an overdose situation. Health services, for their part, treat anyone in crisis without hesitation, without judgment, without fear or refusal. The system already supports a health-first response, so we must ask what this bill can truly do. If individuals can already seek urgent help without practical barriers, legislating it risks potentially going further beyond enabling emergency care and instead begins to interrupt the broader disturbance framework.

The balance we currently have—compassion in Christ, accountability in conduct—it’s not perfect, but it is deliberate. This bill shifts this balance in a way that may have unintended consequences. Prevention must remain at the centre of our efforts. With using drugs, overdose deaths are not just about what happens in the moment of crisis; it is about stopping people from reaching that point in the first place. That means stronger education; early intervention; and clear, consistent signals that drug use is harmful and carries consequences. We should be strengthening our system to protect health, not introducing changes that risk normalising the very behaviour we are trying to reduce. I always say: in order to have a normal life, stay away from alcohol, smoking, gambling, and drugs, and your life will be just fine.

In closing, while I respect the intent behind this legislation, I remain unconvinced that it will deliver the outcomes it promises. Instead, it risks weakening the deterrence that helps protect our communities and shifting the focus away from the prevention strategies that we know are essential. For this reason, I stand opposed to the bill at its first reading, but I’m happy to listen to some of the feedback from the public during the select committee.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (21:17): Thank you. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party in support of this bill at its first reading. Congratulations to Kahurangi Carter in bringing your bill to the House. This is the second time I’ve spoken to one of your bills in the last couple of weeks.

Looking at this bill, it’s a humane and pragmatic piece of legislation. It recognises a simple but deeply important truth: when someone is experiencing drug overdose, the priority must be to save their life. We know that, often, the fear of prosecution acts as a barrier to calling for help, and this bill seeks to remove that barrier by providing protection from low-level drug offences for those who seek emergency assistance. No one should ever hesitate to call 111 when a life is at risk, and this bill helps to break down barriers to contacting emergency services.

It has potential to prevent many unnecessary deaths in New Zealand from drug overdose, as other speakers have spoken to already. Other speakers have also spoken about how widespread overdose is in Aotearoa New Zealand. It continues to occur across all our communities, affecting people at different ages, backgrounds, and regions. It does not discriminate. The statistics are pretty stark, and without this bill there is a risk that a delay in asking for help for risk of repercussion could cost a life.

This bill takes a harm reduction approach. It acknowledges that criminalisation, particularly at the low-level end, can have unintended consequences. By protecting people at the scene from prosecution for minor offences—whether they are using drugs themselves or simply present—it gives clarity and reassurance in moments of crisis. I think it’s important to emphasise that this bill is not about serious crime; it is protection from minor offences, and Labour supports that intent.

I do have some questions and comments to make, and I know these will be worked through at select committee. The first one is that we must ensure we’re careful around the scope of protections. The bill proposes protections across a range of offences, including possession, use, and even social supply in certain contexts. While we understand the rationale, Parliament must be confident that these protections cannot be exploited in ways that undermine our broader drug enforcement or community safety. We must look at this bill within a wider health framework and addressing drug harm in our communities as a whole. I have particular questions around how the police would apply these protections in practice and what the clear guidance will look like to ensure consistency, and how we ensure that communities have confidence the law is being applied fairly and appropriately.

Labour believes in a balanced approach to drug policy, one that combines enforcement with compassion and accountability with public health. We will support this bill to select committee and hope that there are robust discussions in that space.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (21:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find myself in the kind of “between a rock and a hard place” situation in terms of the subject matter we’re discussing tonight. If we sift the conversation to its core, we’re, essentially, discussing life and death, and we must confront this. We’re discussing situations where people find themselves in the presence of someone who is probably dying—dying if this person does not receive the help they need in this extremely difficult hypothetical situation.

I want to acknowledge the passing of Jacob. Our colleague across the House, Kahurangi Carter, placed his picture in front of her and referenced his mother, Shelley. In all honesty, very often, with the laws we’re making—our Government; with respect to getting tough on crime, putting victims first—mothers and fathers come into my mind a lot. While some people might say some of these laws appear harsh, for me, the biggest harshness is a parent losing a child. The delicacy of this subject matter today is that our colleague Kahurangi Carter had her member’s bill pulled out of the ballot, and it’s a member’s bill where, on the face of it, of course, as we’ve traversed across the National Party tonight, the intentions are pure. The intentions are ones that are underpinned with love, with aroha.

Again, the delicacy also, I reflect on it, because we don’t support this bill, not because we’re politicking, not because we don’t care about Shelley—no doubt the rest of her life will be a living hell; she’s lost her son—but there’s other reasons, and if I may say, perceptions do matter. It does matter if we’re seen to, essentially, say, “You know what? Someone can escape criminal prosecution because they thought about themselves more than thinking about the person that was overdosing and could die.” That’s not part of the debate notes. That’s me, personally, saying the anger in me comes from a place of sadness that, if I was in the situation where someone could be dying in front of me, I wouldn’t think twice about calling for help based on the fact that I may be criminally prosecuted. I wouldn’t think twice about it. I’d think about the person’s life. I’d think about the person’s mother. That’s what I’d think about.

What this bill aims to do is to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act so that, if someone calls for help from emergency services to assist a person who is overdosing, they will, essentially, escape criminal prosecution. Yes, that person is suffering from an addiction—most probably is suffering from an addiction themselves. Our Government and our party has put in place the first Minister for Mental Health ever, and we do take mental health seriously. My older sister is a mental health nurse specialist, and she has said to me for over 20 years that there’s no drug that’s a soft drug.

The anger I feel is not towards the people who have passed away because of an overdose; it’s towards those who have sold them the drugs and those who stood by them while they were overdosing and thought about their selfish needs other than those of the person who was on their death bed. I don’t support this bill. It seems like eventually it will go through, and be that as it may—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Good. We don’t need you.

RIMA NAKHLE: And you can say your disgusting remarks, Ricardo, but this is how I do feel about it: that you’re protecting those who thought about themselves instead of protecting the lives of others. I don’t commend this bill to the House today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just remind members that, when you’re referring to another member in the House, you use their full name. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kahurangi Carter: Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry. I had put the question. You didn’t stand for a call—I wasn’t sure you were taking it—so I have already started the question that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (21:27): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for Kahurangi Carter to take a final call on this bill.

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

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (21:27): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb and to everybody who has supported this bill tonight.

I will say it again: no one should die from a drug overdose. No one should be scared to call for help when they or someone they are with needs medical care. I do thank everybody here for acknowledging Jacob Gunnell and his family, and I want everyone to remember that Jacob is not alone. Almost three people die in New Zealand every week of a completely treatable and accidental overdose.

I ask the members to judge this bill not on my intentions, not on my speech, but on the impact of this bill and what this bill will achieve. You don’t need to believe me. You can listen to the submissions that will happen at select committee. You can read the many reports, you can look at international evidence where good Samaritan provisions are provided and in place.

I do want to mention that when I’ve talked to people around the country who have experienced a drug overdose or been with someone who has, many times, the reason that they are not calling is not because they are scared for themselves—they are happy to get in trouble. Who they are worried about is the person who is overdosing. They are worried they will lose their jobs. They are worried about the stigma and the shame that it will cause them and their families. I really just want to lay that out there that this is a practical law, this is a common-sense law. This law will save lives.

New Zealand First talked about health promotion, and we are all for health promotion and education, but it is not one or the other. This is a “yes/and” situation. We can have education and promotion and a law that has proven to save lives and can make a real difference to make sure that, when someone needs life-preserving medical attention, people call for help. That is the message this bill sends.

Like I said, you don’t have to believe me, you can read the evidence. You can look at the latest 2026 study by Dr Rose Crossin around how New Zealanders now think of drug addiction as a health issue, not a justice one. You can look at the recent Victoria University study that shows that 41 percent of students know somebody who has overdosed. We’re talking about our brightest minds here. As I said, I implore everyone to listen to those select committee submissions from first responders, from people with lived experience, from families of people who have lost people. When we’re talking about discretion from the police, that argument doesn’t stand here, because people are not calling for help; people are dying. There isn’t discretion being used, because they are literally not being called for help. So, please, go away and learn about this. This is a chance for us all to come together as a whole Parliament to show New Zealand that we care about sensible, safe laws that make a difference to everybody’s lives. Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 66

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (21:34): The question is, That the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill

First Reading

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (21:34): I move, That the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill.

Imagine as a parent—and I know that’s not hard for a lot of us in this House, because quite a few of us are a parent—just imagine for a second that your year 9, 13-year-old child is off for a day at school and you get the dreaded phone call that that young girl has attempted suicide. This is not just a nice story—or a bad story—that I am making up to draw attention to this bill; this is actually the reality. This has actually happened to some poor family here in New Zealand. Imagine for a second that you are a father who has found out that your daughter has been deepfaked into all kinds of sexually explicit material and, actually, you are in those images as well because they were taken off her social media at family functions. Imagine how that would feel as a parent.

Deepfaking somebody into explicit material is one of the worst and most horrible things that you can actually do. We’re not talking about a little bit of fun. We’re not talking about somebody deepfaking you into a bikini for a joke; we’re talking about some of the most horrendous things I have seen, and this is a problem that has been happening right across New Zealand and actually across the world, because we know that the technology is amazing—it’s great, we love it—but it has this dark side and there are individuals who seek to exploit each other with this dark side.

There is a grey area in our law. For those families and those victims of this crime, when they have called the police and they’ve gone for help, they’ve found that, while they get support and there is the sympathy side of things, our laws are not up to scratch. Our Harmful Digital Communications Act has a grey area in it, and it does not allow for synthesised images or AI-generated images, and there is that gap in our legislation that is being exploited right now. If we don’t have our police investigating and we don’t have people being held to account, it is basically setting up our young people to say that this is OK, and that this House, this Government, says that it’s OK to do this kind of thing to one another. At the very minimum, we need to say that it is not OK and we need to close that gap.

The other thing that happens is there’s no victim support. We know that, if you’re a victim of a crime, you become eligible for Victim Support. Some of these schools and communities are finding themselves up in arms about what to do. They have no support. If you’re the victim, you’re unable to access the likes of ACC to get some counselling and some therapy sessions, so that is another huge reason that we need to make sure that we identify this and close the gap.

Madam Speaker, I know that you need me to get on to the specifics of this bill, which is the boring part. In the drafting of this bill, there was a little bit of back and forth. I wanted this legislation to be as clear as possible to ensure that it covers what we want it to cover and doesn’t overreach into areas that we don’t want it to cover, like satire or art, and legitimate uses of AI technology. The select committee will work through the specifics, but I want to ensure the intent behind the legislation is clear and it is on the record.

This bill amends the Harmful Digital Communications Act and the Crimes Act. The word which appears as written in the legislation is the one that I got questioned about the most during my consultation with academics and with NGOs, etc. A deepfake is by its very nature not a real recording of the person depicted. It is fabrication, but the harm is no less real. The image is presented to the world as though it were that person, and the victim is identified, humiliated, and exploited just the same.

For the same reason, we have defined “subject” to include an individual who appears to be featured or depicted in the recording. The person whose likeness has been hijacked is the victim, regardless of whether they were physically present when the image was generated. That is the whole point of this legislation: to recognise that synthetic, intimate imagery of a real, identifiable person is a violation of that person—full stop. The test for what “appears to be” is not intended to be a technical one. I trust that the courts will interpret this fairly. The intent is that the test is whether a reasonable person would identify the individual subject depicted. If so, that subject has been violated.

Now to three terms: “created”, “synthesised”, or “altered”. These are intended to cover actions that make an image appear to depict the person naked, partially clothed, engaged in sexual activity, or in the other circumstances listed. They are not intended to capture trivial edits such as cropping, colour corrections, or the filters that everybody is out there using. The mischief this bill addresses is a creation of those false intimate depictions, not image editing in general.

I want to be clear about what consent means in the context of synthetic, created material. Consent means, in this bill, that being depicted in a manner showing naked or in sexual activity or in any other intimate circumstances set out, unless you have given your explicit consent to have this made of you, then that is not consent. The bill is not intended to cover any instances where the subject has consented to both the creation, synthesis, and alteration of the image, because, let’s be real, the technology’s out there, and there might be people that do consent to this.

I also want to be clear about what this bill is not intended to capture. It’s not intended to capture clear parody or satire. This bill targets the material that purports to depict a real identifiable person in genuine intimate circumstances, as set out in the provisions, without their consent. Legitimate political satire and comedic commentary, where it’s clear on the face of the work that it’s not a true depiction of the person, fall outside of this scope. That is partially why I have said that this bill is to go to the Social Services and Community Committee, because the previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter, has a bill before that committee around satire and parody. I think that it’s actually quite fitting that both bills get looked at together so that we do make sure that we cover our protections around our freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to have some fun.

I also want to address some of the wider ramifications in the intent regarding them. I’ve heard some suggestions from members about a wider regime, ownership of image, banning of nudify apps etc.,—things that we are seeing around the rest of the world. I don’t intend to state a position on those, other than to say that this is something that we can do right now that would actually have meaningful action. It’s something that we could do right now that says, “You know what? We don’t actually condone this behaviour.” That message alone can be enough of a deterrence to get people to realise the harm that they are causing.

In relation to all of these aspects of the bill, I would really like to thank a few people. In particular, I want to thank the Helen Clark Foundation for the many conversations that I’ve had with them. I’d also like to thank the many legal professionals from Victoria University, Canterbury University, and Auckland University for all their insights. Thank you for hosting me with some of your students. It’s been a great pleasure to discuss this particular bill and, actually, artificial intelligence in general. I also want to thank the NGOs that are working in this space, whether it’s around the internet or whether it’s about our kids keeping safe on the internet. I want to thank Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who’s here in the building. It’s not often that you see ACT and Te Pāti Māori working together on a bill. Hana, I want to acknowledge you and thank you for the support that you gave me straight off the bat for this bill. I also want to thank Kahurangi Carter from the Greens, who’s also been an avid supporter of my bill and helping lobby everybody around the House for this bill, which has been great. I want to thank Helen White from Labour. She’s been a great person to talk to about this bill. I know she’s extremely passionate about this area and would like to see some change as well. I also want to thank all of the other parties for your engagement and your support.

I know that this bill is getting the support of the House, and that means an awful lot to me, but let’s be real: this means an awful lot to all of our kids and future kids that this will protect. Last but not least, I want to thank, actually, my team for the help that they gave me in constructing this bill and give a special mention to Dray, who’s actually up in the gallery tonight. He would be awfully embarrassed that I’ve mentioned him, but as a young researcher, this as one of his first bills that he worked on and drafted for me. Thank you, Dray, for all your support. I commend this bill to the House.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (21:44): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, and I just want to take the opportunity to, first, congratulate Laura McClure for bringing this bill before the House and working on a very difficult issue, one that’s a function of the new technology that’s now available, a very fast-moving technology around artificial intelligence that enables anyone to generate a very realistic image of someone, one that is fake but that people either cannot distinguish or don’t distinguish between that and the actual person. It can cause real harm because these images that circulate do percolate through our digital ecosystem, which, now, increasingly is how people perceive the reality that they exist in, and the perception of other people within the digital ecosystem is that it is increasingly such an important part of our physical world.

The National Party will be supporting this bill to select committee, where it will then review further support. It wants to hear from submitters. It wants to look at this really carefully, noting that reform relating to deepfakes needs careful analysis and consideration to avoid unintended consequences and is futureproofed in a fast-moving environment where technological advances have exacerbated the production of deepfakes for a variety of purposes. Deepfakes sit on a continuum of realism, and harm caused by the use can make regulation nuanced and complex.

I’m pleased to see this going to the Social Services and Community Committee, of which I’m chair. I look forward to the opportunity that we will have to hear from submitters and to work through what is quite a complex but also very difficult issue in a fast-paced, technological environment.

I note that this bill intends to amend the Crimes Act 1961 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 to expand the definition of “intimate visual recording” to include images of videos that are created, synthesised, or altered to depict a person’s likeness in intimate contexts without their consent. Expanding the “intimate visual recording” definition would add those deepfakes to the existing offences in those Acts relating to creating, publishing, or posting visual recordings.

As I mentioned earlier, technological advances mean that almost anyone—and it pretty much is anyone these days—can create highly realistic deepfakes in minutes or less. It’s becoming easier and easier, and this technology is accelerating. It can certainly be used for many beneficial things. As my colleague mentioned before, there are uses where this technology can be relevant to this House in terms of parody, and I think we will be grappling with both of these rather interesting but also complex issues in the current technological framework that we now exist in.

However, those deepfake images or videos that are sexually explicit or pornographic are a serious and accelerating issue, particularly for young people and particularly, I think, for young women. It is something that we have a duty to make sure that we can have legislation in place that can acknowledge the technological complexity but also really grapple with that harm, which can be very real despite it being a digital pictorial representation. The harms are real and can be quite significant.

I am looking forward to this. The National Party has always had a big priority on victims and on ensuring we protect people who could be victims and preventing victimisation. We’ve done a lot around this in, for example, the stalking and harassment amendment Act, which created a new stalking and harassment offence. This is an important piece that I really congratulate Laura for bringing before the House so that we can hear from submitters and we can take a careful look at the legislation. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:48): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise to support this bill. I’d like to thank Laura McClure for bringing it to the House. Last week, I went to a conference that was about domestic violence, and there is a woman called Nikki Denholm, who is a real expert in this area. I had talked to Nikki and seen a presentation maybe a year ago, and three parts of her presentation were utterly new to me, because this landscape is changing so fast. One of those was about deepfakes. It was about something called artificial intelligence companions. Children and adults are creating these companions, and they use often an image that is of somebody that they might have a crush on or somebody they know, without their consent, and they create a companion, and they do what they want with that companion. It’s pretty creepy. I also heard from her that when they have looked at the research, the mainstream porn sites show that there’s aggression—aggression being slapping, rough sex, etc.,—in 45 percent of mainstream porn. These are things that children are looking at, not because they are actually even looking for them but because they are coming up into their social media content.

Finally, I just wanted to talk about something I’ve never heard about before, which is a form of fiction, and it’s called dark romance. Nikki asked the audience—who were people like me or they were workers in the area—whether they’d ever heard of dark romance, and nobody put their hand up. She said if she had asked an audience of 18-year-olds, they all would have been putting up their hands. Those are like fan fictions, and what people are doing is they’re contributing to a story which is basically one of abduction, rape, and then turning the rapist into your lover. That is what is going on in the stories that people are telling.

I’m telling those stories because I think it’s important that we face the changing landscape head on, or we’re going to have real trouble. One instance of those is the deepfake instance, but many aren’t. This bill won’t solve all those problems. We are going to have to have some really robust discussions. We are going to have to keep an eye on this area and respond to it very effectively, because we’re in trouble here. We have had, recently, a senior police officer looking at child porn and child abuse that was created by artificial intelligence. I am concerned that some people think that that is somehow more acceptable. We have got a problem in this country that is huge and a problem internationally that is huge.

And so, here’s my last story that I think we should know. There is some really good material, if you look, on people who are concerned about the amount of children abused by web camera, and 500,000 Filipino children have been abused by web camera by people in other countries, ordering that—from places like New Zealand, the US, and the UK. It is horrifying and we must, must, must react to these things.

I’m grateful that this is coming to my select committee and I can do what I can to get it through as quickly as possible, but I hope that we work cooperatively well beyond this particular contribution, though I value it highly. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (21:53): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill. I want to acknowledge Laura McClure, who, quite briefly, raised this issue in Parliament now a while back and is having the bill being read for the first time.

I think what we can all agree on is that creating images that are synthesised or altered to appear to be intimate visual images, with the design to harm or shame someone, is a form of violence. I think this is something that the House can stand behind to actually stamp out and get rid of, hopefully. This bill does amend the Crimes Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act to basically criminalise the use of these images for the purposes of harming other people.

Part of what the Green Party is particularly interested in being able to unpack at the select committee—hopefully constructively with other political parties and submitters, as well as officials—is the penalty for the offence and looking at the evidential basis behind it, as well as looking at, particularly, the issue around how can we also support young people, and particularly, I will say, young men, to move towards a place of a culture where the patriarchal norms that have led to so much violence upon women and other gender minorities can be addressed.

The member Laura McClure talked about the technology that enables this violence as being amazing. I think, ultimately, what we have here is not just an issue of a lack of criminality, but one of a culture shift that needs to happen, as well. Ultimately, these are two issues that, for us in the Greens, we want to make sure that we can adequately look at in the select committee stage.

So the Green Party is supporting this bill. We want to again reiterate that for us, this is about addressing a form of violence that can lead to shame, lifelong harm, and—worse—loss of life. We acknowledge that, with emerging technologies, this form of gender-based violence—or gender-based violence more broadly, sorry—can evolve and new ways of enacting violence upon people can be created with new emerging technologies. So once again, we commend the member for her constructive engagement with our political party on this issue, and we look forward to working with her and others in the select committee stage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.