Wednesday, 13 May 2026

Wednesday, 13 May 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.]

Visitors

Türkiye—Delegation, Grand National Assembly

SPEAKER (14:00): Members, I’m sure that you’ll wish to join with me in welcoming Mr Serkan Bayram, Member of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Presentation

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:01): No petitions have been delivered for presentation. No papers have been delivered. Two select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

International treaty examination of the Double Taxation Agreement between New Zealand and Croatia

International treaty examination of the Double Taxation Agreement between New Zealand and Iceland.

SPEAKER: The international treaty examinations are set down for consideration.

Bills

Fair Trading Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:01): One bill has been presented for introduction.

CLERK (14:01): Fair Trading Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:01) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:02) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly many practical policies that have had a lot of benefit for Māori. For example, the Government has reformed the Residential Tenancies Act and taxation around residential property, which has seen lower rents. We’ve also seen a higher portion of homes being sold to first-home buyers. With Māori housing statistics being below the New Zealand average, this is something that disproportionately benefits Māori. In education, we have seen a dramatic increase of standards thanks to our Minister of Education introducing the science of learning, which has seen the number of young students at or above the standard for reading and writing nearly double in only two years. Then there are charter schools, which are being embraced by iwi Māori up and down the motu.

Rawiri Waititi: What aid and assistance, if any, has been given to Everlee Wihongi, who has been detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for over a month without any charges?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) are very aware of Miss Wihongi’s situation. They are engaged with the American authorities and will continue to work with them to ascertain all of the facts and present the New Zealand Government’s view. I don’t think it would be helpful for me to say in the House any more than that.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters when he made false accusations about Everlee Wihongi, blaming her for being detained, and will the Prime Minister require him to correct the record?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I don’t believe the member is in a position to know that the accusations are false. If he does, the right thing to do would be to talk with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because it sounds as though he may have information that would be helpful to Miss Wihongi, rather than grandstanding in the House about it.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he strongly condemn Everlee’s treatment by ICE when her whānau have stated that she has been shackled for hours, waiting in hot weather, being deprived of food, sleeping on the ground, and not being able to shower?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I’ve said earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade are in contact with the American authorities. They seek to establish the facts, and they will present New Zealand’s position in line with our values as a country. Those complaints are best presented to the Minister of Foreign Affairs so that MFAT can use them in order to best serve her as a New Zealand citizen. I don’t believe that it is useful to try and politicise the issue, which is obviously very sensitive for her.

Rawiri Waititi: What penalties can the Government impose on the United States if they continue to abuse New Zealand citizens and other immigrants in ICE detention centres?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we don’t generally think of ourselves as penalising other countries. None the less, where we believe there has been a breach of our understandings between countries, we ensure that we are doing the best to represent New Zealand’s position on the world stage, behind closed doors and openly, and I think our Minister of Foreign Affairs has had a good couple of years of doing that, after we were nearly invisible on the world stage under his predecessor.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he commit to doing everything in his power to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. No talking at all while someone is asking a question.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he commit to doing everything in his power to ensure that Everlee Wihongi and all New Zealand citizens detained by ICE are treated humanely and released as soon as possible?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is exactly what the New Zealand Government is doing through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is the answer I gave to my first question, and my advice to the member, if he wants it, would be to try to vary his questions in relation to the answers he has received. He might find out more.

Finance

Question No. 2

NANCY LU (National) (14:06) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on New Zealand’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:06): Today, the Prime Minister announced that the new net operating package in Budget 2026 will be $2.1 billion, which is less than the $2.4 billion allowance set last December. The operating allowance is the amount of net new operating funding, on average, per annum that the Government intends to spend on policy initiatives in the Budget. Previous Governments have announced an allowance, then used it as a springboard to ramp up Budget spending even higher. This Government, on the other hand, considers the operating allowance to be a ceiling, not a floor, and has committed to keeping new Budget spending below it. We did so in Budget 2024, in Budget 2025, and we will do so again in Budget 2026.

Nancy Lu: How is the Government delivering a tighter operating package?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Operating packages are a net concept. Spending increases are offset by savings and revenue initiatives within a single envelope, so Budget 2026 will continue to invest in front-line public services, such as health, education, and law and order, but it will also identify savings across Government and reprioritise those savings to higher-value areas. That approach has been a feature of previous Budgets and will again be a feature of Budget 2026. There is an alternative. The alternative would be to fund essential new spending through higher taxes or more borrowing. That would weaken the economy, increase Government debt, and leave New Zealand more exposed to international shocks.

Nancy Lu: How has the international environment shaped the Government’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The international environment has undoubtedly become more volatile. Ongoing political tensions, supply chain disruptions, and energy shocks have increased uncertainty and dampened global growth, but that reality strengthens, not weakens, the case for fiscal discipline. In April, the International Monetary Fund warned Governments not to take their eye off the ball at this time and to continue to pursue credible medium-term fiscal consolidation to rebuild essential fiscal buffers. That fiscal consolidation is sorely needed, because, here at home, the Government’s books have been in deficit since 2020 and debt has grown as a share of GDP, from below 20 percent to above 40 percent.

Nancy Lu: What is the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s strategy is to achieve fiscal consolidation over the medium term through ongoing spending restraint. In particular, the Government’s specific targets are to reduce core Crown expenses towards 30 percent of GDP; they are to return the headline operating measure, OBEGALx—the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—to surplus by the 2028-2029 fiscal year; and they are to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward path towards 40 percent. Having an operating package of only $2.1 billion is a significant contribution to each of these targets, and the Budget will show exactly what progress is being made in meeting them.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:10) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:10) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, exactly, I do—and particularly the Government’s announcement today that we will be keeping to a new operating allowance of $2.1 billion. The Government making careful use of taxpayers’ money and gradually driving down the proportion of the economy that’s consumed by Government leaves New Zealanders in a stronger position to weather the storms of trade wars and actual wars that have affected us in the last two years. The alternative is a Government that has a long history of blowing out the credit card, leaving New Zealanders with very few options except for high inflation and high interest rates—and now they’re not even doing that; they’re just producing lame TikTok videos.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters that his own Government is attempting to “write a Budget out of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because of their failed economic policies”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government is not attempting to write a Budget out of the Superannuation Fund because the Government Budget is not changing superannuation policy, as is agreed between our parties. This is the difference: three parties work together—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and produce not just careful use of taxpayer money but actually manage to save more than we initially thought we could. The Labour Party laughs at this, because for them it’s all about the game. For us, it’s about New Zealanders’ lives affected by inflation and interest rates from too many turkeys spending too much of their money. On this side, we take careful use of taxpayer money and balancing the Budget without new taxes very seriously, and he ought to, too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the third-ranked Minister in his own Government tell the New Zealand public just this morning that the Government was going to be raiding the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in order to prop up its Budget?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can only guess that he was alluding to future policy positions that parties might take. It’s a good question for the Labour Party: show us the money. How are they going to pay for the pay equity and the superannuation and the fees-free, and all those cheques that they’re writing out that their body can’t cash?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be drawing down on the Superannuation Fund in this year’s Budget?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government guarantee that it will not be using, in this year’s Budget, any funds from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for anything other than their legislated purpose?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can absolutely confirm that the Government will follow the law, and the reason for that is very important. You see, we had a Government that didn’t follow the law; they took $30 million to buy out Ihumātao and created a steaming pile of that member knows just what that this Government is still trying to fix after they misappropriated funds and didn’t follow the law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What was Winston Peters referring to when he said that the Government was going to be attempting to write its Budget out of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think we’re having either a communication or a memory problem here. As I said earlier, I can only guess that he is referring to positions that parties might take in the future, and one of the parties I like him referring to is the many positions that the Labour Party takes on its fiscal management.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he thinks the Minister of Foreign Affairs has a memory problem, and Nicola Willis thinks the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very confused, why should New Zealanders believe that he’s a fit person to be a Minister?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I wasn’t referring to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, you see the member asking the question may have, himself, forgotten that I’ve answered his question only seconds earlier.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his own Government, thinks that the Government’s economic policies are failing, why should New Zealanders think any differently, given that under his leadership the economy has shrunk, more New Zealanders have lost their jobs—

SPEAKER: No, just the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins:—the cost of living has gotten worse—

SPEAKER: Just the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins:—inflation’s going up, and mortgage interest rates are going back up again as well? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: You might just like to put that question again without all the suppositions at the end, which are outside the parameters for asking questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome your newfound stickleness for the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that is going to apply to the questions, why doesn’t it apply to the answers that are being delivered?

SPEAKER: It does apply to the answers and I have—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how is it in order—

SPEAKER: No hang on, not a good day to have an argument. So, ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his own Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks that his Government are pursuing failed economic policies that have seen the economy shrink, unemployment increase, interest rates going back up, inflation going back up, and more New Zealanders losing their jobs, why should New Zealanders think any differently?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, Mr Speaker, they’re spicy today. First of all, mortgage rates going back up: now, that’s an interesting concept isn’t it because they can only go back up to the place they were when he was in Government, so what he’s conceding is that they have come down dramatically for Kiwis under this Government, as has inflation which peaked at 7.3 percent. We’ve got it down to 5.3 percent, and even unemployment has just gone down slightly in the last quarter. So there are many, many reasons why people might trust in the economic management of this Government; three parties united behind a careful, fiscally responsible Budget that gives New Zealanders a much better future than they would if Mr Marmite Sandwich, with his TikTok memes was in charge of the company credit card again.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:17) 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?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:17) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and I’d particularly like to highlight the Hon Andrew Hoggard’s recent announcement that the Government will be endorsing a marketplace for environmental good deeds mainly done on farms. If you plant trees or save wetlands, there’ll actually be a marketplace where you can be funded by those good people in the community and in business who would like to pay for those kinds of things to happen somewhere in the country, because they care about the environment. It’s a very good example of a practical approach from practical people, ensuring that all of us can be better environmental custodians. I highlight this because the Green Party aren’t always focused—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough. That’s enough.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept that the Government’s forecasted deficit is now smaller because of the large profits paid out in dividends, made by Government - majority owned power companies?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is certainly true that the ownership of State-owned enterprises—sometimes, but not always—delivers dividends that improve the Government’s financial position. However, I have seen suggestions that would ensure that that almost never happens. I have seen suggestions that energy companies should somehow limit the price of the energy that they sell to the rate of inflation. Now, let’s just think about how that works for a moment: the price they sell it at is set in a uniform auction at the price of the highest bidder in the electricity market every half an hour. In order for them to limit the price they sell energy, every single participant in the electricity market in New Zealand would need to collude and breach the Commerce Act to achieve that. Now, the reason I say this is that I happen to be Parliament’s only electrical engineer and I know a little bit about it. On the other hand, there are people that listen to their focus groups and decide—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s good. Just shorten up the answers a little bit.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the acting Prime Minister understand the difference between wholesale and retail power markets?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you for that invitation. Yes, I do. You see, the thing is there are actually three costs. There’s your energy cost, there’s your lines cost, and there is your retail cost. The thing about retail is that you are beholden to the price of the energy that you buy. If the suggestion is that somehow retailers should charge nothing or perhaps even pay people to take electricity by selling it for less than they can buy it on the wholesale market, well, that’s a very interesting bit of bumper-sticker politics, but I don’t think it’s going to work. What I’d say to the member is that electricity markets are very delicate things, not best designed by a focus group.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it fair that shareholders, including the Government, are collecting near record dividends from power companies while 200,000 New Zealanders cannot afford to heat their homes?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the question is not whether it’s fair but what can be done about it, and what is being done about it to improve everyone’s situation is a record level of investment in generation, the highest since the 1970s and 1980s under Think Big, but it’s being done without a cent of taxpayer money. Now, the one thing that could really bugger that up is if someone came in and put price controls on the electricity market and made sure that nobody wanted to invest, just like member helped do with the oil and gas market.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do Government-owned or Government - majority owned gentailers have the power to reduce their prices immediately or not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is a bit of a theme—I give answers and then they ask questions that I’ve already answered. In order for one participant in an energy market to reduce the price, they would have to collude with every other market participant to bring the energy price down. Now, that is, first of all, illegal, and, second of all, it would be a total, I guess, destruction of the electricity market as New Zealand generators have known it for the last 30 years. I guess they could start selling it for a smaller margin or less than the wholesale energy price, and all the retail arms could go broke and any other retailer could go broke, and we’d have no other competition, but this is a perfect example—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Explaining is losing.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Who was that who said, “Explaining is losing.”? I actually think we do need to explain to New Zealanders sometimes what we know and how these things work rather than going into a focus group and selling bumper-sticker politics in something as complex as an electricity market.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he seen the evidence and analysis that the partial privatisation of our power companies in 2012, just by overwhelming public opposition, has contributed to far higher power prices than would have otherwise been the case?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That evidence brings up a certain contradiction in the member’s line of questioning. You see, she started out claiming that the reason power prices are high is that the Government is such a rapacious claimer of dividends boosting its bottom line that Government ownership pushes up power prices. Now she’s saying that fact that half of them are not owned by the Government also pushes up power prices, and this is the problem, Chlöe Swarbrick, when you run all your policy based on focus groups, sound bites, slogans, and bumper stickers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: We can’t afford focus groups like you can.

SPEAKER: It’s all good. We’ll have question No.—

Hon Chris Bishop: I wonder why that is.

SPEAKER: Just a moment, Mr Bishop.

Finance

Question No. 5

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:24) to the Minister of Finance: Fạiȧkse‘ea, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:24): In context, yes. I particularly stand by my statements that under the Budgets I deliver, operating allowances will be a ceiling, not a floor.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many times has Treasury revised down its growth forecasts since she became the Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would have to check, as has been traversed in this House. In particular, the Treasury has acknowledged that the assumptions it made in the pre-election fiscal update were wildly too optimistic and led to significant changes in its forecast outlook, which has changed the projections under this Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she intend to use funding from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for anything outside its current purpose while she is Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I hope to be the Minister of Finance for many Governments yet to come. In the term of this Government, for the Budgets for which I am responsible, the answer to that question is no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she rule out selling all or part of Kiwibank while she is the Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, I am responsible, as the Minister of Finance in this Government, for the policies in this term, and we will not be doing that in this term.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ characterisation of her spending and Budget decisions that they are “all coming home to roost now, and here we are, five months, six months ago before an election, and all the birds are coming home”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that the member, as is often her habit, is mischaracterising the Minister of Foreign Affairs and trade. This is a habit she has; she often likes to take my quotations out of—

SPEAKER: Good—just enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —context, too. I have traversed carefully the comments by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and have spoken with him about this subject. The reflection that he shares is that, actually, successive Governments have, in his view, had to make spending decisions based on a lack of economic growth, and on that, I am agreed. We are a Government that has inherited a train wreck from the last lot, and we are now having to respond to that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with David Seymour that all three coalition parties are united on economic policies, or the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has said that her Government has pursued “failed economic policies”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, I think the member takes quotations out of context, and I agree that it is a significant achievement that the three parties of this Government—the National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party—in a time of global turmoil, with finances under strain and with a fuel crisis, have pulled together an excellent Budget that we agree to, which is delivering our commitments within a smaller operating allowance than we forecast, allowing us to return the books to a better balance sooner.

RMA Reform

Question No. 6

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (14:28) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made on national direction under the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:28): It was great to announce last week that the Government has made changes to the National Environmental Standards for Marine Aquaculture, which will remove unnecessary complexity and cost for aquaculture operators. These changes support marine farmers to refine their operations within existing footprints, trial new approaches, and adopt better practices, and they provide councils with a clearer national direction about how certain activities should be assessed. These updates are another step in making the resource management system more workable and proportionate while protecting our marine environment.

Grant McCallum: Why are these changes needed, and why are they so important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Previous consenting processes for aquaculture were costly, complex, and disproportionate, especially for minor changes. It is worth noting, as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has noted on so many occasions, that the potential for growth in aquaculture is huge. It already employs more than 3,000 people, it generates over $650 million in exports annually, and we do have a Government target of $3 billion in annual revenue that was set out in the aquaculture development plan led by Minister Jones last year. These national environmental standards come into effect on 4 June and apply to new activities, and we’re making decisions on marine aquaculture consents.

Grant McCallum: What other changes to national direction has he progressed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: National direction does the heavy lifting in our planning system in terms of what is allowed and where it is allowed, but it has been neglected by previous Governments. This Government has made the largest suite of changes to national direction in New Zealand history. We’ve removed barriers to infrastructure, we’ve made it easier to build granny flats and support housing, we’ve removed unworkable rules for the primary sector, and we’re streamlining consenting for renewable energy. Just last week, new rules for consenting electric vehicle chargers came into force, setting clear national rules to make it easier and quicker to get chargers in the ground—and there is more to come.

Grant McCallum: How do these changes relate to the Government’s work to replace the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, some may wonder why the Government’s making changes under the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), and there are a couple of reasons. The first is to unclog the system that exists right now and provide quick wins for people out there trying to do things in the real economy. The second point is that this is part of the transition to the wholesale replacement of the RMA with a new regime—a much more liberal planning regime—under the Planning and Natural Environment Bills. Many of the changes—in fact, almost all of the changes we’ve made over the last two years—will carry through into the new system. Whether it’s aquaculture, electric vehicles, farming, mining, quarrying, infrastructure, renewable energy, granny flats, or housing, those changes will carry through into the new, much more permissive, and much more sensible system.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Amended Answer to Oral Question

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:31): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a statement in clarification of an earlier statement I made in the House.

SPEAKER: You’re seeking leave?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m seeking leave.

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member Barbara Edmonds asked questions about contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund. As is already on the record, as with the Budget delivered by the last Government in 2019, our Government in last year’s Budget ensured that some of the annual contributions required under the Act to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund were invested in the Elevate NZ Venture Fund. As I say, that was not a new approach: $240 million was diverted by the last Government from the New Zealand Super Fund contributions to the NZ Venture Investment Fund. I want to also point out that Elevate is administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation under a second mandate in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, supporting the early development of our capital markets.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:32) 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?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:32) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and I’d particularly like to draw attention to the work of our Minister of Health in improving immunisation rates for under-twos. It’s, in many ways, a sad story. In 2017, 93 percent of under-twos were having their immunisations, but by 2022 that had fallen to only 75 percent. Since this Government has returned to power, that rate has begun increasing. It is now 83 percent of under-twos immunised, and our goal is by the end of the decade to reach 95 percent. There are people who talk endlessly about how they care for their tamariki, but how could anyone who thinks that leave them unvaccinated and vulnerable to Third World diseases?

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the characterisation that conservation redress is negotiated in good faith and as a mechanism for iwi to uphold their ancestral obligations to the whenua land that Māori have been alienated from due to the actions and inactions of the Crown?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, on the face of it, that seems a very reasonable statement.

Hon Marama Davidson: Has his Government resolved all settlement issues relating to the Conservation Amendment Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the legislation is yet to go through a full passage in the House. It will no doubt be open to submissions and it is quite possible that some members of the public will draw to the Parliament’s attention some sort of incompatibility between Treaty settlements—which are wide, and there are many of them—and the operation of the Conservation Act after it has been amended. However, I have great faith in our Minister of Conservation, who has very carefully examined these matters, and, I think, we can proudly say that that bill is in a very good place as it enters the parliamentary process.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that the Minister of Conservation was advised by his officials to pause the reforms by 18 to 24 months because, “there would be more time for good faith engagement with the PSGEs to test and refine proposals to amend settlements. Pausing the reforms would likely be received well by PSGEs and may serve to enhance the Māori-Crown relationship.”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is certainly true that members of the public service frequently advise that there should be more delays, more consultation and, frankly, more navel gazing. But this Government believes that we are elected with the authority to achieve better policy for New Zealanders, and the right place to test that is at an election. The former Minister might be interested to know that you don’t have to just do what unelected bureaucrats say; you can take your responsibility and take initiative.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did he see a proposal at Cabinet, as recommended by the Department of Conservation, to seek a decision on providing co-approval and co-development roles for post-settlement governance entities in the new conservation system?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I would need to revise all of the material that has come before Cabinet on that matter to be sure if such a proposal was mentioned in any of the papers. But, I think, what is very clear is that this Government believes that New Zealanders, while there are things that make us different—and we should celebrate many of them—at our heart are New Zealand citizens and human beings with the same rights and duties to access all of the opportunity that this great country has to offer.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that the amendments set out in the proposed bill better clarify how section 4, the Treaty principles reference in the Conservation Act, will be interpreted for area planning and concession decision making, reducing immense frustrations amongst iwi, business—

SPEAKER: No, no. You can ask him a question—you can’t tell him what the answer is. So we’ll leave that.

Hon David Seymour: I didn’t hear the answer.

SPEAKER: Read the Hansard, you’ll love it.

Education

Question No. 8

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:37) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has the Government made about school property redevelopment projects?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:37): Last week, the Government announced $56.6 million in redevelopment funding, delivering projects at six schools across New Zealand. This is part of the Government’s funding increase of $880 million into school property maintenance through Budgets 2024 and 2025 to start to clear the backlog of projects that have been languishing in the pipeline for years. It’s a significant investment into school maintenance, and we understand the importance of maintaining the assets that you have. This investment will give confidence to schools that we are prioritising maintenance that’s been deferred for years, giving families confidence that their children will be learning in warm, safe, dry classrooms.

Katie Nimon: Which schools are benefiting from this investment?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The investment will deliver 52 new and replacement classrooms at Kerikeri High School, Pinehill School, Hutt Intermediate, Natone Park School, Ashburton Intermediate School, and Māruawai College. This investment will replace ageing infrastructure and address long-standing condition issues at these schools, and construction is expected to begin within the next six months.

Katie Nimon: What is the Government doing to improve delivery of school property projects?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our approach to school property is clear: deliver more classrooms more efficiently. Through the use of off-site manufactured builds and repeatable classroom designs, we’ve delivered 583 classrooms in 2024—31 percent more than 2023—delivering classrooms to many schools have been waiting for some time. We’re also establishing the New Zealand School Property Agency to further improve infrastructure delivery and to drive even better value for money, and we’re funding and delivering the classrooms that our teachers and students deserve.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Māruawai College principal said to the Otago Daily Times, “Minister Stanford rang me, she’s been taking a big interest in the development. I think this is a sign they’ve committed to modernising our school and once they’ve done this one, I think they’re committed to knocking down the rest. We’re absolutely thrilled. It’s a relief in so many ways.” The principal of Kerikeri High School told The Northern Advocate that the upgrade was long overdue and marked a significant step forward for the school.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 9

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:39) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he agree with Cameron Brewer’s statement about the Government’s supermarket policy, “it’s working”; if so, has increased competition brought prices down?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:40): I always agree with the perpetually youthful Cameron Brewer, particularly that we are starting to see encouraging signs that reforms are improving grocery competition and are working. I’d like to thank Nicola Willis for the great work she is doing. This Government has moved quickly to reduce barriers to entry into the grocery sector, including creating an express lane for new supermarkets and strengthening penalties for misleading or deceptive pricing. Grocery prices are influenced by a range of factors, including global commodity prices, transport costs, energy prices, weather events, and wider inflation pressures. This Government is increasing competitive pressure across a range of sectors.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Tighten it up a bit.

Arena Williams: Will the Minister equip the Commerce Commission to improve competition law in response to a new report that describes that sector as one with little to no competition?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This Government is beefing up the Commerce Commission, as we will see with the Commerce Commission reforms. The member may point to that report, but everything she points to is everything that we are attacking, as far as financial services, as far as the energy sector, as far as the telecommunications sector. We are doing a lot, lot more than that Government did, which sat on its hands for six years and food inflation increased by over 12 percent in the year to March 2023.

SPEAKER: Answers need to be confined to the question, otherwise there will be penalties for the Government side.

Arena Williams: Is he scrapping his own Government’s big competition law change on pricing to ban predatory pricing?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We are focused on competition. We are focused on improving the competition settings across the supermarket sector, across the financial services sector, across the insurance sector, across the telecommunications and energy sector. We are the Government that is, for the first time in a long time, focused on competition, because we know that, with better competition settings, consumers benefit.

Arena Williams: Is predatory pricing fine, and should consumers just accept it?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: If this member was so interested in all these issues, they would not have sat on their hands for six years.

SPEAKER: No, no—you can’t use a question like that to attack the questioner. Answer the question.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We are focused on predatory pricing, for sure. We are focused on fixing the Fair Trading Act, which is being introduced into the House, as you said, at 2 o’clock today: more penalties for those that are trading unfairly. We are squarely focused on all of these issues, more so than any Government ever before.

Arena Williams: Has he funded and equipped the Commerce Commission to investigate the role that supermarket buyer power and own-brand labelling played in the closure of Wattie’s operations and the loss of local food production?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: As I said before, with our Commerce Commission reforms, the Commerce Commission is being beefed up—is being beefed up—and any powers from the Grocery Commissioner, who is there till 2028, will be transferred over to the Commerce Commission, with a square focus on all the things that she has talked about today. We are focused solely on improving competition settings, and across a range of sectors. Again, I commend the good work that the Hon Nicola Willis has done in the grocery space and will continue to do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No wonder Luxon thought he was an usher!

Arena Williams: Will he advocate for New Zealand consumers, who are paying record prices—

SPEAKER: No, just a moment. Nobody else speaks when someone is asking a question.

Arena Williams: Will he advocate for New Zealand consumers, who are paying record prices for basic food while local manufacturers get priced out of existence?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Of course we will continue to advocate for those who are paying too high prices. That’s why this Government is singularly focused. That is why this Government is not like the other one, which saw, in the year to March 2023, food prices—there we go, Ms Williams—food prices increased by over 12 percent in the year to March 2023. In the year to March 2026, food prices increased by 3.4 percent. It’s a much better improvement than that Government, when they sat on their hands.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Melissa Lee did better than that!

SPEAKER: Listen, when I call a question, you stop talking.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’re dead right.

SPEAKER: That’s good. Do you want to make that more official, or you’re just saying you apologise and I take it, is how it works?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’ll apologise over a drink.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Dr David Wilson.

Resources

Question No. 10

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (14:45) to the Minister for Resources: What reports, if any, has he seen on critical minerals?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:45): I have seen reports that the country now realises that it is far wealthier than it initially thought it was. Critical minerals have now risen in value, and with the change to the Conservation Act it will be possible for investors and prospectors and explorers to gain easier access because of the development potential pertaining to critical minerals hidden in the Department of Conservation estate. I have just finished a meeting with Assistant Secretary Michael DeSombre explaining how the American critical minerals strategy—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, right! Big—[Interruption] America.

Hon SHANE JONES: —can work here in New Zealand.

Dr David Wilson: Why do we need critical minerals?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, there are some parts of the country, and members from Taranaki, who do not understand the vital importance of vanadium and other such ingredients. From time to time, the matua must excuse the words that come from Luddites. Virtually every modern accoutrement has critical minerals involved, whether it is computers, whether it is phones, whether it is other ordinary essentials. New Zealand must contribute to supply lines and make its contribution as an OECD nation. With characteristic humility, the Minister for Resources will lead that effort.

Dr David Wilson: How can the development of critical minerals support our economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are various troublemakers—people spreading misinformation that the critical minerals sector does not represent economic opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will always be guardrails and various critters; they will be addressed in an appropriate way, whether it’s a gold mine, the development of antimony, or various properties associated with the ironsands or the mineral sands. It’s important that the $1.4 billion sector be enabled to grow, whether it’s through the fast-track legislation—and I accept—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which have failed—which you failed.

Hon SHANE JONES: —that in some areas—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You failed in seabed mining.

Hon SHANE JONES: —the growth in intellect and the growth in intelligence will take a lot longer, and I fear that the longest period of time it will take will be around Ngāti Ruanui and Taranaki.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: So insecure, just because you lost in seabed mining. That little iwi took you on and won.

Dr David Wilson: Why should we develop critical minerals in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: It could very well be that critical minerals are needed for hearing aids, and I rather fear that hearing aids are needed for the member from Western Māori sitting to my right.

SPEAKER: No, no—there’s no need to make those comments.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, I’m just talking about rare properties—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’re obsessed with us.

Hon SHANE JONES: —minerals—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Because you lost—

Hon SHANE JONES: —critical contributors to the capacity of the member of Parliament—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You lost to little ol’ Taranaki iwi.

Hon SHANE JONES: —to stop talking like a wounded hen—

SPEAKER: That’s enough—

Hon SHANE JONES: —and listen to the matua.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. We’ll move now to question No. 11, David MacLeod.

David MacLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We know who’s losing. You guys are goners.

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon SHANE JONES: Haere rā! Haere rā!

Question time interrupted.

Withdrawal from Chamber

Hon Shane Jones

SPEAKER (14:49): Yeah, haere rā, indeed—off you go.

Hon Shane Jones withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: Thank you. No one else will be speaking except for David MacLeod, who will now ask question No. 11.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Mental Health

Question No. 11

Question time resumed.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (14:49) to the Minister of Mental Health: What mental health support has the Minister recently announced to support businesses to improve productivity in the workplace?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (14:49): The Government’s mental health plan is delivering faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. Today, I launched the new Business Mental Health Toolkit, which will support businesses to improve productivity in the workplace through better mental health. The tool kit is free and provides confidential mental health support, delivered in a way that works best for both employers and employees. That’s why we’ve worked with businesses to develop the free tool kit, aimed at medium- and small-sized businesses to help reduce barriers to faster mental health support.

David MacLeod: What evidence shows that by improving mental health in the workplace, productivity can increase?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Poor mental health in the workplace can lead to decreased productivity and high absenteeism rates. Research shows that by improving mental health in the workplace, productivity can increase by around 6 percent to 10 percent. There is strong economic evidence for investing in better mental health in the workplace, with returns of around $5 for every $1 invested into initiatives such as employee assistance programmes. That’s why today I have launched a business mental health tool kit that delivers free and confidential mental health support in a way that works best for the workplace.

David MacLeod: What real-time support does the business mental health tool kit provide?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: For some workplaces, costs can be a barrier to accessing workplace support. The tool kit connects people to free, real-time, confidential support in a way that works for both employers and employees. People can download the Groov app for practical advice, call or text 1737 for free support with a trained counsellor 24/7, or book a time to see someone in person at Access & Choice mental health services.

David MacLeod: What feedback has he seen on the launch of the business mental health tool kit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Business Central and the Wellington Chamber of Commerce welcome the release of the business mental health tool kit, saying, “Often we find SMEs do not have easy access to timely mental health services or at an affordable cost. We are pleased that the Government has released this new tool, which will make these services more accessible.”, while Carly on LinkedIn said, “Cheers to more support for hard-working employees so that they can keep showing up as their best selves.” The business mental health tool kit is just another way the Government is supporting New Zealanders to get faster access to mental health support.

Tertiary Education

Question No. 12

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (14:52) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by her statement, “Obviously, when unemployment goes up, NEET numbers go up”; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (14:52): Yes. Young Kiwis who are not in employment, education, or training (NEET) are often more affected during periods of higher unemployment and economic uncertainty. That is why this Government is focused on rebuilding the economy, creating opportunities through education and training, and strengthening pathways from school into further education and work. Our focus is on ensuring that more young New Zealanders are equipped with the skills and the support they need to succeed.

Shanan Halbert: Is she aware that nearly 100,000 young people are not engaged in education, employment, or training, and why has she done nothing about it?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We have done a great deal about engaging young NEETs, and sadly, there have been a number of young people who have left school with low or no qualifications. That member might want to look at the NCEA issues that caused that. This Government has put in place extra Youth Guarantee places, an extra 175 places this year, to a total of 8,400 young people who participated in Youth Guarantee schemes over 2025; Apprenticeship Boost, which subsidises employers—over $25 million was spent on Apprenticeship Boost through Vote Social Development. And, of course, the redesign of the vocational education and training system was to ensure that we restored regional leadership decision-making into the regions and led to better industry connections.

SPEAKER: Good. That’ll do.

Shanan Halbert: Are an additional 175 Youth Guarantee places going to even touch the sides when there are an additional 100,000 young people not engaged in education, training, or employment since last year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as I said before, the inaction of the previous Government in the compulsory education system—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Stop. Start the answer again.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are more young people in the system who have left school with low or no qualifications due to not achieving well in the compulsory system in previous years, and, therefore, we are having to address catch-ups for those young students. We put an extra 175 places in for this year. The member will have to wait to see what we do in future Budgets.

Shanan Halbert: Does she accept that by cutting the Apprenticeship Boost, she is responsible for the number of apprentices dropping by the thousands?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course the previous Government didn’t budget—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry. In their answers, Ministers can comment on circumstances that they are having to deal with. They can’t start an answer with an accusation against a previous arrangement.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We funded Apprenticeship Boost when a fiscal cliff had been left for that initiative. In fact, we rescued Apprenticeship Boost so that we could continue to subsidise employers for eligible apprentices.

Shanan Halbert: Does nearly 100,000 young people not engaged in education, employment, or training show that she is failing to help young people into work-based learning, polytechnic training, or university?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, it shows that we are having to deal with an economy that was left in a mess so that we are having to grow the economy, keep inflation and interest rates down, reduce wasteful spending, and show discipline around Government spending to ensure that industries and businesses have the confidence to be able to employ young people.

Shanan Halbert: Will she commit to helping universities and polytechnics so they can provide for increased enrolment demand, or will she continue to make them bear the financial brunt of her inaction?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, the member will have to wait to see at Budget time.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a few minutes for those who do need to leave the House to do so quickly and quietly. Yeah—quickly and quietly means no discussions on the way and no talking while you’re leaving.

Debates

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In six months, New Zealanders will go to the polls, and there is one question that is going to be front of mind for Kiwis when they decide who should lead this country after the election. It’s a simple question: are they better off now than they were three years ago? Are the bills easier to pay than they were three years ago? Is it easier to go to the supermarket and pay the bill than it was three years ago? Is it easier to fill up the car than it was three years ago? Is it easier to pay the power bill than it was three years ago? Is it easier to pay the rent than it was three years ago? The answer to those questions for most people is no.

The Government members over there say the answer to those questions was yes. That shows how out of touch they are with New Zealanders. Nicola Willis piping up there and saying, “Yes, yes, yes.”, shows that she has no idea the pain that New Zealand households have been feeling because of the bad decisions of this Government.

This year’s Budget is the Government’s last chance to show New Zealanders that they have a plan that extends beyond just a slogan, that they more to offer New Zealand than just blame and excuses, that they actually feel the pain that New Zealanders are experiencing, and that they’re going to offer them some relief that might make life a bit more comfortable for New Zealand families.

So far, 2½ years into Government, all they’ve got is blame and excuses. We’ve had tax cuts for tobacco companies and tax cuts for landlords while New Zealanders find that the going gets tougher. Those who are working two jobs shouldn’t need to go to a food bank to put food on the table. Superannuitants shouldn’t be queuing up at food banks in order to put food on the table. I challenge members opposite to visit a local foodbank, because they will be told that that is exactly what is happening.

Across the country, Kiwis are struggling and this Government is in total denial about the state of the household economy in New Zealand. They are busy telling New Zealanders that there are green shoots, that we’ve turned the corner, when everything keeps getting harder and harder for New Zealand families. New Zealanders work harder and harder and yet they can’t make ends meet. More and more Kiwis, tens of thousands of Kiwis lose their jobs, and what do they get from this Government? A message from Nicola Willis—they just shouldn’t take it personally. There’s not much more to take personally than losing your job, and this Government is completely out of touch. Hard work is not enough for families to get ahead, and this Government have no answers for them.

As I travel around the country, everybody’s telling me that they’re disappointed in this Government. They voted for this Government on the basis that they said they were going to fix things. They said they were going to get the economy back on track.

Since then, they’ve shrunk the economy. They said they were going get Kiwis back to work; more Kiwis lost their jobs. They said they were going to fix the cost of living; the cost of living has gotten worse. Everything this Government touches and fixes gets worse, and New Zealanders have had enough of it.

I’ll tell you what New Zealanders are also saying around the country—or not saying, more to the point—not one New Zealander is saying, “My life would be better if Nicola Willis just attacked Winston Peters a little bit more; if Shane Jones just attacked migrants a little bit more; if David Seymour just attacked the media a little bit more.” This is a Government focused on attacking other people, including fighting amongst themselves, rather than actually fixing the challenges that face New Zealanders.

This Government has an opportunity, in this year’s Budget, to actually show New Zealanders that there is reason to be hopeful, and yet nothing they’re doing so far suggests that they’re going to rise to that challenge. Nothing suggests that they are going to protect the public services that New Zealanders rely on every day. Nothing that they have been saying suggests that they’re going to provide some relief to New Zealanders. All they are doing is promising to make life harder for New Zealanders because that is what they have spent the last 2½ years doing. New Zealanders have heard the excuses, they’ve heard the infighting, they’ve heard the blame.

Three years on, they want to know that this Government is actually going to do something that makes their lives better. They are still waiting. On 7 November, they won’t have to wait any more because they’ll be able to vote this Government out and vote for a Government that will actually take the concerns they’ve got seriously.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (15:03): New Zealanders are working hard, they’re paying the bills, they’re keeping their heads down. They’re not asking for that kind of political theatre we’ve heard from the Leader of the Opposition, TikToks from the Greens, and press conferences announcing some latest focus group. That’s why ACT, in Government, is taking the same practical approach that Kiwi families are taking, because families are feeling pressure at the checkout, they’re seeing it in their household bills, energy bills, in the weekly petrol spend.

What is ACT doing in Government? Well, more supermarket competition to make sure that there is downward pressure on grocery prices; fewer barriers to rooftop solar, as announced by David Seymour recently, so households can lower their power bills; and more overseas building products allowed into New Zealand so builders and first home buyers get the benefits of world-class products and world-class competition. Practical school transport rules for rural families, so if there’s a school bus going past your farm gate with an empty seat, your son and daughter can get on so you don’t have to make a separate trip to school. That’s practical ACT policy; thanks Minister Andrew Hoggard for suggesting that. Of course, making it easier for pharmacists to prescribe more medicines for common ailments. ACT has already brought back pseudoephedrines so New Zealanders can keep soldiering on, and there’s much more to come.

This is not just theory; it’s butter, petrol, lower rent, and the weekly shop being more affordable. When it comes to cutting the kind of red tape that has hung up New Zealand for years, the Resource Management Act is the worst example of it, because building a retaining wall, putting a granny flat on your property for your mum or a family member to live on, or even building a new home or a farm shed should not become a full legal project demanding multiple consultants and huge bills. This Government’s target, through the replacement of the Resource Management Act with the Planning and the Natural Environment Acts, as they will become, is to reduce the number of consents needed by Kiwis by 40 percent. What does that mean? Well, it means more houses being built, more cheaply, more quickly, getting the infrastructure we need and the energy we need delivered much faster. It means farmers, builders, and homeowners spending less time on paperwork. It also means, when it comes to basic services like water, electricity, and groceries, we have more competition and lower prices over time.

I just want to touch on energy security, because anyone who has filled up the truck, the ute, or the family car at the gas station has been feeling what that extra price means. There are some things that New Zealand has no control over, like foreign conflicts, things happening far over the horizon, but there are some things we do have control over. That’s why ACT has been proud to support the liquefied natural gas projects so we have gas security to underpin wholesale energy prices in the future and make sure they’re affordable, keeping industries and jobs here in New Zealand. We’ve made sure that New Zealand has enough diesel storage onshore, instead of the previous Government hosing out money to consumers and households during COVID, basically running up an ATM account, a credit card bill, for future taxpayers to pay, which led to huge interest rates and massive cost inflation in our economy. What this Government is doing, and why ACT is proud to be a part of it, is we’re focusing on practical solutions like fuel security, keeping inflation down, and making sure that Kiwis have choices in the future.

I just want to touch on something we heard this week: the Greens’ energy announcement. Now, I can see my colleague Lan Pham over there grinning wildly, because she has been proud to block roads, block mines, say how much she hates gas, blocking vital infrastructure and then acting surprised when prices go up. You can’t run a modern economy on vibes, hashtags, and a charging cable plugged into a wishful-thinking plug. You actually have to have policy that works to deliver energy. That is why ACT, in Government, has been proud to lead the development of the national policy statement for infrastructure. For the first time, the Resource Management Act actually says infrastructure is important; likewise, with the national policy statements for renewable energy and electricity networks. If we can make the pipe bigger, if we can deliver more supply, that means New Zealanders have more abundance when it comes to energy and everything else—more affordable choices. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (15:08): It’s easy to stand up in Parliament, as Chris Hipkins just did, and has done for 2½ years, and say, “Things are expensive. Things aren’t getting better. Life is hard.” That is true. It’s true for many people. It’s easy to say that; it’s harder to acknowledge why that is the case, and also, frankly, take some responsibility for why things are where they are, because inflation now and affordability concerns for Kiwis now did not materialise out of thin air in the last two years. They are as a result of years of mismanagement by the previous Government. Economic effects have lag effects. It’s hard to acknowledge that. It’s even harder, as the Labour Party is finding at the moment, to actually come up with policies to deal with the complaints that they have.

What is the answer, ultimately, to affordability, to the cost of living, and to our standard of living, as New Zealanders? Well, there’s kind of two tracks. One is what I call “sugar-hit economics”, which is handouts that feel good at the time but don’t actually deal with the underlying issues. The cost of living payment was an example of this. People will remember the 2022 Budget: money handed out to dead people, French backpackers, investment bankers in London who still had a New Zealand tax residency—bit of extra lolly to get through the winter on the way to the election. We had the fuel tax cuts that were first meant to be temporary for three months, then they went to six months, then they went to nine months, then they went to 12 months. Yeah, sure, cut the price of petrol for a bit, but the expense was higher debt and that, ultimately, we all are paying for now—or have paid for through higher interest rates and higher inflation. You can have sugar policies that make you feel good for a while, but they don’t actually deal with the issues. That’s one path.

The second path is the path this Government is taking, which is harder, involves courage, involves boldness, involves tough decisions, involves actually weighing up trade-offs, and involves, actually, being honest and up front with New Zealanders that we can’t do everything all at the same time and that actually dealing with the structural issues in the New Zealand economy will take time, take courage, and take action. That’s why planning reform—multi-year, once in a generation, comprehensive reform to lift our living standards—is so important. That’s why the work that Erica Stanford is doing in education is not a sugar hit. Actually, that is going to take year after year of sustained effort to lift our education standards, which will have flow-on effects to the 2030s and beyond.

That’s why the work that Chris Penk is doing in building and construction is so important. Sorting out our earthquake-prone building legislation is not a sugar hit. It’s complicated, it’s difficult, but it’s the right thing to do. Likewise, sorting out the liability issues, joint and several liability, that successive Governments have put in the too-hard basket for 30 years is so important. Some of the work that Louise Upston is doing across our welfare system, making sure that the system is a hand up, not a handout is so important. Again, it’s not a sugar hit; it’s not easy. Multi-year, long-term, sustained reform—that is the answer to our productivity challenge.

The honest truth is that we are nowhere near as wealthy a country as we think we are. The honest truth is that our productivity rates are on a par with countries that experienced 40 years of communism: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania. As a small country of 5 million people at the bottom of the world, we need to be more nimble and more agile, and we need to take bolder action than other countries that have the luxury of natural resources or the luxury of hundreds of millions of people on their market next to them. We don’t have that luxury. What do we have? We have cheap and abundant renewable energy. We have the best people in the world, the smartest people in the world. We’ve got some work to do, but, by God, we’ve got the right opportunities.

If you go to the Labour Party website right now—I don’t suggest you do, but if you do—you will find five policies. I’ve done the math on the policies. There are five of them. Four of them are actually about the doctor’s visits. There are 23 photos across three policy documents; they mention the word “tax” 66 times. But here’s the number of actual policy ideas to deal with the underlying issues in the New Zealand economy. Here’s the number: zero. They are taking the public for fools at the moment. This Government has the long-term answers for New Zealand’s future.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (15:14): That last 30 seconds of that member’s speech is exactly why New Zealand is in the position that it is in. With higher business liquidations, lower business confidence, inflation going up, interest rates on their way up, because that side of the House who are in Government—you are the Crown—are so focused on the Opposition that the Ministers, one of the most senior Ministers, would spend time going through the Labour Party website to count photos and count how many times they say a particular word. That is why New Zealand is in the position that we are in. It’s because they are not focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders.

Recently, we’ve had a death in Porirua which I want to acknowledge and take a moment to acknowledge today. We’ve had a kaimahi and kaitiaki toi Māori, Nathan Rei, who has passed away. He is incredibly important to our whole Wellington region. There are pou, there is waharoa, there are tukutuku panels. There are carvings, including inside this place, which Nathan Rei helped to carve and has taught the next generation of carvers. I acknowledge Nathan Rei, the Rei whānau, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, for the loss of their kaumātua. I say haere, haere, haere atu rā.

In two weeks’ time, Nicola Willis will stand up in this House and deliver her Budget.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Her last Budget.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What did you say? Her last Budget—her last Budget. Here is the only test that matters to New Zealanders: does it make my life better? Does it make New Zealanders’ lives better? This Government promised to fix the cost of living, and it hasn’t. It has made it worse. If this Budget doesn’t lower costs, doesn’t protect jobs, and doesn’t support businesses and give families genuine relief, it will seal the legacy of a Government that broke its promises to the people who trusted it to New Zealanders.

After nearly three years of National’s mismanagement, families are actually paying more. Businesses are struggling. Confidence is falling. New Zealand cannot continue on this path. It is true that global instability has paid some part in the last two months, but that’s not an excuse for the last 2½ years, because it’s worse. Unemployment is now at a 14-year high despite their targets. Some 40,000 more New Zealanders are out of work; business liquidations are at a 15-year high. I don’t want to talk about the 12,000 construction sector roles that we’ve lost, the 1,500 engineers that we have lost, and the police people who are leaving our shores and going to Australia. That is not the New Zealand we need, where we are losing our skilled workers. The National Government has had three years to come up with a plan, and what have we seen instead? Tax breaks for tobacco companies and property speculators, and cuts to services that our families and every community depend on.

Now, everywhere I go—whether it’s Queenstown, whether it’s Northland, whether it’s in my home of Porirua—Kiwis are really worried about filling up their petrol tanks. This Government’s approach, though, is to let high prices do the rationing. What does that say to New Zealanders? It says if you can’t afford fuel, that’s too bad; it’ll go to those who can afford it. That’s not the New Zealand that we want.

Grant McCallum: What’s your solution?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The member over there is asking for our solution. It was quite interesting to hear from the Minister a really superficial discussion about sugar-rush economics. Where did you get that key line? Where did you get that key line? Actually, one of Labour’s solutions—which if the Minister actually read it properly; quite clearly he’s reading with a bit of difficulty—access to capital is one of the reasons why New Zealand’s productivity is lagging. What is Labour’s solution to that? The New Zealand future fund—that’s what it’s about. If you look at Ireland, they have a very simple sovereign wealth fund; Mark Carney and Canada just released their own sovereign wealth fund—[Interruption]

There’s a lot of noise coming from over there. That’s because once you actually provide a solution, they’re so worried. Because actually, what it’s going to deal with is access to capital, which is one of the reasons why New Zealand’s productivity is going down. When Nicola Willis stands up in two weeks and points to global instability, New Zealanders, ask yourself: am I any better off?

Hon Nicola Grigg: Mr Speaker, I couldn’t—

SPEAKER: No, I haven’t called you. The Hon Nicola Willis—[Interruption] Sorry. Well, they all look the same.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (15:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I sat through the Leader of the Opposition’s speech thinking to myself, “My God, that man needs to take some responsibility.” I can only echo the sentiment having heard the Labour Party finance spokesperson just give that five-minute diatribe, because I cannot help but think—and I’m sure members across the House will agree—the very cheek of it! The absolute audacity of the Labour leader to stand in this House, the very architect of New Zealand’s recent economic demise, to sit here and gaslight this country and gaslight this chamber into thinking that he had nothing to do with it.

There’s a magic number here. It’s not so magic; it’s actually an appalling number: $180 billion debt. That is what that previous Government landed on the people of New Zealand. It is a $9.5 billion per annum interest bill. It is a number that has been canvassed multiple times in this House, but we have to keep repeating it. We have to keep reminding New Zealand of the tripartite of chaos that will continue to spend and spend and spend, like that $9.5 billion in interest payments, which covers the vast majority of our Corrections, our Justice, and our Police budgets in this country. A $180 billion debt is what Chris Hipkins was responsible for leaving this country with.

So I ask for this country, I ask this House, to turn their minds to what this Government is doing to really truly make a difference for New Zealanders across the country. It is across the gamut. This Government has been working incredibly hard for two and a half years to advance proposals and regulatory and legislative changes that are making a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. We are doing things that impact the everyday lives, like driving down the cost of rental: 120 bucks a week on average in my district alone. We have done that by pulling back on unnecessary Government expenditure. We are driving down inflation, as and where we can possibly do it. That, in turn, is driving down interest rates, which are having a real material difference to the lives of New Zealanders and how they go about supporting their families.

We are investing in health. That side of the House doesn’t like the people of New Zealand to know that, but a record investment in Pharmac: $688 million, having inherited a fiscal cliff. Labour forgets to tell the people of New Zealand they did not fund Pharmac. We have taken hold of it, and, thanks to David Seymour, who is the lead Minister responsible for that, 66 new medicines are being funded; 33 new cancer medicines that literally, tangibly save people’s lives. Again, that side forgets about it or chooses to ignore it entirely.

We’re doing what we can to power up the productive economy. We make no apology. We want this country to make money. We want the people of New Zealand to feel wealth. Not only do we want rural communities to grow and enhance their wealth, we want the entire country to grow and enhance its wealth. That’s why we’re doing what we can to power up farming in New Zealand. We have peeled back the red tape and the green tape, and David Parker and Damien O’Connor and the rest of the henchmen of the apocalypse had left rural New Zealand absolutely hamstrung. We had a negative sentiment of about—I think was about minus 66 percent. It has turned around positive. It’s gone up 99 percent in terms of farmer sentiment and confidence. That, again, is a real, tangible result thanks to the work that this Government is doing.

But guess what? All of that work that our farmers are doing—we need markets to sell our products to. We have got out on the world stage. We have got on planes. We have hustled. Todd McClay needs to take a bow. That lot over the other side of the House said it couldn’t be done. They threatened and they blustered and guffawed and they cavorted around, saying “We’re not going to sign it. We’re not sure what’s in it.” We are going to pass this deal with India. It is one of the most progressive, exciting opportunities for this country that we have seen in decades. We’re very much looking forward to it.

There is so much to talk about that we are doing to improve the lives of New Zealanders through a real disciplined approach to the economics and to the fiscals of this country. We make no apologies for it. We’re looking forward to another term or two to continue the work we’re doing to improve the lives of Kiwis around this country and, indeed, the world.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:24): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Government likes to talk a lot about aspiration, but the reality is, for most New Zealanders, all they are seeing right now is desperation. This Government would like to keep pretending that they can blame someone else or there’s some other cause going on for the current cost of living crisis that Kiwis are facing right now, but the truth is that it is the result of their political choices, and Kiwis know that.

Right now, unemployment is at a 14-year high, We have 40,000—40,000 more New Zealanders are out of work because National took office, and that has happened during their run. Business liquidations: business liquidations are the highest they’ve been in 15 years. Try and blame someone else for that. There are record numbers of young people—Kiwis—leaving our country because of those numbers. That is not a coincidence. That is the direct consequence of decisions that this Government made: decisions that have weakened growth, decisions that have undermined business confidence and left too many families and too many businesses carrying those costs.

Governments are judged by the conditions that people are living through, and Kiwis know that well and good right now. We know that things are getting harder under this Government. We know when jobs are disappearing. We know when our kids are leaving to go to Australia because there are no opportunities here for New Zealanders. Here are the facts: close to 100,000 young people are not in training, education, or employment. In the last quarter alone, it increased by 9,000—the last quarter increased by 9,000. You would think that that would set an alarm bell going for the Government to have some kind of strategy or think group or understand what might be happening and how they might intervene—but nothing. They’re sitting on their hands, simply blaming others and saying, “Oh, we’ll just wait for the economic winds of change to whisk things off to a better place.” Young people are doing what they’re being told to do. They’re studying, they’re training, they’re applying for job after job after job and not getting an outcome, when this Government is pulling the ladder up from under them. National promised New Zealanders opportunity. What young people got instead were cuts and nothing to hope for in New Zealand.

Let’s just outline some of the job opportunities that National has cut. We’ll do the top five, if we can get through them. Number one: the Apprenticeship Boost that helped thousands of young people into trades. At a time when we need more builders, more sparkies, more people trained up, they cut the Apprenticeship Boost and then they blamed Labour because they cut it. Number two: they cut Māori trades training in the last Budget. Number three: Tupu Aotearoa, a programme focused on rangatahi Māori and Pacific into work and training opportunities—cut that one too, now. Number four: scrapped the graduate programmes that help different groups and ethnic communities into public sector jobs—that one’s gone. Then they changed the Fees Free to third year and broke their promise and scrapped it completely. Number six: they increased university fees by 6 percent. They put up university fees while students are already struggling with rent, with food, and with public transport. “Oh, and by the way, we’ll cut the half-price public transport while we’re at it.”

This is the pattern with this Government: cut, cancel, and walk away and sit on their hands. They say it’s not the Government’s job to create people’s jobs: “That’s not our job. We just create the economic conditions for them to happen.” Well, how’s that going? A hundred thousand young people not in education, work, or employment. Behind every statistic there as a young person wondering if there’s going to be a job out there. School leavers sending CV after CV with no return in the mail. A graduate with debt, moving back into home because they can’t afford to do anything else. An apprentice whose pathway got cancelled because of the choices of this Government. The numbers keep getting worse. Youth unemployment is now three times higher than the unemployment rate.

This is what failure looks like. While National cuts programmes, Labour’s vision is to give opportunity. We want someone to have a job, to have healthcare, and to have a home. That’s why Labour has already committed to three free GP visits, to building a Future Fund that gives us opportunity, and to make sure that we have a pathway forward for our young people and give them some hope so they stay in New Zealand, whereas that Government doesn’t care about our future, does not care about our young people, and that is evident in the statistics that we have to live with.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:29): Ngā mihi, Mr Speaker. Ko te rākau e tupu ana, e taea te whakahoki ki te one i tupu ake ai? Nō reira ko tātou ko te kauri, ko te kauri ko tātou.

[A tree that is growing, can it be returned to the soil in which it grew? Therefore, we are the kauri and the kauri is us.]

We are the kauri, and the kauri is us. This morning, I had the privilege of speaking at the final reading of the settlements of Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Something struck with me in those readings of those histories of those iwi across the common history of extractive industry and pollution across their rohe, their whenua, their water: kauri logging, kauri gum digging, flax milling, goldmining, overfishing. But these iwi have derived almost no benefit from these industries and the long-term damage done to the environment in their rohe is a rightful source of grievance.

Settlements can serve as the reminders to all of us, the drivers that we need to avoid for future injustice. We have to learn consistently from what we have seen happen. The evidence is there that when profits are put over people and the planet, it benefits the few and not the many. We have to learn that extractive, exploitative practices do nothing but leave behind a tale of destruction and reward only the wealthy few. All the while, hapū, iwi, tangata whenua, ordinary people at local community levels are left to clean up intergenerational mess, to bear the hardest burden of having their waters and soils and their diverse ecosystems destroyed by these short-term extractive industries.

For te iwi Māori, for all people of New Zealand, the use of the natural environment is who we are. The Great Walks just opened, I think, in the past couple of days and sold out, which we see every single year, because why? Because we love our precious spaces, our wild nature, our diverse indigenous species, our ecosystems, and the habitats that we rely on. It’s clear about what we love, but our environment is also at risk. Over 4,000 of our native taonga species are at risk or threatened with extinction.

This Government has made it clear that when forced to choose between the interests of industry or the interests of the law or the public or the environment, it will always choose the bulldozer. Of course, alongside this Government’s atrocious attempts and constant undermining of Crown-Government relations, this Government’s war on nature will perhaps also be its most consistent legacy. I’ve got a list here—I’m checking the clock, and I’ve got to take a breath because it’s a bit of a list and it’s not even exhaustive.

This Government have passed the Fast-track Approvals Act, and the most harmful, destructive mining practices are getting fast tracked, for example. They have removed te mana o te wai from freshwater rules, weakened environmental bottom lines for fresh water, made it easier to mine coal and wetlands, reversed the ban on oil and gas, reversed New Zealand’s previous restrictions to bottom trawling seamounts in international waters; extended marine farm consents by 25 years in spite of significant environmental impact of marine farms, weakened climate targets, cut jobs at the Ministry for the Environment, cut jobs at the Department of Conservation, cut jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency, cut funding for native tree planting, ended plans to make farmers pay for pollution, cut funding for climate science, allowed commercial fishing in the Hauraki Gulf for the new high-protection areas, and enabled easier killing of kiwi by developers.

If I continued my list, we would be here all day; all the while, Ministers are wining and dining dairy and seafood and mining industry lobbyists; selling our precious places to the highest bidder. Then we turn to what Mr Luxon and his Cabinet are currently up to: making it easier to sell off public conservation land into private commercial activity on public conservation land. They are disestablishing the voices at the heart of Government for the environment. They’re giving more power to companies and businesses to do what they want with our environment by restricting climate litigation. It’s a complete and utter farce of the contract that we all care about which is protecting our ecosystems that we also rely on to live, not just for today, but for generations to come.

This is a Government not for ordinary people. These are their political choices. This is who they are showing that they serve. The Green Party will continue to prioritise our taiao, our living systems, and the benefit of the many and not just the few, because that is a long-term economic vision and strategy that we are proud of. When the only way to economic fiscal strategy is by destroying the environment is what you think is all you’re up to, then you are limited. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (15:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National is fixing the basics and building for the future. We’re not going to be punishing those people who want to build. We will be promoting building and we’re looking forward and being aspirational, far more than what the other side is doing. We’re not reheating some failed tax policy and, in particular, taxes that New Zealanders have rejected time and time again. That, of course, is a capital gains tax.

We’ve been here before over the last couple of decades. Even in the last Government, there were some that wanted it, and some that didn’t want it. There was no consensus and in the end they walked away. Now, however, with an election on the horizon, they’re reheating it, putting it back on the table, dressing it up with a few more garnishes, putting a different language around it, wrapping it in a different bow. But don’t be fooled, it is the thin edge of the wedge, and we have proof right here in our backyard of what is going to happen.

We’ve already run this experiment time and time again. We know how it ends; we just need to look at Australia, but we also can look at our own country. Between 2017 and 2023, Labour extended the brightline test, removed interest deductibility, and declared war on property investors. Their stated goal: housing affordability. What was the actual result? Rents rose $175 on average a week, right? That’s nearly $9,000 each year just to keep a roof over your head.

Officials explicitly warned that was going to happen. Mind you, Ministers of the other of the previous Government got warned about many things that they ignored; some more serious, some would say. They went ahead anyway. Renters paid the price; university students paid the price because of those policies. And house prices? Up 30.5 percent in a single year. That’s the fastest in living history. These policies were designed to make housing more affordable, but, unfortunately, they made it a lot worse.

Luckily, under this Government, housing affordability has improved. We have close to 29 percent of real estate sales now going to first home buyers, the highest it’s ever been for decades. We are seeing more New Zealanders getting into the housing market now than the previous Government. When Labour says, this time, a capital gains tax will help first home buyers, we are entitled to ask, “Why would we believe you? That’s what you said last time.”

Barbara Edmonds stood up and said, “Is this Budget going to make life easier?” Well, I’ll tell you what: it is, because the last Government definitely did not. This is a tax on saving. It’s not on privilege. A teacher who bought a property and held on to it; the family has scraped together a deposit for a second house for their retirement. These are not speculators. These are people that are being financially prudent, trying to do what actually we all should be doing, building financial resilience. That’s what this Government is trying to do for the country.

A capital gains tax—what would it tell these people? It would be that your patience will be penalised, your prudence will be penalised, and your savings, which are already eroded by inflation—luckily, we’ve managed to get that under control—will be taxed again when you finally sell. This is not fairness. This is a State punishing prudence and it won’t just stop at property. Labour says that KiwiSaver is exempt, and on paper it probably is. If we look at that little bit further, we find that when you dig a little bit deeper, many KiwiSaver funds have property companies in their portfolios. When these companies try and do business, their profits are going to be lower. Lower profits means their returns for everyday KiwiSaver members are going to be down, and, more importantly, this is how tax creep happens. You establish a principle in property and suddenly they’re looking around when they need the magic money tree, and they’re going to go, “What about this? What about that? Why should capital gains just be on property?” Then it becomes on KiwiSaver. Then it becomes on other things.

Labour has proposed a capital gains tax five times since 1973. Each time, the boundaries have moved. It started narrow; it always grows. The real problem is actually supply when it comes to houses, not investors. When you tax landlords out of the market, they are no longer going to be providing houses. When there are no houses to rent, property prices go up. So what are we doing? We’re making sure we’re dealing with the supply side of the market. The Government is doing the hard work. We’re going for growth in housing, which is increasing the land through re-zoning. We’re also making sure it’s easier to build by dealing with the Resource Management Act. That alone will eliminate nearly half of all consents that are needed. We are—[Time expired]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (15:39): Imagine being at the Auckland Hospital emergency department, waiting hours and hours for a doctor, and the only thing that catches your eye is a big fat rat running around on the floor. Well, that’s exactly what happened in Auckland recently—in fact, 100,000 people have seen it on TikTok. But what’s worse is that at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch, there’s not one rat but a rat infestation—rats running around the Fergusson building.

But guess what? Wait, there’s more—there’s not just rats, there’s security issues. Currently, there is an active incident report of someone bringing a weapon into a mental health facility at Hillmorton. That is how bad conditions have got under this Government in our mental health facilities. There’s chronic understaffing, burnout, unsafe conditions, broken doors, doors that let patients go out into the public when they shouldn’t, but doors that lock staff into the unit when they should be able to move about freely. There is a massive shortage of senior doctors; there is an abuse of seclusion, where people are being kept in seclusion for far too long.

But guess what? That’s not even the worst of it. The worst of it is that patients are being let back into the community when they are not ready to be there safely. That is what people should be concerned about. We know with Hillmorton that there have been tragedies that have occurred through this terrible situation with our mental health facilities. It is no fault of the doctors; it is no fault of the hard-working staff; it is no fault of the families who are left to pick up the pieces. This is what happens when mental health is forgotten, and where there is chronic underfunding. Where is the Minister for Mental Health? Well, he’s been missing in action. Workers have been calling on him to intervene—crickets, nothing from him.

But guess what? That’s not even the worst of it. The worst of it is that Hillmorton is only one example. What about what’s happening at Nelson Hospital? Again, doors not locking properly, doors locking staff in, very unwell patients being able to get out—these are the reports from the front line, from mental health workers who I have spoken to face to face. It’s not just Nelson, and it’s not just Hillmorton; it’s the Waikato—reports of violence and assaults on mental health wards, of staff saying that patients are becoming increasingly agitated, and the wards are becoming increasingly overcrowded.

What about Waikeria Prison? The Ombudsman—not just anybody, the Ombudsman—talked about the poor conditions, understaffing, excessive lock-up times, and inadequate mental health support. That is because our mental health services have been cut to the bone. It is being held together by exhausted staff. This is what under-resourcing looks like under this Government: burnt out workers, unsafe facilities, delayed care, and vulnerable mental health patients and the community being placed at greater risk.

The Government is saying there are no front-line cuts. Well, how does that land? The Government is saying that they are resourcing extra jobs—let’s take a look at that. Minister Doocey announced 40 extra places for mental health crisis teams nationally. As of today, guess how many of those 40 have been recruited. How many have been recruited? Would there be 20—maybe half? Maybe 10? As of today, three out of those 40 places have been recruited.

Meanwhile, down South, where I live, what’s happening to emergency departments? People with psychosis are being turned away—not a single increase, not a double increase, but a tenfold increase. Ten times as many people turning up to an emergency department in the southern region are getting turned away. These are people with psychosis; they’re seriously ill, needing support, needing help, needing to be kept safe from themselves, and needing their communities to be kept safe from them until they can get well. Where do they go? This is what is happening in our health system.

Things have got worse under National. Every region has experienced, in real terms, cuts to their health budgets, and mental health has been cut to the bone. There is no plan. Labour will make sure that mental health is taken seriously, and that those three free GP visits will enable people to access specialist mental health care faster by at least being able to go to their GP when they start to become unwell.

There is no plan from this Government. We have not seen anything except lip service; except, today, an announcement about a digital service. Where are the front-line staff? We need to change this Government. The plan is November 7.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (15:44): This morning, I had the great pleasure of spending four hours here in the House after a fantastic mihi whakatau for ngā iwi e toru o ngā Hauraki Plains, and I had the great opportunity to speak about the settlement for those three iwi. As we did so, more good news came through that I was on the general debate. Huri ōku whakaaro ki tōku hapori ake—my thoughts immediately turned to my own community. As we were celebrating the tremendous work—I keep looking back up there, because that’s where the iwi were gathered—of the negotiators on both the side of the communities of the Crown, my thoughts turned to the peacemakers of Maungakiekie. In my remaining time, I wanted to give you a quick tour de force of the people who are changing the lives of families and individuals of Maungakiekie.

First of all, I want to acknowledge—this has been my first opportunity to do this in this House since I attended the Governor-General’s service at her mansion in Mt Eden, just outside my electorate there in Central Auckland, a few weeks ago, where Jocelyn Grantham and Dr Fahima and Dr Arif Saeid received their King’s Honours. I’ve known Jocelyn and her husband for many years, and she is one of those quiet stalwarts of the community that sees an action that needs to be done, rolls up her sleeves, and gets on and does it. She has established both Te Papapa Preschool, Te Papapa Early Childhood Education Trust, and Tō Wāhi, which is an amazing community service centred right in the middle of Onehunga—actually in Oranga, one of my favourite parts of the country.

From there, they run an op-shop with inexpensive clothing, household items, community meals, te reo classes, barista training, and nutrition and fitness classes. Jocelyn has provided and found work for previously unemployed women across the social strata. She really is one of those social warriors, and to see her acknowledged and recognised at the highest level—the highest office in our land—was remarkable, as it was with Dr Fahima and Dr Arif, who seven years ago, as refugees themselves from Afghanistan, not that many years previously coming to our land, saw the needs of many other refugees that were coming and, together, co-founded the New Settlers Family and Community Trust in Royal Oak.

I connected with them there; I went and visited them a couple of weeks ago, and as I went down the driveway to their office, one of the things that struck me was that they were one of 12 different community organisations spread across about three acres of a property that is owned there by the Salvation Army. Again, I was struck with the number of people in my community of Maungakiekie who are investing their lives in improving the lives of others.

Later that same day, I had the opportunity to visit the Hearing House in Greenlane. Over the last 15 years, they have developed a $13 million premise there, and every single dollar of it has come from fundraising and come from the community. Yes, they provide Government-funded cochlear implants, and it literally transforms the lives of hundreds of people. The partnership there—between the community, between social entrepreneurs, and between Government—is the kind of vision that we have in this Government for flourishing communities, and we see it firsthand in Maungakiekie. We see it there with the likes of Disability Connect in Penrose; at Vinnies in Onehunga; at the amazing Mount Wellington or Maungarei Community Christian Trust; and at the CNSST Foundation in Panmure, let by the inimitable Jenny Wang, who over the last 20 years has supported hundreds if not thousands of new settlers in this country to thrive in our communities.

I wanted to acknowledge these people because it is these kinds of lives, these kinds of efforts, and these kinds of applications of people who see a problem that needs to be addressed—they see a gap in a community, they see people struggling, and they get on and they create an organisation, and they gather the resources and the people around them, and in doing so they become a blessing to us all.

I also want to mention—because I had the opportunity to take Minister Tama Potaka to both these places recently—Community Finance in Ellerslie, and the Home Foundation. Community Finance didn’t exist just a handful of years ago. As of last week, they have raised half a billion dollars from private funding—they are a charitable trust—to fund community housing providers in this country They are now, in Maungakiekie alone, providing well over a thousand social houses and affordable homes. Again, it’s that partnership between a Government that sees the power of the community sector to meet needs in a way that central government seldom can and those kinds of social and commercial entrepreneurs.

I am passionate about Maungakiekie; I am passionate about communities all across this country, and I’m excited about the fact that we could be here for many, many years to come. Tēnā koe.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:50): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, as part of the redoubling of the war on nature, as this Government fast approaches the end of their one term, they are redoubling with a scorched earth policy.

Grant McCallum: Oh, are you talking about your own career, Steve?

STEVE ABEL: They are talking about—hey, I’m not getting personal, Grant; I’m talking about your whole party. This Government has just committed to mining 40 percent of our conservation estate; the Minister was telling us about it at question time today. They have committed and redoubled on the bottom-trawling trashing of our oceans through the fisheries bill they’re passing. This week, we hear that the Government is now shutting down the public’s pathway to take New Zealand’s biggest polluters to court for the impacts they are having on our lives.

Minister Goldsmith has promised to kill the Mike Smith case currently before the courts, which addresses the vast plume of pollution coming from our biggest six polluters. The Minister says the matter can be handled in legislative frameworks around climate change, such as the emissions trading scheme or the zero carbon Act response. However, Fonterra, our biggest climate polluter, is not part of the emissions trading scheme, because the gases it primarily emits, methane and nitrous oxide—the superheating gases which make up 50 percent of New Zealand’s total pollution—are exempt from the emissions trading scheme. What exactly is the framework that the Minister talks about?

This is exactly and precisely the reason you need to bring a court case to the Supreme Court, because the failure of Government systems to actually reduce emissions and hold our most polluting industries accountable is why the case is possible. I attended the hearings of the Mike Smith case a couple of years ago, and the principle was that if there is insufficient action at the political level, it must be the recourse of the citizen to go to court to protect themselves from harm caused by the pollution of a company. It’s based on old principles of tort law—centuries of jurisprudence, primarily around river pollution from the United Kingdom—and the Supreme Court deliberated at length and agreed that there was a case to be heard.

Now, this Government hates comity. They are very happy to interfere and shut down cases where they don’t like the direction they’re going in. The principle of comity is simple: that a court case should be allowed to run its course, and, nevertheless, the executive retains the ability to overturn a decision if they don’t like it. They can change the law, but they shouldn’t interfere and stop the court case from proceeding.

Part of Mike Smith’s case was the fact that his hapū and his iwi and his whānau would be affected by climate change. We just heard a new climate report that colonisation has intensified Māori exposure to climate risk, degrading whenua and taonga while worsening impacts on health, housing, and wellbeing. The latest report explicitly identifies Māori as facing disproportionate, severe, and interconnected climate impacts. The report “accurately acknowledges that many kāinga, despite their relative impoverishment, are still willing first responders on the frontline of increasingly severe climate events.” When there’s a disaster in your region, you go to the local marae, and you know you’ll get fed and you know you’ll get a place to sleep. Mike Smith is a rangatira of Ngāpuhi, and he is a first responder challenging the catastrophic impacts of our biggest polluters.

Nullification of the rule of law, done by the same Minister who rose raised the bar so high in the marine and coastal area Act that it’s near not worth going to court to claim that common law right—not a Treaty right but a common law right—likewise, wiped out pay equity. It seems that this Government is not just anti-Treaty; it is anti - British common law when it can be used to affect justice for Māori—or women, for that matter, because it was also used to stop the pay equity.

This is the war on nature writ large, through nullification of the right of people to use the law to check the rampant behaviour of corporations who are harming citizens through their pollution, and it’s actually an attack on the rule of law in general. This Government will stoop to the lowest depths it can, surely before it exits and is replaced by a much better and just Government from this side of the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:55): I rise today not merely as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, nor as a member for Te Pāti Māori, but as a messenger for Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā—the Waitakere Ranges—for the ancient kauri, who stood long before this Parliament existed, for the awa that once ran clear enough to mirror the stars, and for the kererū, whose wings will still thunder through the valleys like the heartbeat of the forest itself. If this House will not hear the tangi of the ngahere, then who will? Whakapapa, whenua, whanaungatanga are the threads that bind us to Papatūānuku, to the mother Earth.

For some in this House, the Waitakere Ranges are a green backdrop, a scenic amenity, but for the people of West Auckland, for Te Kawerau ā Maki, for the whānau of Hoani Waititi Marae, who have lived in the shadow of these ranges for more than 45 years, this is not scenery; this is a tipuna, this is tuakiri—identity—and this is our home, kāinga. Yet this Government calls its reforms “progress”. Minister Chris Bishop says the Resource Management Act is a gale-force headwind, battling any attempts to develop anything, anywhere—a headwind. To the ngahere, to Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā, those protections are not obstacles; they are the very lungs of our existence of Tāmaki Makaurau. They are the arteries. They are the thin line between survival and collapse.

This Government speaks of streamlining, of cutting bureaucracy, of fewer consents, but the ngahere knows another word for it. Guess what that is? Violation—an opening of wounds that have never healed since the first axe met ancient bark, since whenua became commodity, since awa became infrastructure, since the living world became measured only by what could be extracted from it. Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā is not vacant land waiting for economic activation; it is alive. It holds whakapapa in every root system and every layer of soil. The moss remembers what this country has forgotten. The manu remember songs no longer sung by the people.

Yet this Government advances reforms that weaken environmental protections and sideline Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations in environmental law. Chris Bishop confirmed Cabinet agreed not to include a Treaty clause in the replacement legislation—imagine that, removing Te Tiriti from the laws governing the whenua itself in a country founded upon Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you bulldoze these laws, you bulldoze the history, the identity, and the rangatiratanga of the people who stand as kaitiaki of these taonga. This is not just environmental vandalism; it is an assault on the mana of West Auckland, of all of Tāmaki Makaurau.

The Government promises development and economic opportunity, but they do so at the expense of our native flora and fauna. They ignore the sanctity of our waterways: Nihotupu; Ngā Wai o Pareira; Ōpanuku, the life force that flows out to Ōrangihina and Ngā Wai o Te Mataa—the Waitematā. By failing to cross-reference the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 in the new Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, this Government renders these protections toothless. They invite a death by a thousand cuts upon our most sacred taonga.

The submissions are clear. Dr Juliet Batten speaks of the cruel twist of seeing decades of protection wiped out. Dr T M Jenkin, with 73 years’ history in these hills, says this “sloppy drafting” is a betrayal. Glenys Scott warns that we cannot trade a dark-sky reserve for short-term regulatory ease. Even Susan Parker wrote to me to say that these taonga are what make living in this city of Tāmaki Makaurau worthwhile.

Then we heard the conservation Minister say that saving every species may simply be too expensive. Too expensive? Come on. Tell that to the kiwi—the actual kiwi; the bird. Tell that to the pekapeka. Tell that to the kōkako, whose call grows fainter every single year. What is the market value of extinction? What is the dollar amount attached to the final birdsong of a species found nowhere else in the world? Five minutes is not long enough to speak for our native species, our native rākau.

I leave you with this: the Waitakere Ranges are among the last and greatest lungs of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and lungs are not optional. Future generations will ask only this: did you protect what was sacred? Did you defend the forests when they could no longer defend themselves? And did you act as an ancestor worth remembering? Te Pāti Māori will stand for the justice of our mokopuna and our taiao mō āke tonu atu [our grandchildren and our environment forever].

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Inquiry into the Harm Young New Zealanders Encounter Online, and the Roles That Government, Business, and Society Should Play in Addressing Those Harms

Special Debate

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now the special debate. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of the committee’s report?

CARL BATES (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee) (16:00): I move, That the House take note of the Education and Workforce Committee’s report on its inquiry into online harm, specifically the harm young New Zealanders encounter online, and the roles that Government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms.

It is an inquiry that matters, because it is part of the environment of our young people, our children, are growing up in every day—not an abstract policy environment but the real digital spaces where they learn, connect, socialise, and, for better or for worse, increasingly form their sense of identity and self-worth. For many young New Zealanders, the online world is not separate from the real world; it is part of the real world, and that means the responsibility for how safe, healthy, and supportive that environment is does not sit with young people alone. It sits with all of us as legislators, as parents, as educators, as platform providers, and as a society more broadly.

Last year, Catherine Wedd brought sustained attention to the potential harm associated with social media use by young people. Her member’s bill elevated the conversation and was the catalyst for the political discussion that has ensued. Dr Parmjeet Parmar then proposed we undertake a formal inquiry. At the same time, Laura McClure advanced proposals focused on the emerging risks associated with deepfake technology. Together, those contributions made it clear that this was not an issue that could be solved through a single bill, a narrow legislative response, or a focus on one platform or one technology. This House then authorised the inquiry, and we deliberately adopted a broad terms of reference.

From the beginning, we were conscious that online environments are not inherently harmful, as emphasised by submitters, including by the Stratford District Youth Council, from the wonderful Whanganui electorate, who told us that access to social media is important for supporting young people’s business enterprises and access to jobs. They commented that not only is social media a place for connections, it is also a place where enterprising young Kiwis can thrive, from students searching for work, doing odd jobs or babysitting, to young people promoting media-based businesses.

However, the evidence we received made it clear that, alongside those benefits, there are very real risks, risks that are often amplified by platform design, commercial incentives, and the pace of technological change. The committee received more than 400 submissions from individuals and organisations and heard oral evidence from parents, educators, experts, industry representatives, and, importantly, young New Zealanders themselves. Many shared personal experiences that were deeply concerning. Their willingness to do so was central to shaping the report before you. Submissions told a consistent story, describing a digital environment that, while offering opportunity, can also expose young people to harm that is persistent, difficult to escape, and, in some cases, invisible to the adults responsible for their care. Submissions highlighted the gap between the speed of technological change and the ability of systems—legal, educational, and social—to respond effectively.

To guide our work, the committee defined online harm by adopting a framework recognising four distinct but interconnected forms and experiences of harm: content harm, where young people are exposed to material that is harmful or inappropriate; contact harm, where interactions online can lead to exploitation, coercion, or grooming; conduct harm, involving behaviour such as bullying, harassment, and abuse between users; and commerce harm, which includes exposure to scams, manipulative or predatory advertising, and products such as tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. What became clear is that these harms do not exist in isolation. They are interconnected, they compound over time, and they are often shaped by the design of the platforms themselves, including the incentives created through algorithmic recommendation systems.

Submission after submission reflected that the responsibility for addressing online harm is shared. Government has a role in setting expectations and ensuring the regulatory framework is fit for purpose. Businesses and platforms have responsibilities in the way they design systems, moderate content, and manage risk. Parents, schools, and communities provide essential guidance and support, and young people themselves need to be equipped with the tools and resilience to navigate these environments safely. The committee’s report reflects that shared responsibility. It does not propose a single solution. The challenge is complex, and so too must be the response. We must do a number of things well. It is, therefore, fantastic that the Prime Minister has put the Hon Erica Stanford on the job of coordinating the Government’s response to these challenges.

New Zealand’s current approach is fragmented. Responsibilities sit across a range of different agencies, and the legislative framework has simply not kept pace with technological change. In response, the report signals the need for a much more coordinated and modern approach, including a complete review of existing legislation. We also examined the role of platform design in shaping user experience. These systems do amplify exposure to harmful content and reinforce behaviours over time. The report, therefore, considers how accountability can be strengthened in a manner that is both proportionate and workable.

One critically important note is that considerable focus has been on the banning of social media for under-16-year-olds. The committee has recommended by majority that this work be progressed. This is, and must be seen, however, as one component of a wider set of measures. It is not in itself a complete response to the breadth of challenges our young people face online. Technology will continue to evolve, and with it, new risks will emerge. The question for this House is not whether every harm can be eliminated but whether we are prepared to respond in a way that is thoughtful and proportionate to remove harm that is unnecessarily allowed to occur.

It was a privilege to guide the committee through this process during chair Katie Nimon’s maternity leave. Thank you to my fellow committee members for your engagement and for the way we worked collectively to gain insight and seek out solutions. It was commendable, and we should see more of this in this Parliament. Thank you also to Eve Tucker and the entire secretariat and advisers for all of your work. A special mention of Sophia Kalafatelis and Nick Law and the outstanding work you did. Your insights were critical to the outcome. Working with you all was the highlight of my 2025 parliamentary year.

Finally, though, New Zealand operates in a global, digital environment. Many of the platforms that influence young people’s experiences are international, and the challenges we face are faced by other jurisdictions. In that context, we recognise the importance of learning from overseas and ensuring that our response aligns with approaches that are effective in that global context. There is value in acting as a fast follower, adopting and adapting what works. For some, however, it is easier to suggest that we sit and we wait, or easier to get on an ideological high-horse and defend inaction. This inquiry highlights the reality that our young people are experiencing harm every single day. The time to act, therefore, is now. I commend the report to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (16:10): This inquiry was timely and urgent. Many teenagers today spend large parts of each day in algorithmically curated social media environments, often spending more time there than they do reading, playing sport, or participating in community life. In that online environment, their developing adolescent brains are exposed to a long list of harmful influences, and it is a long list: pornography and violence, marketing of tobacco, gambling and alcohol, political extremism and disinformation, deepfake technology, harmful relationships with artificial intelligence bots, cyber-bullying, prolonged exposure—and this is arguably the most pervasive and pernicious—to an environment where there is harmful body shaming, an environment that is a recipe for status anxiety, that is damaging and undermining of our young people’s self-esteem and mental health. All of this is delivered, in the case of social media, by platforms that are designed to be addictive.

Immensely powerful companies create and control the online world that is now a defining fact of modern life. It brings good and bad, but never in history have private corporations possessed such intimate and continuous and psychologically sophisticated access to the minds of children. The online environment is, in large part, unregulated, and while it undoubtedly delivers great social and economic benefits, it is also causing great harm. Submitters presented our committee with a wealth of evidence about the negative impacts on the health, wellbeing, and mental health of our young people, and they convinced me and my Labour colleagues and the majority on our committee that we must act now, that this is a public health issue and a question of regulating the exercise of corporate power to protect the wellbeing of our young people.

It’s time to put in place regulation that will rein in the power of the online platforms. We need laws and institutions that can respond to a fast-changing technological and online commercial environment, and we must do what the people expect of their elected representatives, and that is to use the power of government to protect them from harm and govern private interests in the public good.

This inquiry was a good example, I think, of Parliament’s committees at work. We drew on dozens of submissions and expert advice, and I want to thank, on behalf of the Labour team, all of the submitters, the officials, and I want to acknowledge the National Party’s acting committee chair, Carl Bates, for his very good facilitation of the inquiry. Record that—it doesn’t happen very often! In the course of the inquiry, we built a consensus between Labour and National and, for the most part, the Greens that resulted in our three parties backing the inquiry’s findings, and it’s my hope that this Parliament, this Government, and the next one and the next one, will act boldly and elevate this reform agenda above partisan differences.

Among the inquiry’s recommendations, we agreed on the need for a legislative overhaul of what is currently a patchy, outdated regulatory framework. We agreed the establishment of a regulator with the necessary powers and the ability to respond in an agile way to a fast-moving environment. We agreed, in the case of National and Labour members, an age-delay that would set 16 as the age that young people can access social media platforms. There’s been a lot of discussion about that, a lot of commentary about the Australian efforts in this area. It was our view that, with such a policy, while practically challenging, nevertheless, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and that the age threshold would give parents a tool and set an important standard that would help shape public behaviour and attitudes.

We agreed that we should ban “nudify” apps and work together to work out how we can regulate deepfake technology. We agreed to ensure that the law on the online advertising of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling is aligned with real-world restrictions, and importantly, that the Government should do whatever it can to educate, support, and, empower parents to actively manage and prevent online harm to their children. For many parents, it has to be said, the online world is a foreign country, in contrast to their digital-native kids. They need help, and this is where the Government can genuinely provide a service, and I think there are some great examples in our recent history of Government backing social marketing campaigns to help support and drive social change in the direction that we want.

I want to focus on two of the inquiry’s findings: first, that we should hold the online platforms liable for the harm that they cause; and, secondly, that we should regulate and require transparency of the social media companies’ algorithms. Online platforms are not adequately accountable or liable under the law for the harms they cause. There are big gaps in the legal framework in what are called “safe harbour provisions” that shield them from liability. They have nothing like the accountability and liability that was put in place to regulate newspapers, radio, and television in the 20^th century. The online platforms must be held liable both through regulation, with appropriate penalties, and civil liability so people can take them to court. We believe that the safe harbour provisions should be removed or substantially wound back.

In relation to the recommendation on systems driven by algorithms that determine what social media users see on their screens, we found that the Government should regulate these and require transparency. The all-powerful algorithm sorts and prioritises content shown to users. It is central to the social media companies’ business model because it drives user engagement, the number of eyeballs that they have looking at their content, and, of course, their revenue. Of course, it can amplify content that increases the user’s exposure to online harm. We believe as well as regulating algorithms we should be requiring that they be transparent and made available to the research community that can independently analyse and scrutinise and explain them to the public.

We cannot underestimate the power of the online platforms that we are up against. Meta’s platforms are used by around 4 billion people every month. That is half of the planet’s human population. The combined market capitalisation of the major tech platforms is measured in trillions of US dollars. These companies do not merely distribute information; they rank it, prioritise it, amplify it, and increasingly predict and shape behaviour through algorithmic systems. Their algorithms determine what billions of people see, what they fear, what they desire, what they believe is normal, and, too often, what they believe is true. A handful of corporations now shape the information diet of billions of people every day. These companies insist that they are not publishers when harm occurs, but they behave like editors and publishers when they decide what billions of people will see.

Every generation eventually confronts concentrations of private power so great that democracy must respond. Previous generations found the courage to regulate monopolies of all kinds: railroads, oil companies, banks, tobacco companies, and broadcasters. Our generation must now find the courage to place democratic limits on the digital robber barons of the 21^st century, and it’s my hope that this inquiry report will give this Parliament a way forward to start on that task. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:20): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Each of us carries in our pocket a device that is designed to extract as much of our energy and attention and, dare I say it, outrage as possible. They are programmed to; they are designed to. More dangerously, these devices use everything that they know about us—which is more than, dare I say, many parents would actually know about what their kids are up to—in order to keep us stuck in that web. These private companies that pull those strings hold so much data on all of us that they intentionally—as many whistleblowers over the past decade have shown—are able to manipulate our emotions to undermine our democracies, and, ultimately, they also hold more money and more power than many Governments across the world do.

This is the problem that this House is trying to confront right now, and I want to applaud the fact that there has been some serious common ground that has been found in this select committee report, but I just want to acknowledge in my contribution on behalf of the Greens—which later will be followed by the Hon Marama Davidson—our engagement and involvement in attempting to expand the terms of inquiry here. We wrote to the select committee in May 2025, asking that the terms of reference were not simply focused on young people, but on these platforms as a whole. What we were concerned about was that with a narrow focus on young people, there was the potential to obscure the responsibility for these platforms. Now, I want to acknowledge that there has been some really explicit and robust acknowledgment of the power of these platforms and the responsibility that they bear in the recommendations and in their findings, but we continue to hold exactly the same concerns that we have consistently raised over the past 18 months or so that a ban on under-16s could result in some really perverse consequences.

Just to respond to the comments of the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, who talked about how members of Parliament need to get off their ideological high horse and said that the time to act is now, I agree about the fact that we should be following evidence-based ways to actually achieve the things that politicians in this place are saying that we want to achieve. Here, I would just reflect on one of the reports released by the Children’s Commissioner today or yesterday, I believe, in which the Children’s Commissioner, who is responsible for representing children in this country, said—and I quote—“There are problems with focusing on a social media ban for under 16s, which include: rather than addressing harm and strengthening platform accountability, a ban purely focuses on exclusion and does not make the internet a safer place; bans can have serious unintended consequences by driving children to even less regulated spaces, and by shifting accountability away from platforms and onto parents; specific groups of children who are already experiencing exclusion—such as rainbow and disabled children—may find themselves even more isolated from their peers and communities; and a ban would not apply to children of all ages—we need to make the internet a safer place for everyone.”, and I guess that therein lies our continuing, ongoing concern about the agreement between both the legacy parties of Labour and National for there to be this ban on under-16s.

There’s a lot that we do agree on, and we will get to those things in just a moment, but I’d just say to everybody in this House and everybody who may be tuned in—the nine people watching Parliament TV at the moment, for their sins—that if you’ve ever spent time online and if you’ve ever spent time in the Facebook comments section, then you probably are aware of the fact that online harm is not something limited merely to our young people. There is a lot of responsibility that these platforms actually have to shoulder, and so that continues to be our focus, as the Greens. We ask that if these two parties do pursue the under-16 ban, they engage with young people and put them at the centre of the design of this thing.

There are, obviously, a number of things that we agree with, and we are really pleased to see that the committee recommended reviewing existing legislation governing classifications and harmful digital communications to address emerging risks. There I’d actually just point to the fact that, as cited in the committee’s report on the recommendations to the Government around how the current legislation is not fit for purpose, the underpinning framework that we are currently debating, which clearly is unfit for purpose, is two main pieces of law: the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, a piece of law that is older than me; and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which is 11 years old—11 years old. In the context of how quickly our technological environment has developed, that is clearly, demonstrably unfit for purpose, and, therefore, of course we agree with the need to update these laws in order to keep up with the times. But that, I think, also relates to the importance of the recommendation to create an independent national regulator for online safety in order to hold the big social media platforms to account, and we would go further than that by making it explicitly clear that there has to be the requisite funding and the requisite resourcing going to this regulator in order to ensure that it actually has the staffing and the powers necessary to do what it is supposed to do.

Also, I’m really, really grateful to see that while we had expressed those concerns about the potential for the scapegoating, or, rather, the ability for these platforms to avoid accountability and responsibility, the committee very clearly did land on the necessity to strengthen the liability of these platforms for the harm arising from the content they host and the algorithms that they designed. We also are incredibly stoked to see the point of cross-party consensus for a requirement for greater transparency with these algorithms so that—as my honourable and learned colleagues alluded to—researchers are able to independently and robustly assess what these algorithms are up to. Again, we’d just make the really clear point that this harm is not limited solely to young people. It is responsible for undermining our fourth estate and for contributing to disintegrating social cohesion and the likes of the mental ill health and otherwise that others have cited.

We also agree with the banning of these “nudify” apps and the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes. We want to mihi to those who have been involved in bringing that to the House and the whakapapa of the activists who have been working on this for a very long time.

We also agree with the need to regulate social media algorithms and—as I have alluded to—requiring those platforms to be transparent, and, of course, with the restricting of online advertising of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. This stuff is just common sense, but we would go a step further and say that the debate that is currently raging in Australia to completely end online gambling ads is one that we think should be imported here and we should expand it so that, in fact, there is no online advertising to anybody of gambling, and, clearly, tobacco shouldn’t be advertised at all, or alcohol.

This, I think, is where I will just take a step back and reflect on the few things that I know and understand about, particularly, drug harm minimisation, because there are parallels in this space and others have alluded to that in their contributions so far. In drug harm regulation and the evidence that has emerged over the past 40 to 50 years of the failure of the war on drugs, there is an understanding that there’s kind of a spectrum of approaches that you can take, arguably, to drug harm minimisation. At one end of the extreme, there is a complete criminal prohibition, and at the other end of the extreme, there is a complete legal free market of “Live and let live, c’est la vie.” and people can do whatever they want.

At both ends of that extreme, in the context of drugs, you end up with the maximisation of harm—because whether it is criminal entities or commercial entities exploiting vulnerable people to make a quick buck, vulnerable people are being exploited to make a quick buck. That ultimately tells us that we need to pull away from those extremes and get into a space of sensible regulation for all. Because as, actually, even the National Party speaker addressed, we are not going to be able to get rid of social media. We can’t turn off the internet. And I think therein lies the point: that young people will always find a way to access these things.

This is where, just finally, to put it on the public record, the concerns that the Greens have with some of the other recommendations. Of course, I’ve already alluded to our concerns about the ban on young people, because we believe that that ban would undermine the privacy, ultimately, of all users, notably because it would require these entities that have already demonstrated that they are not really to be trusted with holding so much data on us to then be the same ones that are self-policing and, ultimately, restricting people from accessing their sites.

On top of that, we’re worried about how that could drive young people into deeper and darker corners of the internet, and it’s focused, again, on the wrong target. We’re also concerned about the inquiry recommending a banning of VPNs, because there are legitimate uses. And that is the Green position.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by acknowledging everybody who was part of this process. All the select committee members, all the submitters, the Clerk’s team, and also all the advisers: thank you for your work during this process.

Yes, it was me, on behalf of the ACT Party, who wrote to the Education and Workforce Committee seeking to initiate this inquiry. That step was taken because, at that point, as it was mentioned before, National Party indicated that they are looking into banning social media for under-16s. This was after a member’s bill was made public, and ACT Party straight away know that we need to do more work on it.

The reason was simple but very important. We know that this is a very serious issue. Young people encounter harm online, and it’s a concern of all—not just parents, but communities all around. I am a parent myself, and I can fully understand that concern. So far, the speeches that I have heard—there is a bit of that emotion coming through those speeches, and I fully understand that, as well.

What I want to say is that when we legislate something here, in this House, or we make any recommendations in a parliamentary select committee process, they should not be solely based on emotion. They should be tested for effectiveness, workability, and proportionality, as well. If you don’t do that, then in that situation, what happens is those kinds of things may look great in headlines, but, in reality, they fail. And not just that; they may have some unintended consequences—some unintended harm—as well. So good intentions are not always good.

I want to take this opportunity to use a couple of examples of recommendations in the report to highlight and make ACT Party’s position clear. The first recommendation that I want to highlight is introducing age restrictions for social media platforms. The idea of the select committee inquiry was to dig into evidence to see that we get the opportunity to learn from what is happening in other countries because we know in Australia, yes, this legislation has been already implemented. They have banned social media for under-16s and in the UK—we had the opportunity to learn from them, as well.

In the select committee process, I was quite disappointed to see that in the second departmental report, which was presented by the advisers, we were not provided full assessment of this particular intervention. This intervention actually was central to this inquiry. We were told that Government has a work programme currently under development to explore such a ban and that, as a result, the department does not provide an assessment of this intervention. So there was this material gap in the evidence that was available to the select committee. I asked advisers why that assessment is not being provided. We were told that they fear that it might conflict with the advice that is being provided to the Minister in charge.

To insist on that point, I wrote to the select committee. This is the letter I wrote to the select committee: by majority, the select committee declined the request to get full assessment done on this particular intervention, which was central to this inquiry. Now, not just this. YouTube wrote to the select committee. This was after Australia’s ban was already implemented. So we had this great opportunity to hear from YouTube, to hear about their experience in Australia and learn from them. By majority, the select committee members declined that request.

So I question this, when members stand here in the House and say that this report is based on evidence. No, the evidence was not fully explored. So much of that evidence was actually turned away. This is a real concern in this report. Also, from what happened in the select committee, it felt like it was a rubber-stamping exercise, because members in the committee, they felt that they have to just put the recommendations that matched with their party’s political narratives. Members, before the work started, they knew what should be the recommendations. This should be concerning—concerning for all New Zealanders—because the job of the select committee is to challenge, to look into evidence, but here it became a rubber-stamping exercise. It should be concerning to all New Zealanders regardless of where they stand in this debate; whether they support a ban or not support a ban, this should be really concerning.

Now, the question here was, will this ban actually protect young people? Everybody in this House, I know, wants to see that young people are protected online. We all are concerned, and we want to do things that will, in real terms, protect young people online. The question is: will this protect young people online? The answer to that is no. We have seen, in Australia, since the ban came into place, there are so many media reports. I have a couple of them printed. This is straight after when the ban was implemented, here: “Young women using make up to bypass restriction and staying online”. And there were young kids, those who were making facial expression to bypass restriction and staying online. In the UK, we have seen reports of young boys drawing moustaches on their face to bypass restrictions.

This age verification system is not effective. So what will that result into? That will result into platforms asking for people uploading their IDs digitally. This is not just young people, this will be all New Zealanders. We are concerned about people’s privacies; we are concerned about people’s freedoms. We do not want people’s privacy or freedoms to be compromised. That is not something that the ACT Party takes casually.

Now, another very quick example I want to use from this list of recommendations is—one of the things that the report mentions is about the future regulator looking into the use of VPNs. Now, this is an example of how far this report drifted from what it was supposed to do. Looking into the use of VPNs, it says; VPNs are not criminal tools. We parliamentarians use VPNs. Journalists use VPNs. Businesses use VPNs. So many New Zealanders use VPNs to protect their data and their privacy online. To even entertain the idea that a future regulator should look into use of VPNs is going into a very dangerous zone. We know that if you look around the kind of countries that have restrictions on use of VPNs, these are the countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. In those countries, the restriction on VPNs is not to protect people; it is actually to supress their freedoms.

It is really concerning that we actually drifted—the select committee; we, of course, the ACT Party, didn’t support that and doesn’t support that going forward—but in select committee, the members actually wanted to support looking into the use of VPNs. Here, the concern is this: that young people, yes, they are harmed. But when young people are able to bypass restrictions, they are still remaining online, which means they can also be downloading VPNs. Yes, that is a concern; we understand that. Through VPNs and by other means, when they are online, they will not be actually sharing if they experience any harm online. So actually, what will happen is, instead of us having the ability to address problems, the problems will become hidden. They will be getting into internet spaces which are not supported, have fewer safeguards, and that is actually going to create a bigger risk for our young people.

Here, I also want to acknowledge that not every young person experiences social media in the same way. Just the day before yesterday, I received an email, and I have received a few correspondences from young people saying, “Don’t ban social media for under-16s.” So there are a lot of people—young people, especially those—who don’t want to be banned from social media.

We need a proper solution here. We had this real opportunity in the select committee to come up with some practical and helpful recommendations that balanced both child safety and people’s privacy, liberties, and practicality, as well. But the select committee, by majority, didn’t want to go in that direction, because every time any question was asked, some members thought that that was a delaying tactic. So there was this big rush to report back on this inquiry, which is deeply disappointing.

If the path forward is more surveillance, more control, less privacy, I say that New Zealanders should be alarmed, New Zealanders should be concerned, and New Zealanders should utterly reject this path forward of more surveillance, more control, and less privacy. That’s why we are not supportive of most of the recommendations in this report, and we are quite concerned about people’s privacy, people’s freedoms, and we want to see that we are not becoming a country like North Korea, Iran, or China, where VPN controls are actually controlling people’s activities and creating a surveillance, kind of, State. So, overall, yes, it was me who wrote to the select committee to initiate this inquiry, but, at the same time, I’m quite deeply disappointed as well, as I’ve highlighted in my contribution here. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Dr David Wilson. You do need to seek the call so that the people in the booth know who’s speaking.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (16:41): Thank you, sir. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the inquiry into the harm that young New Zealanders encounter online. The reason I am speaking is that I have a special interest in this area, and I want to thank all of the people that have put this before the committee and have driven this through to this stage. I also want to thank all the members of the House who are looking at this as a cross-party opportunity, and it absolutely is, because it’s been a fundamental change and, some would say, a social experiment gone horribly wrong. I would agree with that assessment.

I am persuaded by Professor Jonathan Haidt in his book The Anxious Generation, and I’d just make a quick comment before I go there. That is that a lot of what we’ve been talking about—VPNs, algorithms, under-16—are mechanisms trying to achieve a much larger objective, which is a very difficult, complex objective. I’m just going to read to you something that he had written, when he said “For most of the parents I talk to, their stories don’t center on any diagnosed mental illness. Instead, there is [this] underlying worry that something unnatural is going on, and that their children are missing something—really, almost everything—as their online hours accumulate. But sometimes the stories parents tell me are darker [than that]. Parents feel that they have lost their child.”

A mother he spoke to in Boston said she could see the damaging effects it was having on her daughter, and they did not know how to curb her access. They tried various programmes to monitor and limit the apps on her phone. Apps are another mechanism that we focus on that will not necessarily solve this issue. They tried various programmes to monitor and limit the apps on her phone, in which Emily, the daughter, eventually found ways around those restrictions. In one distressing episode, she got into her mother’s phone, disabled the monitoring software, and threatened to kill herself if the parents reinstalled it. Her mother told us, “It feels like the only way to remove social media and the smartphone from her life is to move to a deserted island. She attended summer camp for six weeks each summer where no phones were permitted—no electronics at all. Whenever we picked [up] her [phone] …from camp she was her normal self. But as soon as she started using her phone again it was back to the same agitation and glumness.”

Most parents don’t want their children to have a phone-based childhood, but somehow the world has reconfigured itself so that any parent who resists is condemning their children to social isolation. Surely, one of the best things we can do for our youth—and I’m echoing the member from Labour here—is provide them with unstructured play, sports, face-to-face engagement, and the opportunities for social connectedness and community engagement, getting off their phones. The harms that are caused by social media and small computers—aka smartphones—are horrendous. They have led to increases in bullying, personal attacks, dramatic rises in social isolation, loneliness, anxiety and depression, and other psychological harms. Worse, increases in suicidality and suicide. And with boys, they seem to manage to achieve that end. Laura McClure’s deepfake bill is part of the wider context of online harm. My own experience of fraud online elicits so many memories of how the platforms are involved in all of these things. I hear the Green Party member when she is saying we actually need to focus on making the internet a safer place.

Let me give you an idea about what I mean by the mechanisms are not necessarily the answer—VPNs, for example. While, yes, we could ban VPNs or we could try and restrict them, you know, AI now has agentic AI, so we can have an agentic approach to get a way around those bans. The dark web is something else. And so what we’re dealing with here—oh, and I’m just going to take a little bit here and sort of have a shout-out to my son, Ash, who looked at algorithms and their place in fake news and echo chambers for his masters, first class, at Auckland University. What he found at the end of that thesis was that the algorithms were in fact a mechanism and that that will not change behaviour if you try to take them away, because there will be another way that they can be used, and there will be workarounds. I think we just need to step back a little bit and understand what we’re trying to ban here. Is this actually going to achieve what we want to achieve?

I’m saying that we’re in a position here, since 2010 when the “like” button came on and we had smartphones for that generation—the smartphone generation—where things have changed substantially. We’re in shifting sands, and there’s a lot of complexity, and what does that require? Actually, that requires a little bit of flexibility and a little bit of adaptability to what we’re confronting, but I also think, sitting behind that, we need to be very clear about what we’re trying to achieve in terms of the principles and the ethics around some of these things that are causing harm to our young people but also wider. We do not need a kind of whack-a-mole approach where we see that this is a bad and we need to hit it down—this is a bad and we need to hit it down. For example, the debate around whether the age is 16 or 18 or 25, we actually need to understand the psychological effects that happen in all of those ages and decide whether or not that ban is going to be effective.

I think from New Zealand First’s point of view, we really like the direction of travel here. We would like to see some further debate in some of these things. There should be some definitions around addressing the gaps and overlaps—one of the recommendations—and establishing an independent national regulator for online safety: yes. However, can we please, please, please make sure that they’re taking a high-level approach about the objectives that we’re trying to achieve by this and not dive down into the detail to make it look like we’re actually achieving something by hitting one of the moles, like a VPN? Focusing on the mechanisms and regulating algorithms—look, there are workarounds is what we’re saying, so please take time with this. It’s a very, very important thing.

I also was really pleased to see in the report the additional areas for consideration, which kind of does exactly that. It pulls back from this overall complex system and says things like, “We need to talk to young people. We need good education and digital literacy for young people.” Then it dives into the mechanism a bit, but OK. Is it the device-level restrictions or is it collaboration with online platforms to limit VPNs? To our way of thinking, by and large the thing that is the problem is the phone. It is the smartphone. It’s like the window into this whole area. That’s a computer available to our kids.

Could we please consider some of these really, really difficult issues and make recommendations that cut to the chase, but also consider the wider discussions like we had around freedom of expression and so on? Things like grooming, fakes, all of these things—jeepers, it’s just rife. We just have to address it, but we implore the Parliament to take some time with this and address some of the issues that have been raised today so that we can all get online and have the best possible outcome for our community. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (16:50): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online and the role that Government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms.

To put it into perspective, I’m Gen Z, and I don’t know a world without the internet; Gen Alpha don’t know a world without social media, and Generation Beta don’t know a world without AI. That’s the reality that we’re moving into, and that’s the future that we live in. We are completely underestimating how rapidly fast this has affected and continues to affect the fabric of our society. Today’s society, through the lens of social media, has completely altered. The online world can help create the impossible by reuniting families, finding organ donors—all the magical things—but it can also create chaos, danger, and extreme harm. It is where identity, behaviour, politics, and learning all collide in one.

The inquiry heard evidence relating to a wide range of online harms affecting young people, including cyber-bullying, racism, misogyny, sexual exploitation, harassment, violent and extremist content, harmful algorithms, AI-generated abuse, and deepfakes. The data that we’ve found is that UNICEF estimates that one in three young people globally have experienced cyber-bulling. Around 70 percent of New Zealand rangatahi report experiencing at least one form of unwanted digital communication online. The reality is that many platforms are designed to maximise engagement, not wellbeing. Algorithms push harmful content faster than ever before; outrage spreads quicker than truth, and, increasingly, artificial intelligence is making these harms harder to detect and more dangerous to stop.

This inquiry also highlighted how online harm affects learning and education outcomes. Cyber-bullying has been linked internationally and in New Zealand research to lower self-esteem, reduced educational achievement, poor mental health outcomes, stress, and reduced wellbeing. Nearly one in five New Zealand teens reported experiencing harmful digital communication that negatively affected their daily lives.

I’m also going to talk about Māori online harm. Lately, it’s been a difficult place to navigate, as Māori very much value kanohi ki te kanohi. The social media world has become our new paepae, but without tikanga. We’ve also all had our own negative experiences as politicians, but we’ve almost become immune to digital online hate in this job.

We need stronger digital literacy in schools, as well as regulation and oversight. This inquiry also raised calls for an independent online safety regulator and stronger oversight of social media platforms. Current legislation is not fit for purpose. The majority of the Education and Workforce Committee considered that the current regulatory approach under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is no longer fit for effectively regulating the modern online world we live in. Current laws largely focus on responding to individual pieces of harmful content after harm has already occurred.

The inquiry discussed the potential establishment of an independent national regulator for online safety here in Aotearoa. Key focus areas included monitoring online platforms, enforcing online safety standards, and protecting children and young people from harm. New Zealand can learn from other countries. The inquiry noted that several overseas jurisdictions have online safety regulators, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia. Examples raised included the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023, empowering Ofcom as an independent online regulator in the UK, and Ireland’s Online Safety Commissioner and Online Safety Code.

When it comes to deepfake and AI-generated harm, the inquiry highlighted growing concerns about deepfake technology, AI-generated abuse, fake images and manipulated video, synthetic sexual content, and harassment. The committee identified exploring options to better regulate deepfake technologies as AI continues to rapidly evolve as an area for further consideration. This is where, as politicians, we can work in a bipartisan way to create faster evolving legislation to do our part in keeping people safe on the internet.

I also want to acknowledge Catherine Wedd and her member’s bill, and also Laura McClure, for opening these discussions on how we can evolve into the future with technologies, and with AI, especially for young people. That’s the part that I’ve been doing since last year; I’ve done work supporting Laura McClure’s bill against deepfakes—which are essentially AI pornographic images of young people, created without their consent. There are currently no laws that criminalise this issue, and that is what this member’s bill directly addresses.

Obviously, there are an enormous number of issues that Te Pāti Māori and ACT don’t agree on, but legislation like this and inquiries like these—politicians coming to a common ground and establishing safety regulations for online platforms—are a step towards moving into the future. Nō reira—do I have 10 minutes? I usually only get five. Great—awesome! I’ll carry on.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’m sure you can fill three minutes.

Katie Nimon: Speak to your Gen Z experience!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): From the heart.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Opening these conversations and listening to Chlöe Swarbrick and all the politicians across the board tonight—it’s been extremely eye opening to hear that come to a common ground on some of these issues. I think, as a Gen Z, or as a young person—as a Māori, as a wahine—being exposed to the online world can be very harmful. It’s not the phone’s fault, and it’s not the tools’ fault; it’s how we use them, and how humans engage with that behaviour, and the algorithms that are being sent from God knows where.

We’ve done some research in terms of AI, and it’s actually just multiple patterns in one space—whether that’s misinformation or disinformation—and that’s what can be very harmful to people. There used to be a time when people could just put in—“Oh, let’s just ask Uncle Google”; now it’s just straight, “Let’s ask ChatGPT”. People are actually using ChatGPT as online counsellors; people are using ChatGPT and thinking that that’s the only form of information and that it’s factual, and that’s not always correct. The world that young people are exposed to in 2026 is concerning—it’s very, very worrying.

When we went over to New York, we went to an AI conference, and they said that in 2023, we predicted that AI would reach the intelligence of a human in 50 years; in 2025, that’s gone down to five years. We’re really underestimating the algorithms and ChatGPT and AI, and our legislation needs to be modified to the existing evolutions of the society that we see today. That’s a huge reason why I support Laura McClure’s member’s bill—because if there’s small alterations in legislation that we can see today and that we can alter to criminalise rangatahi being affected by the internet and being affected by breaches of their privacy, I think that’s what we should be doing as politicians. Tēnā rā koe.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That’s an example of why I encourage members to leave their notes alone and speak from the heart. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (17:00): I’m pleased to rise to contribute to this debate. Can I start by thanking the select committee under the chairmanship of Carl Bates, who did an excellent job.

I want to start by recounting a story of a young girl that I met at an event around social media and young people’s use of it. She recounted a story of her experiences online and how she learnt the destructive behaviour of cutting herself, using the blade of a pencil sharpener, on TikTok. She had learnt this behaviour, fed to her through a social media algorithm with a destructive intent to teach herself how to self-harm using an everyday object from her home, that she then did.

Now, I often have people say, and, indeed, it’s been said in this House tonight, that if we ban social media use for under-16s it will just drive these young people to darker places of the internet. The comment I always make is: what darker place on the internet is there than to use a pencil sharpener to cut yourself—on TikTok, that has been fed to our children. What darker place is there than that?

I speak to child psychiatrists around the country, and they tell me of the explosion of young girls at the age of 13 cutting themselves around New Zealand. It wasn’t helped by COVID lockdowns—young people spending more time on their devices in their bedrooms with these algorithms. The more parents I speak to—they open up to me because they know I’m leading this work, and they open up to me with their stories. It is so much more prevalent than I could have ever imagined. Friends of mine who opened up to me, strangers who walk up to me in the street and tell me their stories of their teenage sons and their teenage daughters and the destructive behaviours that they are learning from these social media giants. There’s a reason that the tech media giants don’t want their children to use social media, because they know the harms, because they know the destructive behaviour of the algorithms that they’re using to harm our kids.

When cars got faster, we added seat belts. When cars got faster, we added airbags and ABS, and you can’t use the phone, and we mandated that you had to have a seat belt. We now have the most powerful device in the world imaginable in the hands of our children, and there are very few regulations to keep them safe. Frankly, parents—not only in New Zealand but around the world—are feeling completely helpless. I’ve heard it, and you will all hear it from the social media giants: “But we have parental controls” they say. But there are so many of these platforms, and they are so difficult to navigate with as a—whatever we are, XYZ, the old people like me who didn’t grow up with this. It is a completely new world to us, and trying to navigate all of these controls across all of these platforms—half of them we’ve never even heard of—is really difficult, and parents are screaming out for help.

This Parliament, I believe—cross-party—wants to help parents. A ban, we already know, is not going to be the silver bullet. But I tell you what a ban does: it changes social norms. Just like you would not take someone else’s child and put them in your car without a seat belt, over time behaviours change when we have these bans in place so that you would not have a child over to your house and let them use social media. It takes time, but it does change social norms. But it is not the silver bullet on its own, because, I’ll tell you what, the social media giants would love a ban because, as you know, children can try and get around it. That’s why it is so very important to have a strong regulator that changes their behaviours. That is going to be the key, and that is what more than 40 countries around the world today are doing. We need to be in lockstep with them.

As my friend across the aisle Phil Twyford—occasionally my friend; my friend today, I gave him a clap after his speech—said: “We should not let perfection be the enemy of the good.” My message to parents today is simple: you are not alone; we have your back, we are prepared to act, and I will work with any party in this Parliament who is prepared to support this work. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next one, just a reminder that the next lot of speeches are five-minute speeches.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess I just wanted to start by saying that the internet is an absolutely amazing thing and it has enormous potential, but it also has enormous potential for harm. That’s what the purpose of this inquiry was all about, with a specific focus on our young people and the organisations who work with and support them.

I think everybody who sat at that table through those select committee inquiry hearings and heard from the many people who shared deeply personal and very powerful stories about how they had been affected, negatively, through interactions and engagements that they’d experienced online, couldn’t help but come into this House to have this debate and speak about the importance of what we do to work together to address that. I wanted to start, really, by saying thank you to all of those people who came and shared their stories and their experiences. A lot of the time, they’re not stories or experiences that you would want to have ever happened to you, to admit that they had ever happened to you, or then to step into a select committee environment and speak about them. But thank you to all the people who hear those stories and work with the people who have those experiences every day through the work that they do, often voluntarily, and the advocacy that they provided to our select committee to raise those concerns and make sure that those stories and those important messages were heard.

There’s a couple of things I wanted to single out in the inquiry. The first is that I think we always need to come back to the title of the inquiry, in the fact that it says that this was an “Inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online” but also “the roles that Government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms”. Because this is not simply the role of Government, and as we have seen, it has not been able to be the role of the social media platforms that we are so concerned about. Because despite signals and in some cases steps towards making young people safer, we haven’t seen effective or meaningful protections put in place to ensure that that is the reality that they should and can enjoy in those spaces. It is also those businesses and, more widely, society that have a responsibility in that space.

The specific recommendations that I think speak strongly to that are recommendations 7 and 8 that really addressed the concerns around algorithms and algorithmic transparency, the need for people to know what they’re seeing and why they are seeing it. The assumption from olden days that Facebook was a place that you went to share photos with your friends is not the reality that we live in anymore. As other speakers have alluded to, some of the content that some of our youngest and most vulnerable New Zealanders are served up on a daily basis on these platforms is not content that they seek out, and is horrific and damaging and entirely inappropriate for our young people to see.

The other point—given the opportunity, I could have rambled for a long time on this—but the other point is the ability to educate and empower parents, caregivers, and young people, because they absolutely deserve the opportunity to be empowered and educated and informed.

I’m really pleased to see the broad support in the House for this from just about every side. I really just want to finish by thanking those submitters who were so brave, who came to us. I think our mission is to tell those people that we see you, we hear you, we will take meaningful action, and we do need to stop the very real harm.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (17:10): I will start my contribution by acknowledging the constructive work—the always constructive work—of the Education and Workforce Committee, particularly in this case. The inquiry was started while I was at home in Napier with my new son, and it was skilfully chaired by my colleague Carl Bates. Carl has been acknowledged for his work on that. It’s always an interesting thing going away from select committee and having a whole thing happen largely while you’re not here, to come back and see the result. I’m really pleased with how that was done, and I just thank the entire committee, the staff, and submitters.

It’s obvious, as a result of what we’ve heard, how important this issue is to all of us. I’m going to get back to a couple of things in a minute. I was going to talk about the role of Government and the part we have to play, but we’ve heard a lot about that. We’ve heard about how outdated the Acts are—the fact that there’s no single, powerful regulator. We’ve been piecing together a number of various responses that haven’t really cut the mustard at all. That is the very thing that this inquiry has outlined. In the case of, as has also been mentioned, Laura McClure and Catherine Wedd’s member’s bills—an attempt to try and rectify what we’re experiencing, the gaps and the shortfalls of what we’ve got in our legislation and regulations. That was really brought to our attention through this inquiry: what more there really is to be done.

I’m inspired by a couple of comments from colleagues across the House. It’s a really fun time to have a special debate that’s largely supported across the House. I am a millennial, and I’ve had a Gen Beta baby. He was the first—2025 is the start of Gen Beta. I can’t believe we’re there already. I have my own unique experience with social media. I talk a lot about the impact that social media had on my life. I grew up at a time when phones were just becoming a thing. They were bricks. We had the first classrooms with computers, and some classrooms didn’t have them. Maybe one or two did. The internet was still MS-DOS and dial-up and all of that kind of stuff. It was a unique experience, but while I was at high school, social media became a thing: Bebo, Myspace—

Hon Member: Oh my God.

KATIE NIMON: I know! You had to pick 16 friends and give them love hearts, and if you didn’t get one in return, heaven forbid what happened. It started a while ago and, as we heard, this legislation in 1993 took account of none of that. Bebo turned into Facebook, and Facebook had its own issues. And then out comes Snapchat. Then comes TikTok. I’ve got to say I’m really glad I never experienced TikTok. I’ve never downloaded it, I’ve never used it, and I don’t want to, but I’m so aware of the generations that have had the same experience I did with the likes of Facebook and Instagram that are just completely, deeply ingrained and embedded with it.

I often say, as anyone with a baby would understand, they all have their favourite toys and they want to play with them. They go to daycare and they want to play with their friend’s favourite toys. In our household, my son thinks that this—[Holds up phone]—is my favourite toy, because it is always on me, and it’s always on me because it’s my job. I always tell him—he’s nearly one, so he can understand—that this is not a toy. The world wants me to think it’s a toy so that I play with it all the time, so it makes me more accessible, and they make it look fun and all colourful and there are things to do and interesting things to see. But it’s a trap. My role is to tell him, as much as I possibly can, that it isn’t all fun and games, but that’s my role as a parent. Parents have to understand that first before they can do something about it.

Of course, we talked a lot about what the Government can do, and we have to do this in partnership with families, but we have heard about how powerful these platforms are. We need our Government and our regulators to be as powerful. We need our parents to be as powerful, because knowledge is power, and the more we understand about how harmful these platforms are, the tools that are being used, what they do and how they are affecting us, we actually can do something about it. If we’re understanding the trap that we’re walking into, we can prepare for it, and if our Government is powered up, the regulators are powered up, they are preparing for what’s coming and they can inform and educate and protect us, that’s going to go a massively long way to stopping my son when he’s going to school and getting in front of devices and, heaven forbid, a teenager and independently doing his own thing with devices, which is going to happen, because that’s the way of the world—that he’s prepared for it.

I grew up in a time when we were not prepared for the impacts of social media, and my entire mental health as a young person has been affected by that. There’s no debating it. The more we can do to prepare and protect future generations, we’ve got to do it. This is a turning point. I am so pleased that most of this House is on board with the direction of travel, and I really support the work that Minister Erica Stanford is doing already, and I really look forward to seeing where we get to with this. We have got to get the right balance. Thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (17:15): A proud Gen X-er here. I don’t even know how to use that chat PG, CP—chat thingy. And yet I’m addicted to my phone. I think if all politicians across the House here were to be quite honest, we would probably—like, you’re waiting somewhere; there’s no such thing as waiting without looking at your phone, whether it’s at the doctor’s or even the supermarket, when you’re waiting at the checkout. That is by design. The addiction is absolutely to scroll and to scroll and to scroll, and you can literally keep going for ever.

The benefits are real for online platforms and social media. I belong to, for example, breast cancer community pages and chat groups. The connections are real. The information, the learning, is real. The harms are also very real, and I genuinely think that across this House there is good faith here. I think maybe this is one of the issues where we don’t have to do political argy-bargy, where we can agree we are all seeking to keep our people safe, especially our young people. I genuinely can say that—even though there are some slight disagreements on how—and I hope that continues.

My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has already traversed what we support, the letter that we wrote—that we wish this inquiry had broadened its terms of reference to not be just about the focus on young people, because we all need to be kept safe online. What I thought I would do instead, in my short time, is focus on the voice of children. I’m particularly paying attention to the explainer done by the children’s monitoring group, because that is one of the key areas where I know it is not intended as a punishment, to ban and restrict use to an age—under 16. I know it’s not intended as a punishment, but it just is. It is punishing young people for a platform that should instead be held accountable. That was the quote at the top of the explainer from the children’s monitoring group, which says, “Social media has become a major part of our lives and there’s not that much point in trying to push teenagers away from it. Rather, we should focus on making it a better place.”

I also understand that those parties who are supportive of a ban truly want to keep our children safe as well, but we, the Greens, are really clear that it is holding the platforms accountable, holding the platforms responsible for the design that intentionally harms young people and addicts young people. That is where the focus of my contribution was to stay today. Children and young people are pointing out very clearly that this is where they connect with friends, they build their identity, they express culture, connect with peers and whānau, communities of belonging, where they otherwise might not have grounds of belonging; information and education; creative outlets—we’ve definitely seen that, and it’s awesome—exercising agency they might otherwise not be able to, taking part in things that are supporting them, and wellbeing services. All of these things are true, and they are also expressing loudly a call for better safety online. They are calling for stronger accountability for social media companies and more education to help them, which was a widely supported recommendation that came through from all of the political parties—education to help them, their families, and their whānau navigate this complex digital world, to be able to get the best out of it, to be able to stay safe online, including on social media. We do see the positives, we do see the benefits, but we really want to safeguard properly against the harms.

The thing about the age restriction is that it would require, in effect, a breaching of privacy and an exposure of privacy. We are really concerned about how we would uphold their information and privacy rights, and their right to be protected, including with breaches of privacy.

We agree that the work that we all must continue to do together should absolutely centre children’s rights, children and young people’s ideas, and the understanding for what has worked overseas and what has not. I take seriously the call from the Children’s Convention Monitoring Group that a blanket ban on social media for under-16s may appear to be a way to keep our children safe—which we all want—but the reality is that, alone, a ban will not address the problem of online harm to children. Thank you.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (17:20): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee on our inquiry into the harm that young New Zealanders encounter online. I want to really acknowledge the significant amount of work the select committee did, particularly the leadership of acting chair Carl Bates and the lead Opposition member, the Hon Phil Twyford. It was a very constructive and cohesive process.

What became clear throughout this whole process is that online harm is affecting families right across New Zealand and many parents feel that the safeguards have not just have not kept pace with the technology. Most young people now have access to smartphones and social media before they even reach high school, bringing risks that simply did not exist a generation ago. One of the more confronting things I saw during this debate was The Worst Children’s Library exhibit, which was displayed here in Parliament. Some of the material represented in that exhibit was so explicit, it would be inappropriate for me to describe it here in the Chamber, yet it was content that our children are regularly exposed to online. There was a huge irony about this, because as we were going in to look at the display, there was a warning to adults to be aware of what you’re about to see. So I found that quite ironical.

Now, this whole area should concern every single one of us. We heard from Our Kids Online, founded by Rob and Zareen Cope, who have spent years working with families around online safety. I want to acknowledge Russell Shaw, who’s the CEO of Top Energy in Northland, whose passion around this issue led to Rob Coke coming and presenting here in Parliament. Russell spoke about attending a presentation at Springbank School in Kerikeri and being genuinely shocked at what he saw and the scale of what he saw. This led to Russell and Top Energy committing to fund Our Kids Online to visit all the schools in the Far North to educate parents on the risks and what they could do to protect their kids online. It’s just a fantastic community contribution.

I think that reaction reflects what many parents feel when they begin to understand the extent of what children are encountering in the digital environment. One statistic they shared was particularly striking: 92.9 percent of parents surveyed said they had little to no idea how to keep their children safe online. You know, I certainly wouldn’t have had any idea. I’ve had enough trouble working out how to use it myself. That tells us something important: this is not simply about parents telling parents just to do better, right? Most parents are trying to do the right thing. The report highlights that safety tools do already exist, but parents are somehow expected to navigate their way through privacy settings, parental controls, VPNs—whatever they are—and constantly changing apps that many have never heard of. It is no surprise many feel overwhelmed.

That is why I believe recommendation 3.10 in this report is one of the most important recommendations. The committee recommends that the Government invest in public online safety campaigns and better resources to educate and empower parents, caregivers, and young people—because one of the clearest findings from this inquiry was not that parents do not care; it was that many do not know where to start.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Wedd and the work she has done in this space through her member’s bill on restricting social media for under-16-year-olds, alongside the Government’s wider work programme looking at age restrictions for social media. After all, we accept common-sense protections around risks for children in the physical world: think about things like how we require seat belts in cars, we fence swimming pools, and we regulate harmful products like alcohol. The online environment should not be exempt from the same common-sense thinking simply because it is digital.

Importantly, this report does not say Government alone can solve this issue. It recognises that online platforms, parents, schools, businesses, and wider society all have responsibilities, as well. But if we are serious about reducing online harm, then empowering parents must be part of the solution. We need to strike the right balance. We need to understand that no single reform will solve this overnight, but doing nothing is not an option. I believe this inquiry is an important step towards a practical and balanced solution. I commend this report.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:25): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in this really important debate. It was a pleasure to be a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and I am really pleased that we actually took the time to do an in-depth look at the issue, because I believe that having a bill or a piece of legislation that simply introduces an age limit is not going far enough, not doing enough to actually address the real harms that many have spoken to us about. It was really important work for the select committee to do. Like others have, I want to acknowledge all of those who took the time to submit to our select committee so that we had good information available to us. We support the report and the recommendations in the report.

The one thing that I want to focus on—and, actually, Grant McCallum mentioned it—is I attended The Worst Children’s Library when it was up in Auckland. I had my children with me that weekend. Usually, on those sorts of things, I will take the kids out and about with me, but I looked at this and then I looked a bit deeper at the invitation and I went, “Oh, hang on a minute. This is definitely not a kids event.” It wasn’t immediately apparent to me. So I turned up alongside Priyanca Radhakrishnan and Lemauga and we go into The Worst Children’s Library. They had explicitly prohibited any under-18-year-olds from going into to view this, and once you get in there, you can really understand that, because they’ve set it up like a library, it’s got all of these pretty books for you to look at, but when you go closer and you look at the titles on those books, what it is demonstrating to viewers is we know that children have been exposed to and have seen this online. And it was really confronting.

My children are 8 and 11. They don’t have social media accounts; they don’t have cellphones, but we are quickly approaching that age, and I was one of those parents not aware of the sorts of tools that might be available to restrict their viewing of these sorts of things that you might see on there. So, for the benefit of the House, I will read a couple of those book titles that are actually the content that our children have seen. The Parrot in a Blender: “I saw someone put a parrot in a blender”, child, 14 years old; “Sex things I wish I never saw”, child, 11 years old; Thinspo Girls—how to get extremely skinny: “It makes me want an eating disorder.” These are the things that our children are being exposed to in an online environment.

I want to acknowledge those who put this library together and who also brought it to Parliament and hope that many of you had the opportunity to see it. What we know is that so much more can be done to protect our children—so much more—and what is the role of Government? What is the role of parents? What is the role of business? I want to acknowledge in the report there are many, many recommendations that talk about what Government can be doing, what parents can be doing, what businesses can be doing. I want to acknowledge my colleague Reuben Davidson, who also has a member’s bill in the ballot that talks about putting clear legal duties on online service providers to ensure that these platforms are safer.

The report recommends an independent regulator so that it’s safer and social media companies could be held responsible for the harm that they cause. These are really important recommendations that need serious consideration. All of them should be seriously considered, and we shouldn’t be looking at simply an age limit.

Others have spoken about the important role of education and educating parents, and the role that Government can play in that. I want to highlight that recommendation in particular, which is No. 10: “Educate and empower parents, caregivers, and young people. We recommend that the Government invest in public online safety campaigns or consider ways to fund the creation and promotion of comprehensive resources designed to educate and inform parents, caregivers, and young people about online safety.”

In the final 10 seconds that I have, moving forward, we need to include young people in the conversation and the design of the solutions to address this issue, which is all about them. Kia ora.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education and Workforce Committee’s report into online harm. Specifically, I want to focus us in on those algorithms that have been mentioned multiple times, because this is not just simply a technology debate—it’s not merely about phones, apps, or screen times; this is about childhood, it’s about mental wellbeing, but it’s also about shaping identity, self-confidence, behaviour, and social development in an environment that’s unlike anything that we have seen in any previous generation. Importantly, it’s about power. For the first time in human history, a small number of global technology companies possess the ability to influence, on an enormous scale, what millions of young people see, think about, worry about, aspire to, fear, and compare themselves against every single day.

The key mechanism for that influence is those algorithms. Those algorithms are not simply about scrolling. It’s not through content that’s being made through our friends or other contacts. This is a curated, complex recommendation system that’s based on mathematical black box systems that are given to people based on the likelihood of continuing to keep their eyeballs on that screen. These systems continuously harvest that data. They harvest the information about what a young person watches, what they pause on, what they replay, what they comment on, what keeps them online longer, and then the system feeds them more of it. That’s algorithmic amplification. It’s concerning because that’s not necessarily optimised for truth or balance or resilience or healthy development; it’s optimised for attention. And what gets attention is what gets advertising revenue, and emotionally charged material is exceptionally effective at capturing attention.

Adolescents are neurologically, psychologically more vulnerable to these feedback systems because of their brain development and the point of development they’re at. They’re also wired for social reward, for peer approval, for novelty, for identity information and formation. They’re wired for chasing and feeling that sense of belonging. That makes them uniquely susceptible to this algorithmic amplified cycle of comparison, anxiety, outrage, and reinforcement. And yes, as has been mentioned across the House, adults are not immune to that either. As other members have said, they’re addicted to social media, well, I admit that I have suffered that addiction, as well.

Grant McCallum: Suffering.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, suffering, and I am aware of this algorithm, and some of us have probably played with that algorithm a little bit and tried to see what we can get it to refer us to. Most of the time, of course, I’m getting speeches from the Prime Minister and Nicola Willis and those fantastic other members of the National Party, but sometimes I take a break and I watch videos of puppies and men chopping wood, and I get more and more and more of that and you get more of what you look at.

The thing is that algorithmic transparency is a mechanism that we can gain some potential control over. This is a matter that’s being discussed internationally in other forums. The recommendation systems are not necessarily benign and they are the key to the business model on which these platforms are designed. They are deliberately black boxed because they are the key to their financial revenue gathering. That’s how they make their money. They are able to provide access to researchers in certain settings; TikTok is able to do that. However, Meta is not as transparent, although they will tell us, and they did tell us, that they are the most transparent. If you go to the transparency centre for Meta, however, what you will find is a step process that they go through and it gets to a point where it says, basically, in not so many words, “and then the algorithm does its magic”. Then on to other steps.

There is no transparency. This is something that we will tackle amongst a range of other options. This is an important piece of work, but it’s not the only thing we’re doing. I commend the report to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:35): I love this debate. I wish we had more of these kinds of debates where intelligent contributions are made by everyone around the House. I picked up a portfolio last year, the sexual and family violence prevention portfolio. I did so with a rather heavy heart, but I knew almost nothing about the material that we’re looking at today when I picked up that portfolio, and it was a great shock to me. I first of all want to thank people like Nikki Denholm of The Light Project, who gently showed me what was going on for the children of New Zealand, and it was utterly horrifying, and they didn’t provide black and white answers. People like Nikki have a level of knowledge that is exemplary and a commitment to making New Zealand better. I look at her work and the work of her colleagues with great admiration. I think it’s something that all of us across the House have much to learn about.

One of the things I did last year was—and the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has just talked about it: we bought The Worst Children’s Library to this Parliament, and I did that with a colleague from the National Party. That was a deliberate attempt to make sure that this was not politicised in an unhealthy way. We let those from all the parties who had brought member’s bills on these issues, speak at that event. So we heard about the contribution that they were making. I think that’s incredibly important.

I was talking to the Radio New Zealand reporter and I said, “Thank goodness my children have grown up and they haven’t had to navigate this landscape.” My daughter rang me from Sydney and laughed at me. She said, basically, “Of course I saw this material.” I had absolutely no idea that she was being exposed in that way. In fact, I saw the issue of digital navigation as something that I would be wrong not to let my children do because I did think that they needed to learn to connect in the world that was currently here, and I didn’t have enough of a grasp on it to realise quite what I was imposing on them.

Nikki Denholm uses language that I’d like to adopt and I’d like to credit her with. She talks often to crowds about the changing digital landscape that we are in, and she actually describes some of the things that are going on and she talks about making sure that children navigate those rough seas. So it will involve multiple responses on our part, and I think that’s an incredibly strong message from the sector that it’s not one thing. It’s not going to be something that doesn’t cost us. We’re going to have to educate our parents and our children. We’re going to have to look at critical analysis.

Now, I want to make one final point here, which is something that shocked me that I found out about, and it relates to what the Hon Phil Twyford was talking about, about liability of our social media companies. We cannot afford not to be brave about this. I found out about a practice that’s been happening where people are watching child abuse, child rape on their webcams, and they do this internationally and they do it in countries of great vulnerability like the Philippines—500,000 children in the Philippines have had that experience.

What has happened is a market has been created that we never expected to be created, and it is unregulated. The answer is not the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The answer is: we demand that our social media companies—that the internet—actually does not allow this sort of thing. The technology exists. We cannot have police people across the world trying to cope with this by prosecution, because the children will still be abused. We must take global responsibility for this. We must stop this happening in the first place. We must not allow markets to be created that are evil, that hurt our children in that way. We cannot simply talk about “freedom of speech” and leave them to it. We are beyond that point.

This is a wake-up call for New Zealand. We must look at it, and we must provide answers and solutions and support to our parents and children. Thank you.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Minister for Land Information) (17:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online. I would just, firstly, like to acknowledge all the members that are on the environment, education, and workforce select committee—[Interruption] I had the fortune to—

Hon Member: It’s all right. Carry on.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Education and Workforce Committee. Did I say environment? I apologise. I had the good fortune to sit there for a while until I left that committee.

There was a broad range of views. I’m certainly not someone that’s OK with technology—a bit like my colleague here beside me. There may be several decades in difference of age, but I think there was a very common theme that we do need to do something. The horse has long, long bolted, and it’s not just out of the stable, it’s actually multiple paddocks away now. I commend Minister Erica Stanford for being the ministerial lead on the inquiry. We are the adults in this conversation, and they are our children.

I would particularly like to speak in regards to, again, section 10 in the select committee report, about educating and empowering the parents. There’s a bit there in regard to what role parents should play, as distinct from the companies, as distinct from the potential role that Government could play. We did have quite a bit of discussion around that. There was a view that it should be the parents’ responsibility, but I also had a view, a bit like my colleague here, Grant McCallum: grow up in rural New Zealand as well. I mean, I’m an individual. I talk about it with children, that I never had a phone until eight years ago. They look at you in disbelief. It’s like, we never had a phone, we never had connectivity. We never grew up with it. It was not an option. The connectivity is slightly better. It’s not a world that we grew up in, understanding.

Our four children grew up at the start of that journey into online devices and phones and things like that. We actually saw the behaviour and how it impacted our kids and how addictive it was. We saw the impact it had on their friends as well. I’ve seen the impact it has on friends of my kids and, in some cases, very tragic circumstances. It’s become—you know, there is a lot to like about technology, but there’s also a lot of challenges with it as well. Those tragic circumstances—it was bullying that was perpetrated online, and it just goes boom like that. There are some real challenges around that.

I think there’s a lot assumption that parents know. I would hold the view that a lot of parents don’t know. They’ve never grown up with the technology. They’ve never had the ability to use the technology. I think it’s just evolving at such a pace, an unprecedented pace, that the minute you get familiar with how to do something, it’s like, next minute, it changes, it gets an upgrade, and you’re lost again. I find myself looking around for the youngest person in the room, saying, “Can you, please, help me with that?”

Grant McCallum: Tom Rutherford by any chance?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Yeah! And that is my point: the young people have far better understanding, typically, of the power and the ability to use those things and what they’re capable of than a lot of people my age. That would be something that I would just like to highlight as well.

There’s the connectivity, there’s the capability, there’s the speed of transformation with the technology. I’m really pleased that, as a Government, we’re actually prepared to help our parents as well, because they do need help, and we are prepared to act. I do note that there’s an avalanche of countries wanting to do something, as well. I think we’ve finally realised there are some fundamental challenges with the speed of it, as well.

I’d just like to touch on, as Grant McCallum said, there are some tools available, which I’d never heard of as well. ISPs and VPNs and all these sorts of things as well. I would certainly encourage parents to have a look, probably online—ironically—at the tools that are potentially available to help them moderate the access that their children probably do have and to the platforms they have as well. It’s something that I don’t think we’re very well aware of. That was one of the decisions the select committee arrived at, as well, about the role of educating parents and the role that Government may have to play in that as well.

It’s certainly something that I think worth considering, but I would come back to, at the end of the day, we are the adults and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to protect our children as best as we can. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In September 2024, a 13-year-old girl called Annabelle Daza was online and experiencing distress. She’d been bullied at school. She had been looking at things related to eating patterns, and she had an eating disorder which had not been picked up by her GP. She was struggling with self-worth and she went on to TikTok and expressed that she was feeling suicidal. She also reached out to several different digital platforms that are there to help young people if they are feeling overwhelmed and, unfortunately, none of them, nor the New Zealand Police, got to her on time and she took her own life.

This is really heartbreaking, because Annabelle Daza had reached out for help and had been failed. She is an example of what the Youthline youth mental health summit has reinforced in its report around the amplifier effect of digital harm. It’s not just a tech issue; it amplifies things like bullying, anxiety, exclusion, shame, and social isolation. I’ve had the privilege of working with Annabelle’s parents, who I want to mihi to tonight, who are doing whatever they can now to try to help other parents from not going through the same thing they went through. They did not see this coming.

There is no silver bullet, as has been expressed. A blanket ban sends a good signal and may have some help, but really, we need a multi-layered approach, as has been said in the House already. We need education, we need prevention, we need peer support, we need accessible youth mental health care, and we need the platforms to take responsibility for the environments that they create.

Labour supports a joined-up approach. We support levelling the playing field against these billion-dollar technology companies who are making platforms that are designed to maximise profit and engagement, and, as has been said in this House, addiction, as well. We need stronger accountability, and we absolutely need more transparency around the algorithms that they deploy.

We’ve heard that the online harm is not just about content; it’s about design, it’s about addictive design, engagement, engineering, infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmic amplification, behavioural targeting. That is very predatory and very curated, and, yet, these devices that our children access this world on are in their pockets, sometimes 24/7.

The committee, which I did not sit on, also heard about loot boxes, gacha mechanics, reward systems, and other things designed to keep young users hooked.

While I applaud the bipartisanship that’s being expressed tonight, I do have concern that we have just seen this House pass the online gambling bill, where the definitions in that bill were archaic. They did not include any of the things that would be captured that have just been expressed. That bill creates and expands an online digital gaming market, and it encourages competitiveness, which we have not seen before in New Zealand. Yes, it’s unregulated, but now we’re going to have a competitive market available to our young people 24/7 in these devices that they carry around.

What concerns me is that we’ve heard, again, a bipartisanship about wanting to reduce harm; yet, one of the big elements of that bill was the advertising our young people would be exposed to, and it was put into regulations, not to come before this House, not to be subject to a select committee process. When I asked repeatedly, at the committee stage, the Minister of Internal Affairs to explain the harm minimisation elements of the bill, she did not seem to know the difference between harm minimisation and consumer protection.

I think the proof will be in the pudding. There is a lot of good will tonight, but how we go about engaging these protections that we want to implement will be the real test. We need to see the complex, layered, nuanced, and varied approaches that are going to cast the net very widely to make sure that we don’t see any more cases like that which happened to Annabelle Daza, like has happened to others who have been victims of these platforms. Let us hope that we can do the right thing, so their deaths won’t have been in vain.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (17:51): Today marks a significant moment in this House, as we work across parties on this very important issue: to protect our kids from online harm. It’s refreshing to see that so many of us agree we need to do more to keep our kids safe online and we need to work together to achieve positive change. This is bigger than politics; this is bigger than this House. The future of our kids is too important to get this wrong.

I welcome this report which recommends that the Government should consider restricting social media for under-16s, saying it is time to be a fast follower and follow other countries around the world which have already moved to ban social media for under-16s. There is a global movement, and we should not be left behind.

I want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for all their work on this inquiry and to Carl Bates for your leadership. Last year, with support of our National Party caucus and our Prime Minister and education Minister, I introduced my member’s bill to ban social media for under-16s. It’s great to stand here today and see this work progressed.

Hearing submitters from across New Zealand voice their concerns about protecting our kids from online harm sends a powerful message. I want to acknowledge the parents, educators, health providers, caregivers, advocacy groups, and young people who have shared their stories. Thank you for your courage to stand up. And thank you to the 50,000 people from across New Zealand who signed a petition and presented it here on the steps of Parliament calling for political parties to support a social media ban for under-16s. You have all taken the time to tell us how you are feeling about the impact of social media on your families, on your children, on your grandchildren, and the harm social media is causing in our community. From cyber-bullying, inappropriate content, sextortion, mental health issues—the list goes on. The harms are real.

As a mum of four children, I hear you. Please know that your voices are driving change. The submissions received by the committee were heartfelt, and I’d like to pay special mention to Havelock North Intermediate, a school in my electorate. Their staff and board were among the schools who spoke about the negative impacts of social media in our community. They shared concerns about the persistent harm, the constant distraction, and the social pressures caused by social media.

We have guardrails in the physical world to protect our young children, but we have no guardrails in the online world. It’s high time we do. We have a drinking age. We have a driving age. We should also have a social media age.

The inquiry found that algorithms can amplify content, which could increase exposure to online harm. Social media platforms are addictive. The streaks, the scrolling, the dopamine hits. It’s hard enough, as we’ve heard, for adults to stop, but our children are more vulnerable. The social media addiction, lack of sleep, and mental health issues are real.

The inquiry also looked at other countries around the world, especially Australia, where they have already moved to ban social media for under-16s. In December, almost 5 million social media account were disestablished in the first few days, and it’s been successful. I was recently in Australia and saw the successful, positive impact of their ban for under-16s on social media.

While there will always be enforcement challenges, a social media ban is also about shifting behaviour and empowering parents. Right now, parents feel like they are fighting a losing battle against multimillion-dollar social media platforms exploiting our children. When a parent says no to their 11-year-old child being on Snapchat or TikTok, they feel like the mean parent excluding their children from a social life. If there is a social media ban, a social media age, parents can say no, it’s not OK, because the law says so. I commend this report to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:56): Well, first of all, I just want to acknowledge the hard work from the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Carl Bates, for this fantastic report. If you are anyone interested in the issues, I recommend that you guys should read through it. It’s very detailed and covers a lot of topics, so well done.

One thing I want to cover is that we know our society has transformed dramatically through the digital world. Technology and the internet have changed the way we live, work, learn, and communicate. Today, information is available instantly at our fingertips. Families separated by oceans can stay connected through video calls and social media. Young people can access educational resources, build friendships, and discover opportunities that previous generations could only imagine. But, along with this advantage come an ongoing challenge: online harm.

If you look at this report, the committee has heard deeply concerning evidence from parents, teachers, social workers, community leaders, and young people themselves. We heard about cyber-bullying, harmful online content, online scams, gambling advertisements, addiction to social media, and the negative impact that excessive screen time can have on mental health and child development. But those harms—is it new to us? It is not.

I go back to the days when I was 15 years old. The first social media I used was called ICQ. I’m not sure how many people have used it before. You can actually call with it online, call with it worldwide, to make friends. And there’s always a risk that that happens in using those social media, so I believe that this inquiry is overdue. I’m glad that we started looking into these issues and trying to address that. Now, after so many years, as a father myself, this concern resonates personally with me. Like many parents, I worry about the kind of content our children are exposed to online, the amount of time they spend on devices, and the pressure they face in digital environments.

This is why, this last year, I organised a public meeting on online harm as well, to raise awareness and to hear directly from our community. The feedback was pretty similar to what we actually learnt in this inquiry.

I just want to mention what’s being highlighted in this report. First, at a Government level, a lot of submitters mentioned that the current legislation is fragmented and inconsistent and there is no single national regulator with clear responsibility for online safety. Stronger coordination and leadership are needed to better protect our communities.

Second, online platforms themselves must take greater responsibility. This report highlights concerns around the advertising and promotion of harmful products and harmful content online. Technology companies have influence and that influence comes with responsibility.

Third, parents and caregivers play a critical role. We heard repeatedly that children need guidance, boundaries, and support in navigating the online world. Spending quality time with our children, understanding what they are doing online, and having open conversations are essential steps in reducing harm.

Finally, to the young people themselves, I believe that we need to have a little bit of faith in our youth sometimes. They are actually smart and they understand the potential harm online, and they have the resilience to navigate those challenges. I think we just need to give them a little bit of guidance and education, so they can safely and responsibly engage online. This report contains 12 key reflections and recommendations for future action, but, ultimately, reducing online harm will require all of us: Government, schools, communities, industry, parents, and young people working together

But, for me—for me personally—one message stands above all others: family connection matters. Maybe it is time for all of us to reflect on our own habits. Maybe it is time for us to put down our cell phones a little bit more often, spend more time with our children, listen to them—

Grant McCallum: And your wife.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: —talk to them, and show them more care and attention. That’s right. We need to talk to our wives more often, as well. Technology will shape our future, but no technology will replace the guidance, love, and people of our family. I commend this report to the House.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The time for this debate has expired. It’s perfect timing. Thank you, members. It’s also time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. The House is resumed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (19:30): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the:‌

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill second reading,

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill second reading,

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill second reading,

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, and

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill committee of the whole House stage.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (19:31): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency:‍

the alterations to the appropriations for the 2025/26 financial year in respect of Vote Audit,

Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the estimates of expenses for the 2026/27 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Vote Office of the Clerk, and Vote Parliamentary Service.

It is about the appropriations for the Officers of Parliament. It is an annual process that basically allows for the agencies to recommend their budgets to the Government. This is the first time that the process has also included the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk, due to the passing of the Parliament Act last year.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (19:32): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E tū ana awau mā te Pāti Reipa ki te tautoko i ngā whakaaro e puta ana i roto i ēnei kaupapa kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to support the ideas that have emerged within these topics of discussion.]

I rise in support of the recommendations for the 2026-27 draft budgets for the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The recommendations recognise several important priorities: maintaining secure and modern parliamentary technology, supporting select committee and legislative services, strengthening digital access and public engagement, and ensuring Parliament continues to operate efficiently and transparently under tight fiscal conditions.

I’m sure we agree across the House that these priorities directly support not only constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti but across Aotearoa whānui. Over the past two years, whānau have become increasingly engaged in the submissions process. I think of people from across Aotearoa, some who live in the back blocks of Te Araroa, some who live in the beautiful Tai Tokerau, and in the depths of Te Waipounamu. Often those whānau rely on good connectivity and digital access to be able to fully participate in our processes with integrity, and I think that is reason enough to support that recommendation.

Speaking of select committee processes, I want to acknowledge all the clerks and all the other support staff who make that process smooth for everybody involved. I also want to take the time to thank everybody out there who has taken the time to write submissions, often at short notice, so that you can fully participate in parliamentary processes. Once again, Labour absolutely supports ensuring the efficiency and integrity of the select committee process.

Now, at a time when people are talking about the cost of living, some people may perceive this to be simply maintaining systems and processes in our offices here in Wellington and across Aotearoa. There is an element of truth to that, but also the fact is that that investment, once again, will directly benefit our constituents. It’s also worth remembering that Parliament itself is not immune to rising costs of operation.

Recent legislation has absolutely increased the participation of whānau across Aotearoa in these processes, so it is with pleasure that I stand up on behalf of the Labour Party to support these recommendations to ensure the efficiency and integrity of all our parliamentary processes, but more importantly, to ensure them for the constituents across Aotearoa who put all the representatives here in this House. I commend the recommendations to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the alterations to the 2025-26 appropriation for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsman, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; the draft budget for the Office of Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; as well as the newly added appropriations for the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

I want to kind of discuss each in turn, the first grouping being the Officers of Parliament, and just noting that all of these were heard in the Officers of Parliament Committee. There are three particular Officers of Parliament that we’ve heard from: the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Commissioner for the Environment.

Now, in terms of the Ombudsman, one of the major things for all three is in terms of the increasing cost and the pressure that applies and the potential trade-offs for each of the three officers. Just to note that the reason that alongside this we will see the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk is because of the independence that is required for some of these functions, and particularly when we’re looking at the Officers of Parliament.

For the Ombudsman, I think one of the major things is around some of the trade-offs we’re seeing with the increased number of Official Information Act requests, but at the same time, the increasing number of complaints for using the Official Information Act. I think it’s important to acknowledge the continued importance of the role of the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman that came before the current one, in terms of upholding that ability to scrutinise, but also the checks and balances between the legislature and the executive. That is the incredibly important function that the Ombudsman plays.

With the Controller and Auditor-General, alongside, obviously, the standard work that the Controller and the Auditor-General does in terms of audits of various aspects of agencies here in Aotearoa, they also support members of Parliament as well as select committees on some of our scrutiny requirements. Most importantly, it’s also important to note the most recent merger between Audit New Zealand and also the Office of the Auditor-General into the new Audit Office. I think that is something that, for the rest of us, will take a little while to get used to.

Finally, in terms of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, one of the things that was raised as part of the select committee process was the fact that the budget that has been requested is staying the same for the next four years. That’s an important thing to note, because one of the things that we did ask is how the commissioner is able to continue achieving the same quality and the same quantity of reports and investigations they’re able to undertake despite the increasing cost, even if you’re looking at the baseline of the Consumers Price Index. That is something that we have received reassurance from the Commissioner for the Environment on, as well.

Finally, it is incredibly exciting—it is genuinely incredibly exciting—that we are looking at the first report by the Officers of Parliament Committee detailing the consideration for the budget to parliamentary agencies, and that’s the Parliamentary Service and also the Office of the Clerk as part of the passing of the Parliament Act 2025 last year. The reason this is exciting is that, for the first time, Parliament has absolute independence in determining its own budget, which means that we are able to scrutinise, we’re able to really fulfil our role as parliamentarians when you’re looking at that separation of power and the checks and balances between the legislature and executive. Previously, our budget was determined by the executive, so that is an incredibly powerful thing to do, and, obviously, we thank all political parties in the House for years of work on that particular Parliament Bill.

I also do want to take this opportunity to acknowledge everyone here in the Parliamentary Service as well as the Office of the Clerk, because, while the rest of us, as members of Parliament—the 123 of us—are able to do our work every day to the consistency and quality that we’re able to do the work that we’re doing, it is because of all of the support that we get from the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk. I want to thank all of you, and particularly the extra hours that everyone has put in, in terms of all of the work that we are doing here. We know we’ve seen an increasing number of extended settings, urgencies, etc. Thank you to everyone that makes our Government, our Parliament run smoothly. With that, the Green Party supports this appropriation.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The proposed address is available on the Table of the House. The question is, That the address be adopted.

Address adopted.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 12 May.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (19:41): There are bills that come to this House that make you get up in the morning and say, “This is why I came to Parliament.” This bill is not one of those bills, but it is a necessary piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Dan Rosewarne—night of the Dans.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (19:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Dan Bidois mentioned, this isn’t a flashy bill. It’s not transformational, and it’s not pretending to solve congestion or emissions or the cost of owning a car overnight or anything like that, but what it does do is very important.

I want to speak to this bill and, as someone who generally lives in this transport system, I like to see the transport system from multiple avenues of approach. I mean, I’ve got all my licence classes. Like the majority of this House, I’ve got class 1. I’ve got my class 2 licence as well. You needed that to drive the light armoured vehicles in the army, so I managed to get that relatively young. I then also got my class 4, heavy rigid, and then up to class 5, so I can drive the B-trains, which I very much enjoy. Then I also have endorsements to drive over the vehicle dimension and mass limits, which the Government is trying to increase—those axle weights—so plenty of experience in that. I also have the class 6, the motorcycle licence, so that’s been very handy over the years. I’ve had lots of motorcycles over the years, too. In fact, when I was in my mid-20s, I had a Harley-Davidson. Interestingly, if you want to feel young, you go out on a ride with a bunch of Harley owners. Even now, when I go out riding, I still feel young, riding with Harley owners.

I’d actually like to send a message to a lot of the young people out there. If your boss or your employer offers up the opportunity to get a driver’s licence and for them to pay for it, or even a forklift endorsement or a wheels, tracks, and rollers endorsement, absolutely take it. It’s a fantastic opportunity. I was told, as a young person, that if you have your heavy transport—HT is what they used to call it—and your forklift endorsement, you’ll never go hungry. You’ll always find a job somewhere in New Zealand, because there’s always someone that needs something moved or something transported from A to B.

I very much loved my cars. I also have a classic car. If anyone here knows their classic cars, I’ve got a fully restored HJ Kingswood. You used to have the Kingswood. It was the mid-range of the old Holdens. You used to have the Belmont, which was the base model, and then you’d have the Kingswood, and then the Premier, with the twin headlights. I very much enjoyed taking that around.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I think I need to remind the member it’s actually a five-minute call. As much as we’re enjoying the nostalgia trip around their car, I thought I’d better warn him.

DAN ROSEWARNE: I was very much about to get back to the bill and I was just kind of dialling back into that.

The bill also covers the old drivers’ licences—and we all remember the old ones. You would just have the colour of your eyes. There was no photo ID in there, so it wasn’t very secure. Some people—I don’t know who they were—but we used to use them as ID. They used to pass them around to get into bars and clubs and things, but I would never do anything like that, and neither would any good member of this House! Going to the electronic drivers’ licences is very good for security, but, bear in mind, the hard-copy drivers’ licences might still be very important if you’re travelling overseas. Some people might prefer to hold on to those hard-copy licences if you’re going to hire a car, or if you decide to go to the Cook Islands on holiday. If you don’t have your licence, you’ve got to go to the police station in Rarotonga there, but if you’ve got your hard-copy licence, you can just go to the rental, hire your scooter, and crack on with your holiday. Some jurisdictions might still require us to have a hard-copy licence, but, yeah, that’s what this bill does: it enables us to move to kind of like a digital form, which definitely enhances security.

The bill also allows things like a warrant or fitness and certificate of fitness and other key documents to be handled electronically. When I take my car to car shows and things, I don’t like it to be plastered with registration stickers. It looks a lot cleaner. I’ve got the original glass in it from 1976. I just like to have that on display. As someone who looks after older vehicles, I like the idea of digital tags, and a lot of the classic car owners feel the same way.

Another big reason that Labour supports this bill is because it strengthens safety and enforcement as well. It gives the NZ Transport Agency clearer powers to close unsafe highways. It allows unsafe operators to be suspended immediately and it also strengthens investigation powers across road, rail, maritime, and aviation. That very much matters because transport law isn’t something just kind of on the side; we need it for our roads, especially when they’re wet or especially when we need to cut them off for maintenance. It’s very important. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) (19:47): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As much as I enjoyed the member’s speech, I will make mine very short. The bill is a modernisation bill. It is bringing us to a digitalised driver’s licence, which I look forward to. I commend this bill to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (19:47): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports this bill as it’s a set of technical but meaningful improvements that modernise our transport laws and reduce inefficiencies across the system. This is a practical piece of legislation that closes regulatory gaps, strengthens enforcement, and brings New Zealand into better alignment with international transport and labour standards. These are sensible, necessary changes, and Labour is very pleased to support them.

However, there’s a large hole in this bill, in that it does not tackle the bigger issues around transport and affordability, emissions reduction, or public transport accessibility. The Government had an opportunity to consider a wider remit as part of this amendment, and they have chosen not to, so I want to speak to both of those points today.

First, this bill makes compliance simpler, more efficient, and more suited to the modern world. One of the most noticeable shifts is the move toward digital systems. The bill allows infringement notices and reminders to be served electronically. It’s pretty straightforward, but it reflects how we’re actually living in modern-day society and how we communicate today. It also enables electronic warrants of fitness, certificates of fitness, and certificates of loading.

I think in years to come we will look back and wonder why we ever stuck little pieces of paper on our windscreen at the front of our car, and how, if we didn’t have the little paper there—even if we had a registration—we’d get a $200 fine. I’m not speaking from experience but from what I’ve heard from other people. It’s kind of like a fax machine and how we used to put pieces of paper into a machine and then it would go to someone else’s house. We kind of look back at that and think that is a bizarre situation that we did that. Then, the other one I was thinking of is a CD and the thought of when I explained to my kids that we used to get a little disc and put it in a machine to play a song—after you go to the shop to buy your music, your CD of one particular artist.

They find that completely ridiculous because they can just get music at the tap of a button. My point is that I think that we will look back on this and think the same. I can’t believe that we had to walk around holding little licences in our hands when we were driving a car, and so I’m very pleased that we have these changes.

Tangi Utikere: On your phone, it will be.

GEORGIE DANSEY: That’s right. It’s a sign of the times, and I note that the law just sets up this framework. The development and implementation of these tools we will see in the future, and I hope that that comes sooner rather than later. The change removes unnecessary hassle. It saves time for drivers, businesses, and regulators. It reduces paperwork and modernises a process that has, frankly, been very overdue for an update.

The digital driver’s licence is something that I personally welcome as someone—like, probably, most Millennials—who doesn’t like holding things in their hands apart from their phone. It’s going to be a great step in that direction for freeing up my hands because I don’t have to carry my wallet any more, but I can have my licence in my phone, and so that is a very positive step. However, I do appreciate that the bill still allows for physical copies of licences. While we move towards digital solutions, it still ensures that we have choice, and people who prefer physical licences and documents will still have that option.

What I wanted to mention here is the wonderful times when we used to have cheques and cheque books. I never used one, but I know that when cheque books were removed from circulation, many people were very concerned and upset about that. It is a hard thing—and I’m saying this in a genuine way—for people to make the shift from something that they’ve been using for a very long time and move to a different process. I think we’ve all experienced that—either ourselves, or our parents and grandparents—and so I’m very pleased that people can continue to have a physical copy of their driver’s licence.

Alongside these changes, the bill introduces practical administrative improvements like requiring email addresses and mobile numbers on licensing records, and these small changes will make the system more responsive and more workable in a digital age. Taken together, these reforms will reduce friction, they’ll make compliance easier, and they will improve how people interact with the transport system. However—to my second point—I’m disappointed that this Government has chosen not to go further with a more ambitious transport vision, one that puts climate, fairness, and accessibility at the heart of our transport system, where they should be.

This bill does not directly address affordability, congestion, or emissions. These are bigger issues that still require a stronger policy. Labour supports having a more ambitious transport vision, one that puts fairness and accessibility at the centre. On this side of the House, we like to dream big about what our future could look like in the transport space, and this bill reflects the priority of this Government, which is not a forward-focused transport system.

That reminds me of a train trip that I took two weeks ago from Hamilton to Tauranga—and it’s good to see that Ryan Hamilton is in the House, because he also supports trains. He wasn’t on the trip, but maybe he’ll be on the next one. We went through a tunnel in the Kaimais that hasn’t had a passenger rail train go through it in 14 years. It takes about 10 minutes, and you’re in the dark and it’s a little bit scary, but it’s so forward-thinking that we can connect our largest-growing region. We’re connecting Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga, the “golden triangle”, with public transport options. At a time when fuel prices are increasing, now is the time to make that change and to invest in more public transport. I’m disappointed that this bill, although it is a good step, is a small step, and I’d encourage the Government to go further because that’s what New Zealanders need: more options in our transport system.

Now, I want to turn to another important part of the bill, which is safety. This bill strengthens the safety framework across road, rail, and maritime transport a little bit. It goes a step in the right direction, and there’s obviously more to do. I think that we can all agree that safety in transport is an incredibly important part of our society, and we should keep moving forward to increase safety where we can.

This bill gives regulators stronger enforcement tools, ensuring that they can act when safety is at risk. It updates penalties across the system, bringing them into line with modern expectations and ensuring consistency across different transport modes. This bill also strengthens powers in the rail sector, expanding investigation capability following accidents and incidents. We know that rail is a very high-risk environment. When something goes wrong, it’s critical that we can respond really quickly and efficiently, and this bill helps to ensure that we have the powers needed to do exactly that.

In addition, the bill lowers the threshold for maritime investigations, allowing regulators to respond more readily to safety concerns in that sector, and I also want to highlight the new powers given to the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi to close unsafe highways. I think that this is a really good safety move. It’s a common-sense measure. When a road is unsafe due to weather damage or other risks, the regulator is able to act quickly to protect people, and this bill ensures that that can go ahead.

I want to acknowledge that this bill has been through the select committee process and I’m sure that there have been many questions about the integrity of things like the digital licences and the documents. I’ll look forward to seeing how that is implemented as it is.

To conclude, look, the bill does some work in the right direction. There is much more to do. Labour supports this bill on the basis of it being meaningful improvements to our transport system.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (19:57): I’d like to congratulate the other member there, Georgie Dansey, on what I assume is her first 10-minute call. Well done, you’ve completed the challenge.

Planes, trains, and automobiles—it’s a great bill. It’s taking the licences of old, as Dan Rosewarne talked about and which I remember, to become a new one, and now we have the optionality of it being digital. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (19:58): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published on the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (19:58): I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to be here today to present the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill that deals with the regulatory systems overseen by the Department of Internal Affairs. The bill’s primary objective is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of those regulatory systems. The bill addresses minor errors, gaps, and inconsistencies across legislation. It also addresses overly prescriptive and out-of-date provisions.

The bill amends 30 Acts, including restricting those under-18 from purchasing tickets for lottery products and allowing individuals to apply to have their passports cancelled, if the data has been compromised. It also strengthens the department’s ability to share information with international law enforcement agencies to prevent the spread of objectionable content such as child sex abuse material online. The department’s digital safety team work hard to take down this horrific content and I’m pleased to be able to support the efforts through this change.

I thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work on the bill. The committee has had a huge variety of topics to consider, from processes for disposing archives and the requirements for issuing emergency travel documents, to addressing details that will support the implementation of the fire and emergency levy. I also thank everyone who took time to submit on the bill. The committee received 46 submissions including from the New Zealand Law Society, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Insurance Council of New Zealand, Fertility New Zealand, and the New Zealand Mixed Martial Arts Federation.

I was pleased to see that the committee unanimously supported the progress of the bill. It shows a general consensus that this bill will improve the Department of Internal Affairs’ regulatory systems and, ultimately, will deliver benefits to Kiwis who interact with those systems.

I also consider the committee’s recommended changes are reasonable and will improve the bill. For example, one of the recommendations for an additional amendment would give greater flexibility to local authorities to publish notices online, rather than having to publish notices in the newspaper. This will provide small but worthwhile cost savings for councils.

The committee also recommended a range of technical improvements that will strengthen or clarify existing amendments in the bill. One example is providing a definition of “personal representative” in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act so that it is clearer who can provide donor information to fertility clinics. Another is providing more detail on the health and safety risks that would justify the Chief Archivist authorising the destruction of a public archive.

In conclusion, this bill will deliver a wide range of small improvements to the Department of Internal Affairs’ regulatory systems. The select committee process has helped to ensure that we will get the details right to deliver the best benefit possible. I’d like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee again and the people who made submissions. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (20:02): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to make a contribution to the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. Following on from the Minister with regards to this bill, it is a very important bill that brings out-of-date provisions in over 23 Acts, in terms of the provisions. I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee members. We were able to work collegially and hear from over 40 submitters from the community with respect to various pieces of legislation.

What was important was to understand that under each of the Acts that were brought forward to the select committee, when the submitters came to the committee with their individual concerns, was then for the select committee to do their work with assistance from the officials. So I do want to acknowledge the officials who carried out the work in terms of internal affairs and the respective departments.

I also want to finally acknowledge the submitters who came forward. Some had very interesting information in their submissions because select commission members were not aware of those circumstances in the community.

Of those over 20 Acts that are recorded in terms of this bill, it is important to understand each scenario of the submitters and that specific piece of legislation. So in my contribution, I do want to quickly talk about specific pieces of legislation that have been covered under this Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. The first one that I would like to highlight, was the changes in the Births, Death, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act. The submitters highlighted the gap in terms of the current processes under the legislation. Part of the select committee’s role was to do the checks and balances when it came to specific information that is registered on a birth certificate.

For example, it was to understand that when the information that is specifically registered at the internal affairs office, it is important to understand the gap—that submitters were saying once their information is registered, unless you go back to the registration at the Citizenship Office to have that changed, your information can be recorded incorrectly. That is quite upsetting to members of the public who take a lot of pride in terms of the information that is registered. The provision or the registered information that is covered in terms of correcting the provision, the select committee members were able to discuss that and make the suggestion for being updated and corrected.

The other acts that we did cover and we heard from a few submissions was the Boxing and Wrestling Act. It was important to understand that there are athletes in the community in that specific sport and that the outdated legislation needs to be updated. In terms of combat sports, it’s actually quite different when the legislation was written at the late 1950s to today in 2025. It was important to reflect that the specific provision—there needed to be an updating to keep those athletes safe. That is important in that contact sports and that combat sports. So that was really helpful to understand from those submitters. When we received that submission, the oral submission, the committee members had the ability to ask and clarify questions and so that was helpful.

I do want to look at the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act because there’s been quite a lot of activity in this House with regards to Fire and Emergency New Zealand. This specific amendment bill—there are changes in terms of mixed-use properties, those that are residential and non-residential. To achieve the purpose of the provision is to get that levy right. So it’s important to understand that a number of the recommendations that were made in this amendment, and we also heard from the officials that there needed to be some amendments. The definitions needed to be accurate, and the transitional provisions must be correct so that those members in our community that this piece of legislation affects have that calculation correct.

Just in my time, I just want to quickly cover because there were things that submitters raised. One of them was the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. When we heard from a couple of the submitters, it was actually important to understand their specific scenario and how the provision affects their scenario. So the legislation was important to understand the role of the donor and then the role of that specific scenario so that we could make sure as select committee members that the wording in the new provisions and in the tidy-up of efficiency and effectiveness is reflected in the new provisions. So it was helpful to understand, but also there was quite some sensitive information in that piece of legislation.

One of the things that I—with interest, that I hadn’t realised was the bill, in terms of who can actually purchase Lotto tickets. Our young people, under 18 years of age—it’s actually really important to understand that they cannot purchase a Lotto ticket because there are rules around it. So sometimes members in our community—I’ll take in Māngere for example—some of our young people who are not 18, look like they’re 25, will just rock up and think that they can purchase. But actually, there is a provision and they need to be protected as a young person in our community, and that the business or the shop owner needs to ask that question, are you 18 years of age? Because some of our 14-year-olds look like they’re 25 and if they can’t provide the identification then there needs to be tidy-ups. I say that politely and respectfully.

It was important to understand that only those over 18 are responsible adults and that there is law that those under, that mum and dad cannot just send a young Johnny along or young Jane along to say, “Go buy my ticket”, when, in actual fact, the business needs to ensure that they are asking those responsible questions.

If there is a complaint and that complaint is investigated by Internal Affairs officials, then there are specific rules. So the law needs to be black and white so that members in our community understand that those who can purchase, whether it’s Lotto or Keno or whatever it is, are of age and they are doing a responsible purchase.

The last one I just wanted to quickly cover was the changes in terms of the Gambling Act where it highlights the rules in black and white. Online gambling or gambling has been quite a big topic in this House, but with this bill—the tidy-ups of effectiveness and efficiencies—it’s really important for New Zealanders to understand that Internal Affairs has a specific role, that there is going to be a tidy-up of these over 20 pieces of legislation, and that they know the rules are black and white, and that whatever the tidy-up has been and whatever work the Governance and Administration Committee has done, it is updated, is correct, and accurate.

Then it does allow the officials to do their role in terms of advising the community. If there is a question with respective questions on the different pieces of legislation, the public then knows to go on the Internal Affairs website, they are able to ask questions, and they are able to log those queries. When the select committee received this amendment bill, we did a lot of work and it was really important for us as members to understand the impacts of different pieces of legislation in our community.

So I do want to thank all of the officials involved and especially my colleagues and the submitters who helped us understand how a change or an updated piece of legislation affects them in their community and in their situation. I’m very grateful that we were able to work collegially as a select committee. We were able to make recommendations. Officials helped us, and it was really good that we were able to achieve that. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Annual Review Debate—Education

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:12): I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct a statement I made in the House on 21 April 2026.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. The statement was made on the basis of advice that I received at the time from the Ministry of Education. I incorrectly asserted that not a single word of the new curriculum in Te Marautanga, the updated refresh, had been done. This afternoon, the Secretary of Education notified me that there was an error in their advice and formally apologised to me for not advising me that one strand of the social sciences curriculum area in Te Marautanga o Aotearoa had been developed.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (20:13): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. This is actually a second night where I’ve done a regulatory systems amendment bill. The other one was transport, and very exciting bills these are, indeed. The Green Party does support this bill, and obviously it covers a lot of Acts; 23 Acts, all up. Those Acts are—we may as well let the people that are watching online know what the Acts are. I think that’s actually quite important because it is very important to give them all the information they need.

So there’s the films—oh, hang on. There are so many that it’s on two pages. There’s the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021; Charities Act 2005; Citizenship Act 1977; Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012; Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993; Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017; Gambling Act 2003; Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003; Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004; Inquiries Act 2013; Land Drainage Act 1908; Legal Services Act 2011; Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968; Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009; Marriage Act 1955; Passports Act 1992; Public Records Act 2005; Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915; Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1917; Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1920; River Boards Amendment Act 1913; and last, but not least, the Rotorua Borough Act 1922. Also, with those ones the bill is going to repeal the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981 and revoke the Boxing and Wrestling Regulations 1958.

So a lot of Acts are being changed, and it’s obviously—as people described it yesterday, housekeeping, with these types of regulatory system amendment bills—very technical in nature. So I will touch on a couple of the bills, just to go through, because I also think that’s quite important. I’ve had a little bit of involvement through this process because I obviously came in late last year and I was fortunate enough to actually listen to some of the hearings panels. It was good to see there were 44 individuals or groups that submitted on this. I believe 11 were heard and I was fortunate to listen to a very, very, I guess, sensitive hearing which focused on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act and actually how the legislation truly affected her ability to have ownership of her own tissue coming from overseas and where that was. Unfortunately, it was outside the scope of this bill, but it is noted in there.

I think when we have incidents like that come to select committee, I think it’s one thing to note it, but it’s when we see there are actually serious issues with legislation, it’s like, how is that picked up and moved forward so it can be rectified? The story that this woman gave us was very emotional and it was very powerful. It’s a shame if it just stops there on a piece of paper to say, “Oh, well, that’s out of scope.” So I’d hope that, like we saw with the transport bill with the person who could not drive and therefore could not get a driver’s licence, that was actually going to get progressed. So I do hope that also happens in this case as well.

Another Act that is going to be revoked is the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981. It was quite interesting because obviously there are a lot more combat sports, I guess, that we now see, that are not subject to an Act. There was a little bit of concern that because we had some boxing and wrestling that was covered by an Act and some other combat sports that weren’t then the solution was to revoke the one that had an Act so that everyone was fair, and there was a little bit of concern about—so it was good to see that the Governance and Administration Committee did have a look at how we could actually ensure that something was developed and try and get the timing right that when this was revoked, something would be coming in its place.

Now, personally, I was involved in a charity boxing match where one of the participants died and I was ringside at the time when that happened. I know firsthand that actually these things do happen and we need to ensure that we have legislation in place that does protect people that do participate in sport. Things like that affect so many people and you can’t take back when something like that happens, so it’s really important that as we repeal this Act, we actually put something in place that has the ability to protect people when they decide to participate in a sport that does involve conflict. It was really good to see that the committee had a look at this to try and ensure that when it does get repealed, there will be something put in place that will actually cover all the combat sports that we see.

Some of the other Acts that were changed were the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act , and that was just to clarify provisions relating to overseas divorce, dissolution, name changes, historical information, and some small changes to the functions of the Registrar-General. Most of the Acts were very, very minor. I think there was the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act; that was just to correct a cross-reference.

I think one of the ones that was quite interesting, I guess, was the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. A lot of that was just trying to align the Act and the definitions of what a multi-use dwelling was to what was in the newly created Natural Hazards Act. It was quite interesting. I used to work for the Earthquake Commission and looked after the multi-units division there, and it was not easy when you had these multi-use buildings, especially when there was a commercial element involved, trying to actually work out where the 50 percent was or was it not—it took a lot of time and effort and created a lot of confusion. so it’s really good to see that was fixed up in the Natural Hazards Act, and then this has been replicated into the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017. I think it’s really important that we have Acts that make it very simple for people to understand how things are defined when in legislation.

Another Act that, obviously, was looked at was the Passports Act 1992, which provides additional reasonable grounds for when a Minister can cancel a passport—for example, when it’s stolen or is requested to be cancelled, and the Citizenship Act 1977, to remove references to specific genders and to clarify exceptions for obligations and providing certificates.

It was very, very straightforward, and so this is one of the reasons why the Greens support these things, because this is a technical housekeeping bill that is just tidying up some Acts, and some of these are very, very old Acts. I think I was mentioning before that there were Acts from 1915 and 1908—the Land Drainage Act. So it’s always good to be looking at these Acts to make sure that they’re fit for purpose.

The other thing, in my last minute, I think it’s really important to touch on is the Fire and Emergency Act, because part of that was, obviously, doing some updates regarding to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) levy. We see right now how under-funded FENZ has been and the impact of that on its fleet. While this was, obviously, an opportunity to tidy things up, I think really the question that should be asked is whether the current way that FENZ is funded is actually sustainable. Is it giving us the right outcomes for our country, for an emergency service that responds to so many different things, not just fires? We have seen, since their formation in 2017, it seems to be going backwards. So it’s great that this is a technical tidy-up, but I think we know from this that there are bigger things that also need to happen that we should be focused on as well.

So just in closing, the Greens do support this, and I look forward to the next stage.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee for this piece of work: 23 Acts—it’s an omnibus bill—10 minor changes to the Acts, and unanimous agreement in select committee for all of those changes. So with that sort of support from across the House, we should keep this moving. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:23): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise both on behalf of New Zealand First but also as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, which considered this bill. What’s really great is that in hearing this debate, which is about a regulatory systems bill, people are actually focused on the bill. That’s marvellous, because that wasn’t the case yesterday when we were talking about transport issues. So well done to the Opposition for actually focusing on the bill—good stuff. We’re making improvements.

This bill is, as we have heard, largely a housekeeping bill, largely technical, and, as we’ve heard, a great long list of 23—I hope this is not wishful thinking that we’re going to keep to that kaupapa, but anyway. It is largely technical, and as Mike Davidson said, 23 Acts are affected, but there are some issues which are not entirely technical, and there’s also—I think this is good work by the select committee, because we’ve identified a number of areas where, in fact, we were outside of the scope of the bill, but we’ve said that, actually, more work needs to be done on those.

Mike Davidson already has mentioned the issue around combat sports, where we heard from some of the combat sports who said, “Basically, we’d like some form of arrangement that, actually, somebody’s managing our sports so they are safer.” You know, it’s a hard thing to be sitting at an event and see somebody killed in one of these combat sports or die as a result of injuries in one of these combat sports. So they said that they wanted some form of regulation or some form of governance. We’ve said we actually think that’s a good idea, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—an interesting ministry to be in charge of this—were doing some work, and so we said, “Actually, just taihoa on removing the existing legislation, but keep on with that work, get on with doing that work so we actually get an outcome which is good for the people who participate in our combat sports.”

The second one I wanted to mention is the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. There were some really interesting things there. It was really around sperm donating and the situation where somebody might donate to multiple different clinics, and it’s the ability to be able to share information between them in a way that works, because you don’t really want to be in the situation of having someone be a donor to one clinic and a donor to another clinic, and people get together in a relationship 20 or 30 years down the track and you’ve actually effectively got biological relations who are then in a relationship with each other. So, again, we said it’s a complicated area, but we do need to see some more work done, and that’s the outside of the scope of the bill but we think more work needs to be done in that area as well.

The other area I wanted to identify is in the Public Records Act, and this is the one area, as you see right at the beginning of the commentary from the committee, where we did have a disagreement, with a minority opinion rather than a majority opinion. And, unusually, in this case, the majority opinion was from Opposition parties and New Zealand First, and National said—and this is why we have a dissenting view—that they don’t agree with that.

I just wanted to briefly walk through that, because the idea here was to be able to exempt some agencies particularly where they’re working overseas, and the particular one where the concern was around the Defence Force. And, of course, this relates back to Operation Burnham in Afghanistan, the situation there, the inquiry that happened into that incident. And this is about saying, “Well, so we exempt the Defence Force from having to comply with the Public Records Act?” And we had a number of submitters who said they were concerned that this is just too easy a way out and we should not be doing that, should not be countenancing that. And by majority we actually said, “Look, we agree. It doesn’t mean that it can never happen. It doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be an exemption at some stage in the future, but it needs to be carefully thought through.” And so the recommendation from the committee—and I know that this was something where we specifically got advice from our leader’s office, and we said that this is something we had signalled, he had signalled, is a concern—was that they didn’t want to see the Defence Force being excluded because of the situation around Operation Burnham.

We’ve got to take this this very carefully, very thoughtfully, and that is why the recommendation in the committee report back refers to the Department of Internal Affairs telling us that it will continue to work on this issue, and we’re encouraging it do so. And we’ve particularly said that we think there should be further consultation on this because there are a lot of people with an interest in it. There are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge in it. And we think that that work should be done. So there are several areas in this report where they are not merely technical, but we think that further work should be done because they are issues which are sensitive and could give a significant benefit to the country going forward. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a 5-minute split call—Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:28): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party, also in support of the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. I want to pick up on where the previous speaker, Andy Foster, left off, which is Public Records Act, and particularly clause 162 of the bill. Now, this is quite a substantial bill, as we heard before, and it does cover 23 different Acts. But I think we’re finding ourselves in a really peculiar situation where this is one of the few instances I’ve seen this entire term where the National Party actually had a differing view. And what I think surprised me more is the fact that no one I’ve heard so far from the National Party has actually spoken on their differing view or articulated their differing view.

So I would be really keen to hear from the National Party rather than the member here from New Zealand First. I would like to hear from the National Party on why that differing view exists and what is their intention behind that view. I think that is going to be an important thing to highlight, because it is, again, quite an interesting anomaly that we don’t normally see in any bill, let alone a regulatory systems bill, which is usually supposed to have cross-party consensus and be unanimous, but in this particular case it is done by majority.

Now, in terms of the regulatory systems bill, and I think, you know, quite a few people have spoken on this, and we’re going to be seeing quite a few of these regulatory system bills in general, and they are, usually, the housekeeping bills that we’re seeing that are a necessary but important tidy up. Arguably, I would say that some of the regulatory systems bills that we see are more important than some of the bills that have been introduced in this House by this Government in the first place. But, nevertheless, what we often see is regulatory systems bills being sort of left on the sideline a little bit and usually doesn’t even get picked up until much further. For those people with keen eyes tracking regulatory systems bills, it’s really interesting to see how long between a first reading and select committee stage, with the regulatory systems bill, it needs to take before it actually gets picked up on the Order Paper to be able to be read a second time—let alone a committee stage and third reading. Whereas, as I mentioned, and as other members of this House have mentioned, there are some really significant aspects of this bill that are repealing in higher legislations and important changes that genuinely will make tangible differences to people in the communities—again, as opposed to some of the bills that we’re seeing in the House this term.

I do want to pick up on a few aspects of this bill. We mentioned before, in terms of the public records and particularly when it comes to overseas exemption in clause 162, but I think, to start with, one of the things we’re looking at is the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, around the ability for the Registrar-General to emit registered information from a birth, death, name change, and marriage or civil union certificate.

Now, of course, what I’m going to be mainly speaking on for the remainder of this time are changes and recommendations through the select committee. So despite my best efforts, I will not be able to cover all 23 Acts that will be covered in this bill. I will try my best.

Andy Foster: Seek leave for an extension of time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, seek leave for more time—there we go. I could use up the time that other people did not use up. That would be new. I could use up the two minutes that I gracefully gave up last night prior to the Hon Judith Collins’ valedictorian statement.

But anyway, in terms of this, I think it is important some of the changes that, although I’m not a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I’m really impressed with the quality of the report and the ability to listen to the submitters and make those sort of really tangible and really practical changes as a result. I do want to commend the chair at the time, Camilla Belich, for being the chair of that committee and being able to work collaboratively with the members on some of these changes as well.

Another one that is important to note is the Boxing and Wrestling Act, which my colleague Mike Davidson has mentioned before, and I think that’s an important change. I think a lot of the changes we’re seeing, whether it is the Boxing and Wrestling Act, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act, the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, and the Gambling Act are all based on feedback from submitters and from officials on being able to plug that loophole that, potentially, might be created between the first version of this bill and now the second version.

So, with that, I’m really pleased to see regulatory systems bills progressing in the House and the Green Party is happy to support this bill.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (20:33): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill; it’s a synonymous bill and seeks to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems.

As Dr Shane Reti said, all parties right across the House have to actually agree to it, and, you know, many members from the select committee, and those who have actually spoken who are not on the select committee, have mentioned many, many things. I’ll mention two things: one is—because I don’t think anyone’s actually talked about this one—the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. Part 6 of the bill talks about it. It is about labelling films and videos—for example, R18. The issue that they have is that the film and video labelling body, which currently undertakes the labelling body role, is actually finishing their work. It ends its operation on 31 March 2027, and that, effectively, creates a gap in who may actually do that. So the Minister has actually made an amendment; proposed an addition inserting clause 47A and 47D to Part 6, to make sure that the classification office can, in fact, fulfil the work that the labelling body has provided in the past. So that actually fixes the problem.

In answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan, I just want to say that the National Party’s differing view, which was discussed quite widely in the select committee—and I’m acknowledging the work of the previous chair, Camilla Belich. I think this issue relates to New Zealand service people, servicemen and women who actually partake in, for example, peacekeeping operations overseas, whether it’s in the Middle East or whatever, and often those records are not kept by New Zealand because they are actually serving overseas in those jurisdictions, and often that information is not able to be attained or kept. This is the reason why this differing view was actually added to the select committee report, so that we can actually look at it and actually make amendments to it.

On that, I actually commend the bill to the House, because the whole of the House actually agrees to this bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to colleagues for their kind words. I was just saying to my colleague Tangi Utikere, I’ve missed the Governance and Administration Committee. It’s a great committee, and reading through all of this material does remind me of the really interesting work that the Governance and Administration Committee does and, of course, including this regulatory systems bill, which we looked at.

Now, if you look at the cover of this bill, you’ll see that it’s described as small changes that are done in a regulatory systems bill. But this particular bill—and it was something that was raised at first reading—does get into some issues of substance. They’re not, as you can see by the agreement of the House, things which have ended up being sufficiently controversial to mean that this doesn’t have support from across the House, but they are important issues. I want to thank all members of the Governance and Administration Committee and also the staff of the Governance and Administration Committee and the advisers that we had from the Department of Internal Affairs. They had to cover a number of different bills in order to provide us with their advice.

I also just acknowledge the fact that, as some have noted, this is a bill that does differ. The bill that we have in front of us now, at second reading, is a different bill than the one that was proposed at first reading. That is because the system that we have for scrutinising bills—we’ve done this and worked in this instance where we had a select committee, we had a number of different submitters; it wasn’t the most popular bill to submit on in the Parliament, but there were a number of submitters that had very targeted feedback for us on the part of the bill that was related to their particular life or experience. That meant that we did have very specific, varied submissions and we were able to, I think, in many instances, agree, almost all by majority, to make changes, which did improve the bill in my view.

So I’m much more confident in the support of this bill following the select committee process than we were at first reading. I think that’s a testament to how officials, the Minister, and the committee was able to work together to get these forward, but most importantly, really, it was the New Zealand public who, with their expertise and experience, did provide that feedback to us.

I did want to go through some of the changes that we made because I think some of them are quite important and some of them are quite interesting. I will focus on the changes that the select committee made rather than the bits of the bill—I think there was 23 different pieces of legislation, and some brave members have read out all of those. I won’t do that, but I will focus on the changes that the select committee did make because I think there were some important ones. I think I’m minded to start with, probably, the most significant one first—just to ensure that there is enough time to go over this—and that is focusing on the feedback that we did get about how our archives were kept. There were probably two changes that were made: one’s been touched on, which I’ll come too soon, but the other change that the select committee made was in relation to dealing with our important archives, which are a health and safety hazard or need to be destroyed.

Now, you may think that this sounds quite unbelievable, but, of course, we have significant archives in New Zealand. It could be that important documents are contaminated with asbestos; it could be that they are involved in a fire—there could be many different reasons that mean that something that would otherwise be kept as an important archive for some reason is now posing a health and safety risk to people.

According to those that submitted, this is not totally fanciful or unusual when you deal with a large number of records over a significant period of time; this does come up. We did hear a number of submissions around this, and the greatest thrust of the submissions was really that the destruction should only be made when it was truly necessary to do so and that when such destruction needed to take place, for health and safety reasons, a clear record was kept of that. I do want to thank the submitters that submitted to us on this point. You’ll see, from the changes that are made, that we took that really seriously.

Another key thing was the exemption in relation to those overseas, specifically concerning the New Zealand Defence Force, and you’ve heard colleagues reflect on this. We had a serious situation in New Zealand, and this does go slightly further than what you would normally be discussing in a regulatory standards bill, but we did have a situation—a high profile case, under Operation Burnham—when we did have deficiencies in our overseas record keeping identified, and the deficiencies were extremely problematic. That has been addressed separately to this bill, but this bill did overlap with that particular example in the sense that what was being proposed to us was a situation where those important New Zealand records that may be kept overseas would not necessarily be held to the same storage standards.

We did take this really seriously and we did have some passionate advice given to us around the concerns on this. I want to acknowledge the submitters that did come to the Governance and Administration Committee for that reason. You will see, by majority, we have decided that perhaps such a significant change is not appropriate for a regulatory systems bill and needs to be done with consultation led by the Department of Internal Affairs. In the end, that was the advice proffered, and that was the advice that the majority of the committee took, which was to make sure that any change was subject to an extensive consultation process. I want to thank the committee for looking at that issue with the seriousness that it deserved, taking a stance that said that this particular exemption would be premature, and that more work needed to be done to ensure that there were the proper checks and balances in place. I think we reached the right point on that particular issue. I do want to thank again those who brought that to our attention and the advice we were able to receive.

There are a few other issues which I think are important to note in this bill, apart from that significant issue. We’ve heard that the National Party had a differing view on that, and I invite members to address that if they wish, as, again, the Hon Melissa Lee has already done. The other matter which I just want to raise now—because I may not have time to go through all of the changes that we made at select committee—is just to note the changes in relation to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. We did receive a number of submissions as part of that particular Act.

Unfortunately, the two issues that we really received submissions on were the issue of having more information about the number of times that sperm donors had donated to multiple clinics. Members of the committee had genuine concern around the fact that there may be people who were genetic family members who were not aware of that and that there was no way of testing or no register that told them that information. We asked for advice from officials on that. We were told that was out of scope of the bill. We thought it was important, so we’ve put it in our report, and I do bring it to the attention of the House as something that could be looked at in the future. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Can we keep the chatter down a bit on that side, please.

CAMILLA BELICH: The second issue that I just wanted to raise was a very serious issue around the storage of embryos and the overseas storage of embryos. There seems to be general agreement in this area, from the experts and scientists who have knowledge about this type of genetic storage that is made, that this particular part of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act is out of date. This is currently causing harm and distress to New Zealand families at the moment. We took those submissions really seriously. We know that those who submitted to us had genuine reason to want change. We received advice that that particular change was out of scope of the bill.

At the same time, we wanted to make sure that the House took note of the fact that there currently is a piece of legislation which is perhaps not meeting the concerns that New Zealanders have. It’s about a very emotive issue, a very serious issue, around the storage of embryos. I think that it would be very good if the House and those in Government or those who have the ability to look at this issue could address this issue. I just want to acknowledge those people who did submit on that issue. It is really serious, and we were sorry that we were not able to address this more fully in this bill.

There are a number of other changes that the Governance and Administration Committee made. I won’t have enough time to go into all of them. I just wanted to acknowledge the quick change on the Boxing and Wrestling Act—that we did get an extension for that too—so I commend it to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:46): Sir, thank you. It was great to hear the submissions on this bill in the glorious Governance and Administration Committee. There’s a lot of bits I’d like to touch on. There are some good changes I think the committee made, like the change to the Boxing and Wrestling Act, delaying that date so that there is time for regulations to be brought in. I did want to just touch on the Public Records Act. It’s not something I ever thought I’d be getting into the nitty gritty of, but I want to highlight one point, which was around access to the overseas exemption, because what it’s saying is: there used to be an overseas exemption but now there is no exemption for records that are stored overseas.

The easy one to think about is a military deployment. We see New Zealanders overseas in a coalition. Perhaps the UK military, in the case of our troops supporting Ukraine, holds some records which relate to New Zealanders but are actually British sovereign property. This bill now says that they must be provided for under New Zealand law. The only challenge is that we can’t actually tell them what to do. That’s not an authority we have. I do want to highlight this. This was debated at select committee, and I guess, ultimately, I haven’t won that argument, but I just want to highlight that we can pass the law to look good and like we’re doing the right thing. I don’t think this is something that can necessarily be delivered, and we need to be a little bit eyes wide open to that.

Some other practical changes: of course, in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act; adding in the Local Electoral Act, the deputy electoral officer now able to take an oath. The Land Drainage Act: actually quite a good change that you can put notices online. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act: we had some heartfelt examples for that. And making Lotto R18; I’m a fan of that. I commend the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call—Georgie Dansey.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:48): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I stand to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill in its second reading. The Labour Party supports this bill. This is an omnibus regulatory systems amendment bill, administered by the Department of Internal Affairs. For those listening at home, and me three months ago, I’ll explain what “omnibus” means. What it means is that it makes changes to multiple pieces of legislation administered by the department, and also to legislation administered by other agencies where the department plays an operational role. In this case, as other speakers have spoken to, this provision is over 23 Acts of Parliament. This bill aims to modernise and streamline numerous regulatory regimes, and it targets unnecessary provisions, outdated references, redundant provisions, and other technical inconsistencies across several Acts overseen by Internal Affairs and related portfolios.

This bill makes a few important changes that will increase safety and streamline regulation, and I’ll speak to a couple of those today. The first one is the restriction of sale of all Lotto products to those aged 18 and older, and other speakers have spoken to this provision. Currently, in Aotearoa New Zealand there is no age limit for playing instant lottery games and similar lottery games. There is no expectation that one is asked for ID when purchasing these games, and this is harmful. We know that gambling is a huge issue in Aotearoa New Zealand, and this House is having discussions on gambling harms on other bills. I note different views on gambling harms, but all the same, the Labour Party stands for reducing gambling harm in all phases. The platforms that are considered as part of this bill—the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill—they include Lotto, Play 3, Keno, and Bullseye.

Interestingly, despite anyone under 18 being able to play Lotto, if you’re under 18 and you go into a Lotto store and you manage to buy a Lotto ticket, and then you win more than $1,000 in prize money, you have to get a parent or guardian to come in and sign an acknowledgement form before you get your prize. That’s obviously really clunky and a clunky piece of law that doesn’t make any sense, so it’s really good to see that that’s being addressed as part of this bill. This bill will pull the rules around Lotto in line with other gambling platforms, scratch cards like instant play, Instant Kiwi, and other similar games, which are strictly for over-18s under the Gambling Act 2003. It brings it all into line, reduces harm, and gains consistency across the Acts.

One of the other changes to the bill that I wanted to speak to, that others have also spoken to, are the changes to the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981 and associated regulations. This change will keep our legislation in line with international boxing and wrestling organisations, requirements for rings, boxing gloves, rounds, and durations. I don’t think anyone can argue that more safety around boxing and wrestling is important—it’s a pretty intimidating sport. I personally have never partaken, but I feel like my colleagues like Dan Rosewarne are probably an expert at this sort of thing—he can tell me about that later. But it was really interesting to learn about the provisions that we have and what’s included and excluded from this, and so I look forward to seeing what comes next for protection across all combat sports, as the previous speaker, Mike Davidson, has spoken to. I’ll finish up there. Thanks very much, Mr Speaker, and I commend this bill to the House.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (20:53): I stand to speak at the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. Not being on the Governance and Administration Committee, I am, I guess, a lot more enlightened about what’s going on because the topics that have been covered in the debate tonight have been wide-ranging and have talked about all of those 23 bills that have been amended or repealed. But I do have quite an interest in the repealing of the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981. That’s because my grandfather was a national referee in wrestling and I grew up in a family—my uncles used to talk a lot about the famous Octopus Clamp of Lofty Blomfield, the wrestler.

Arena Williams: Show us!

MILES ANDERSON: I could later. I commend the bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Beat that, Jan!

Hon JAN TINETTI: I can’t beat that one!

I’ve recently joined the Governance and Administration Committee, and I have to say that in my first few meetings, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the work that this committee is undertaking. Unfortunately, I wasn’t part of this bill as it was going through the select committee, but I am really intrigued. I love these regulatory systems bills. The work that goes into the modernisation of legislation in our public service is just phenomenal, and this bill is one such example of that work that goes in—23 pieces of legislation that are being modernised and scrutinised at the highest level.

At the time that this went through, I’ve gone through and I’ve read the departmental report to have a look and see what was suggested and some of the recommendations that were made. Having a look at some of the work that the committee undertook, and also the submitters and what they submitted on and the concerns that they had are absolutely fascinating, and that’s why I say I love these bills. This is some of the quirkier stuff that we see coming through this House, but some stuff that is supposed to be of a minimal standard but can actually sometimes have a big impact.

When you read the departmental report, there were 46 submissions to this bill; 31 and two groups made two submissions, so really, only from 44—31 individuals and 15 submissions were from organisations. Three totally supported the bill, 13 totally opposed the bill, 13 partially supported, four partially opposed, and 11 did not state; and there were 11 oral submissions into this bill as well. I love those sort of statistics because it just shows that even though that’s not a huge amount compared to some of the submissions that we received through select committees, you can see that there’s a wide variety of views even within that number of 44 that came through. You see that wide variety of people, and you also see the passion that comes through in the different areas that people want to talk about.

Some of the submitters actually said that they felt, because there were 23 pieces of legislation, that maybe this bill shouldn’t have proceeded as an omnibus, and that maybe it didn’t get the complete scrutiny that it probably deserved. Well, I’d challenge that, myself: having read the departmental report, you can obviously see that there was a high level of scrutiny into this bill and you could tell from some of the previous contributions here this evening that there were actually quite a number of changes that were made right throughout the select committee process. It was an absolutely robust process that went through. I think those submitters that said that this shouldn’t have gone through in the form because of the numbers or the pieces of Acts that it was aiming to replace or change—moderate changes—they can be reassured, and they should go and have a read of that departmental report or the advice that was given to the select committee to actually see how much scrutiny this particular bill went under.

Also, the officials actually said in that report that amendments included in the bill as it’s now written are in scope of a regulatory systems bill as they are non-contentious or well supported and/or make no more than minor policy changes to the relevant legislation. That’s where they have landed and that’s where the select committee landed as well.

One of the areas—and it has been traversed here a little bit this evening—that I did want to just briefly talk about was the amendments to the purchasing of Lotto tickets. I sort of had a little bit of a chuckle, at the same time a little bit horrified, that we’ve had legislation in place for so long that hasn’t protected our young people from partaking in gambling by buying a Lotto ticket. But the reason I say I had a little chuckle is because, when I was at school, my teacher used to send me to buy her cigarettes over at the dairy across the road, and there was no legislation that stopped that back then.

Grant McCallum: Did you have a smoke on the way back? I know Willie Jackson would’ve.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I am quite old, but I could go across the road, buy the cigarettes, and bring them back to my teacher. I will have to say, back then there was also no legislation that they couldn’t smoke them in the classroom, so she was actually smoking in the classroom those same cigarettes.

We laugh about that because that’s something that we couldn’t even conceive that that was possible now—that we would send young people to do that—because we also know the harm that smoking can cause. We also know that we try to discourage our young people from partaking and even starting smoking.

We try to keep them away from those sorts of things because research has showed that. We put that legislation in a long, long time ago, but here we are tonight, talking about changing the Lotto laws, because our young kids have been able to go and buy Lotto tickets, and there hasn’t been legislation that’s been able to stop that. Yet gambling does cause a lot of harm, and research, again, shows that if young people start gambling at a young age, even by buying Lotto tickets—and yes, the research does exist to show that there is a correlation between buying Lotto tickets when they are young and then later on experiencing gambling harm.

I’ve actually met people who have been in this situation. I can remember a former colleague in this House telling me that it was a problem in his family—that he had young cousins who were able to go and buy Lotto tickets, and frequently did, when they were children. That unfortunately led to other gambling, and then that let to gambling harm. Yet here we are—we laugh about the smoking situation, but we’ve done nothing until tonight. I really do congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee for taking that seriously enough to put it through—that we’re going to replace the clunky wording that was there—to tidy up something that should have been tidied up a long time ago and to make sure that our young people stay safe.

When you read the report, there was a little bit of pushback in that area. Some people felt that perhaps young people could buy the Lotto tickets, but they had to be older to get the winnings. That’s just too confusing; let’s just make it as it’s written in the bill as it stands now. Let’s make it really clear that young people can’t go and buy those Lotto tickets any more, and the other gambling areas that they could partake in. Instead of saying “an instant game”, it’s going to change that wording, as it stands in the bill now, to say “a New Zealand lottery”. That will cover that young people won’t be able to do that.

Maybe there’s something else that sits in legislation, where, one day, we’ll talk about, “Oh, remember when kids could go and buy Lotto tickets?” We might have something similar that comes up, but I hope we don’t. I hope we’re always looking and taking that safety-first and harm-reduction look at what should happen in legislation.

On this side of the House, Labour supports this bill. We believe that the changes that are being made are good changes. I will say that it’s been very interesting listening to the parts that different members who have been on the select committee have picked out. I think that that’s something that you see when you’ve got such a big omnibus bill—that different parts will appeal to different members. We’ve heard about all sorts of ones here this evening.

On that note, I would like to once again congratulate the work of the Governance and Administration Committee in working through such a big omnibus bill. I also congratulate the officials who have done so with great scrutiny, and I once again assure anyone that thinks it was given a once-over-lightly that this select committee did an amazing job of putting this through, and we’ve come to a great position here. I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:04): This bill is amending 23 different Acts. It’s time we got this through, just like the changes that the previous speaker, Jan Tinetti, spoke about—particularly in the lottery space. I’m not going to hold it up any further. I commend it to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (21:04): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to ensure that this final call allows me to take the sufficient time just to go over some of the final details in this, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, second reading.

As other speakers from our Labour side of the House have attested, this is a bill that we do support. I didn’t have the opportunity to be there through the select committee process, but it’s been great to hear from those who were on the Governance and Administration Committee about the submissions that stuck out for them, but also the specific points that they wanted to address. For me, there are a couple of things that are of particular interest when you look at an omnibus bill that rolls together 23 Acts.

Probably where I want to start first is that it takes some important steps towards minimising gambling harm. We know that there is a lot of harm in our communities. I hear and see this in the community of Christchurch East, where I’m lucky enough to be the member of Parliament. We know that this happens nationwide, and there’s a huge social cost to that. There’s also a huge financial burden as a result of the harm that gambling does. That’s estimated, from what I can read, in the 2024-25 year, to be $4.2 billion as an economic load on New Zealand. I think that anything we can do to assist people to minimise the harms of gambling, but also to try to address some of those further costs that are passed on—those further financial costs and harms that just go out like a ripple of the harm that we see from gambling—is a good thing.

One of the other Acts that is addressed in this omnibus bill is the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and some of the regulations that are made under that Act. There are some pretty peculiar things when legislation gets as old as 1993. Technology and the mediums in which we access and observe content have shifted exponentially in that time. We’re talking about a period of, my calculation, about 33 years. For example, if you purchase a game to play, like a video game, and you purchase that on a disc that you then take home—and I agree, not many people do, these days—if you were to purchase it in that format, it would need to carry a rating from the Chief Censor. But if you were to download that game, which is, let’s be honest what most people do on their phone or on their device, there’s no need for that game to receive a classification from the Chief Censor.

Now, that could be exactly the same game as the game that you bought or were given by someone who buys games on discs—it could be exactly the same game; the content could be exactly the same; the potential pleasure you could get from that game, or the potential harm that that game could cause, is exactly the same. The only issue here is the piece of legislation that hasn’t moved with the times, that is 33 years old, that doesn’t see the changes that have happened in the way that we see and access content—films, videos, and publications. I think that when we are able to move an Act like that into an omnibus bill like this, it is of advantage to be able to refresh and modernise it.

One of the other points I wanted to make—and hopefully I still have time before the clock runs down—is that the bill also strengthens the ability of the Department of Internal Affairs to share information with international law enforcement agencies to prevent the spread of objectionable content, such as child sexual abuse material, online. I think any step we can take to put stronger safeguards in place, to protect vulnerable people, and to stop the kind of harm that this level of criminal offending and the kind of abuse that happens in the creation of that content—anything we can do to stop, prevent, and take any step we can to make the stopping and preventing happen, we should be doing that.

Thank you to everyone on the select committee who took the time to give this the thorough, robust examination that it needed, and to the officials who guided it through.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the amendment recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:10): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Second Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:10): I move, That the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is crucial that our country strives for a world-leading education system that equips every single child and young person to reach their full potential. Achieving this requires a cohesive education system with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and the right level of oversight and support. This bill introduces system-level changes that aim to strengthen the structure and accountability of our education system to ensure that it is fit for purpose and well positioned to support schools, teachers, and learners to succeed.

I want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration of the bill and their suggestions to strengthen it. Thank you to the more than 900 submitters who took the time to make the submissions on the bill and share their thoughts. This level of participation shows that New Zealanders care deeply about their education system and the outcomes it delivers.

Speaking to the proposals in the bill, I begin with the select committee’s recommendation that the bill provides for the transfer of regulatory functions for early childhood education—ECE—from the Ministry of Education’s director of regulation to the new director of regulation to be established within the Education Review Office (ERO). In July 2025, the Government signalled its intent to progress this proposal through the bill. It responds to the Ministry for Regulation’s review of ECE, which found confusion and overlap between the roles of the Ministry of Education and ERO. The review recommended that the agency roles and responsibilities be clarified to ensure efficient collaboration and improve accountability.

Shifting ECE regulatory functions to ERO will consolidate core regulatory functions within a single agency, reducing duplication, improving timelines of compliance action, and providing more clarity and certainty for service providers and parents. The proposal couldn’t be included in the bill at the time of introduction last November because it relied on the enactment of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Act. That Act was passed in late November and came into force in February this year, establishing the director of regulation within the ministry.

I want to thank the committee for opening up the public submissions process to consider the proposal to transfer the ECE regulatory functions, alongside the proposed transfer of regulatory functions to private schools and hostels to ERO. This has enabled consideration of valuable submitter feedback and shaped the committee’s recommendations to improve the proposals.

I acknowledge submitter concerns regarding the perceived tension between ERO’s existing review functions and the new regulatory functions it will receive. The bill addresses these concerns by ensuring clearly defined functions, duties, powers, and role separation between the chief review officer and the new director of regulation role within ERO.

I support the committee’s recommendation for additional amendments to reinforce the separation of ERO’s role in the new functions through strengthening the requirements for managing conflicts of interest. I also support the committee’s recommendation to clarify that the ministry retains its policy-setting functions for ECE, private schools, and hostels in response to submitter concerns about the loss of system coherence and the scope of the new director of regulations role. This aligns with the policy intent and best practice where standards and criteria are set in one agency and regulatory decision-making happens in another. Transferring these key regulatory functions to ERO represents an important step in delivering the system changes needed to better support the outcomes and safety of our children and young people.

I’d also like to briefly highlight another proposal that clarifies the respective roles of ERO and the ministry when responding to schools of serious concern. I’ve heard submitters’ concerns and I want to be clear that this proposal is not about taking a punitive approach. Rather, it strengthens existing processes and sets clear expectations and time frames for the ministry and ERO to respond promptly and consistently when a school needs support. In too many cases it has taken too long for the system to respond to schools that need help.

The bill establishes also the New Zealand School Property Agency—NZSPA—and a new Crown agent responsible for maintaining and managing the education property portfolio. The 2024 ministerial inquiry into school property found that the current system was not fit for purpose, and while some improvements are under way, more substantial change is needed. NZSPA will drive critical changes to ensure the system delivers effectively for schools and students. Its board will provide specialist independent advice, ensuring efficient delivery with good investment and asset management practices. This will allow the ministry to focus on delivering essential educational outcomes for students. The purpose of NZSPA will be to make sure that children can learn in safe, warm, dry buildings. It will provide improved property services focusing on value for money and supported by clear leadership and oversight to make sure the investment in education property is well managed.

A high-performing education system relies on a high-quality teaching workforce. Recent reports from the OECD, ERO, the Royal Society expert advisory group, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research highlight concerning findings about the confidence and readiness of new teachers, particularly in teaching maths and science. I am concerned that the current workforce settings, including for initial teacher education (ITE), do not support the delivery of high-quality teaching.

This bill shifts responsibility for professional standard settings from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. This includes setting the standards and criteria for teacher registration, initial teacher education, ongoing practice, and the code of conduct. Teacher preparation, curriculum expectations, and workforce regulation have developed separately over time. This has created a variation in how expectations are interpreted and applied across the system. A new standard-setting function within the ministry will support stronger alignment across these areas and it will ensure that the suite of teaching standards are set, maintained, and reviewed to reflect curriculum expectations, system priorities, and the skills and knowledge required for effective classroom practice.

This change is consistent with occupational regulation settings in other jurisdictions, such as in England and Singapore, where standard-setting and regulatory functions are separate. It will enable the ministry to ensure that we set high standards for ITE. Teaching. graduates will be able to enter the workforce with confidence and schools will be assured that their new teachers are well prepared. The new standards will be also backed up by the changes the bill makes to give the Teaching Council greater powers in monitoring ITE providers, including setting conditions on providers and, ultimately, cancelling programme approval. These powers will give the council the leverage to work with providers to ensure they are meeting very high standards.

I acknowledge that submitters have concerns about the impacts of these changes on the independence of the Teaching Council. The Teaching Council will retain its statutory and operational independence, particularly when making decisions affecting individual teachers or commercial teacher education providers, such as the approval and monitoring of ITE providers. The Teaching Council will retain responsibility for teacher registration and certification as well as competence and conduct processes. Other changes in the bill support the Teaching Council’s new scope and ensure it remains focused on its core functions.

Since the bill was introduced, two further reports into the Teaching Council have been published: the Francis review of the council’s culture and performance, and the Public Sector Commission report into the council’s procurement practices and handling of conflicts of interest. These show that there are significant performance improvements the council will need to make alongside the changes in this bill to ensure it can deliver on its core statutory functions of protecting the safety of students and maintaining the quality of teachers’ practice.

Quality teaching must also be supported by a high-quality curriculum. The bill proposes a set of changes to strengthen the curriculum, including requiring regular rolling reviews of curriculum areas to ensure the curriculum constantly stays up to date and informed by latest evidence. Like other highly performing jurisdictions, like Australia and Singapore, we will have smaller, more regular updates of the curriculum in a rolling cycle rather than wholesale reforms every 20 years, which is far more disruptive to the sector.

Some submitters were concerned that the bill increases ministerial control over the curriculum. Legislation has enabled the Minister of Education to make, amend, and revoke the national curriculum since 1989.

The changes to attendance exemptions in this bill are part of the Government’s plan to lift achievement and attendance so that more young people experience educational success, and I acknowledge submitters’ concerns that principals need discretion over attendance exemptions to reflect student circumstances and needs. However, the current requirements are unclear and applied inconsistently. The proposed attendance exemption rules will be developed in consultation with the sector to ensure they reflect the needs of the school community and support consistency and transparency.

Other aspects of the bill strengthen the education system by improving the quality of system-level data by requiring schools to participate in system-monitoring studies like the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment—PISA, as we know it.

The bill also supports the next stage of the charter school model by enabling multi-school contracts and providing more certainty for converted charter schools that a similar type of State school may be established if the sponsor terminates their contract or opts not to renew.

I want to express again my thanks to the committee for their recommended changes, and members of the public who made their submissions. The bill is another step towards this Government’s priorities in lifting student achievement and attendance through developing a workforce of the future and establishing a knowledge-rich curriculum. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:20): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill because it does nothing to improve the educational outcomes for our children. It is about centralising power in the hands of the Minister and Wellington officials while weakening the role of parents, teachers, school communities, and professional bodies.

This bill reflects a Government that fundamentally does not trust the teaching sector. They do not trust parents in local communities to shape their schools; they do not trust teachers to exercise professional judgment; and they do not trust independent professional bodies to regulate their own profession. They certainly do not trust Māori to operate in genuine partnership for education. At every level, this bill shifts power away and upwards—away from schools, away from parents, and away from our communities—and towards the Minister and her bureaucracy. That is why so many New Zealanders see this bill as just plain wrong.

The clearest example of this is the Government’s approach to the curriculum. This bill moves away from a national curriculum framework towards a prescriptive, centrally controlled version that specifies exactly what should be taught, when it should be taught, and how it should be taught. It gives sweeping override powers for the Minister of Education to determine what our children learn.

At the same time, the bill removes the requirement for school boards to consult with their communities, replacing that obligation with a far weaker duty to simply inform our communities. The Minister has failed to understand that schools work with the communities they serve, not in isolation of them. Labour believes that national consistency is important, but so too is local flexibility. Good schools respond to the needs of their parents, students, and communities. A rural school, a kaupapa Māori school, a large urban school—all these schools have different approaches to achieve the success they need to for their students and for their communities, and this bill prevents that from happening.

This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It is particularly concerning that this approach marginalises mātauranga Māori and weakens commitments under the Treaty of Waitangi. Māori learners succeed when education reflects their identity, language, and culture, not when those perspectives are squeezed out by rigid control from the top. Labour believes that we should have Kiwi content in our schools; we should be proud of who we are; we should learn where we came from and stand strong and be proud of being New Zealanders—that reflects our national identity. This decision takes away who we are.

The bill’s changes to the Teaching Council are equally concerning. The Government proposes transferring core standard settings and registration powers from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education. That is a profound shift of power. It moves teaching away from being a self-regulated profession and towards political control. Just imagine if this was done with the medical profession or the legal profession. It is hard to understand why the education of our children is being treated differently.

It is important to reference the concerns that have been raised regarding the chair of the Teaching Council, who was appointed by the current Minister of Education in August last year. It is well documented that David Ferguson has lobbied for Government funding for a teacher training institute that he helped to set up. He received funding and thanked the Minister of Education for that funding. The Teachers’ Institute has now received over $5 million of Government funding. The Teachers’ Institute charges around $4,000 for each of its trainees.

When The Teachers’ Institute’s initial application for funding was declined by the panel, Official Information Act documents show that an unknown person messaged the panel with this: “If it’s a decline, I’m not sure that that’s the right decision”. That decision is then overturned by the deputy chief executive of education with the conditions that the application needs to be approved by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Teaching Council. The Minister of Education has appointed David Ferguson to both of those bodies. For a Minister who initially showed a lot of concern about conflicts of interest within the Teaching Council, she appears to think that it is acceptable that the chair of the Teaching Council can regulate the teaching profession and profit from it at the same time.

There is nothing in this bill that tightens the conflict-of-interest rules around the chief executive, the chair, the council members, and their links to training providers. This bill also reduces elected teacher representation on the governing council and removes functions promoting the status of teaching and professional best practice. At a time when the profession is already under enormous pressure, the Government is weakening professional independence instead of strengthening it.

Parents and students deserve an independent professional body with practitioner majority. They deserve confidence that professional standards will be guided by expertise, by ethics, and by evidence, not by political ideology. Labour opposes the transfer of these powers to the Secretary for Education and believes they should remain with an independent teaching council.

Another troubling feature in this bill is the label “schools of serious concern”. The problem is not just the label itself; it is the enormous discretionary powers that come with it. The bill provides no clear thresholds in legislation for how schools are designated, yet it opens the door for ministerial intervention following escalation from the Education Review Office. That creates uncertainty and fear within the teaching profession.

Even more concerning is the potential for schools to be converted into charter schools without any meaningful consultation with communities. Labour believes that struggling schools should receive support, resources, and partnership, not public branding exercises and punitive intervention models. Schools facing difficulties are often dealing with wider systemic pressures, staffing shortages, poverty, learning support needs, infrastructure issues, and funding pressures. Those problems are not solved by labelling schools or centralising power.

This bill also significantly expands the charter school model. It enables multi-school charter contracts—chains of charter schools, a bit like McDonald’s—including for-profit and overseas sponsors, while strengthening ministerial powers around conversion and reconversion. Labour remains opposed to the privatisation of public education. We believe that publicly funded education should be accountable to communities, not to private operators.

This bill sidelines our parents, staff, and local communities from decisions that directly affect their schools. It also creates uncertainty around employment conditions and public assets. If a school community is expected to live with the consequences of conversion or reconversion, then community must have a meaningful role in that decision-making process. Instead, this bill concentrates those powers centrally.

System monitoring: this bill makes participation in national and international monitoring studies compulsory, including programmes such as the Programme for International Student Assessment and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Monitoring educational achievement is important, but the question is how that data is used, who controls it, and whether communities have a voice in defining that success. This bill centralises control over educational data while increasing compliance burdens on schools. There is a real risk that data becomes politicised and used selectively to create crisis narratives or to justify predetermined outcomes. Labour believes monitoring systems should support genuine educational improvement, not political messaging.

There are also changes to the property agency, and there are also changes to attendance exemptions. But it’s important to note that this bill does not put our children at the centre. It’s not even about learning. It reveals a Government far more interested in control than collaboration. Instead of partnering with educators, it centralises authority. Instead of strengthening professional trust, it weakens it. Instead of empowering our communities, it sidelines them.

People know that education works best when schools are connected to their communities and when teachers are respected as professionals. Labour believes that educational forms should be evidence-based, which this bill isn’t; sector-led, which this bill isn’t; equity-focussed, which this bill certainly isn’t; and grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi, which it most definitely isn’t. This bill fails on all of those accounts. It fails our children. It will be damaging to our community, and, quite simply, it takes New Zealand backwards.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:30): What a joke of a bill! Honestly, when we looked at this bill and when we heard it in the select committee stage, two things were clear about this bill. One is that this Government only cares about a one-size-fits-all education model and does not care what child is left behind as a part of the process. They are more willing to listen to the elitist schools in the likes of Epsom and also East Coast Bays rather than the voices of the majority of Aotearoa and the rest of the 2,500—potentially 2,498—schools. What is also clear about this bill is the power grab—the shameless, shameless power grab—by this Government and the complete lack of trust by this Government of the teaching profession. What this Government is trying to do is everything to undermine the professionalism of our teachers, at the same time saying how much they care and how much they consulted. What a slap in the face for the educators out there!

You know what? Let’s talk about some of the details. Let’s, actually, first start with the process of this bill. During the select committee stage, we sent out an invitation to hear about early childhood education, ECE, and also the shifting of ECE functions to the Education Review Office (ERO) as well as the Director of Regulation. Now, there was no bill drafted at that stage. We asked submitters based on vibes. The select committee asked the submitters based on the direction from the Minister. Where is that separation of power? Where is the legislature’s, the MPs of this Parliament’s, sacred duty to, rather than collude with the executive, scrutinise the executive and this bill? We did not see that when it comes to the ECE sector. At the same time, we have seen that the Director of Regulation has not even been embedded. The Minister of Education herself has said, when this bill was introduced in the House in the first reading, that the only reason that no bill was drafted at that stage was because the previous bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) hadn’t gone through third reading, which establishes that role in the first place. It completely, completely makes a mockery of our democratic system and our legislative procedure when we’re looking at this particular bill.

At the same time, ERO—really? ERO has decided to overhaul their entire reporting system based on the consultation of 12 schools and 500 parents—12 schools; that’s all. That’s 0.5 percent of all of the schools. Imagine how many parents are out there. Surely there are more than 500 parents here in Aotearoa. I don’t know if the Minister or the members on that side of the House know anything about math, but that math seems off.

Furthermore, around the ECE with ERO, what we’re also seeing is a department—for example, let’s look at ECE. Let’s look at ERO’s review of ECE. They have weakened the reporting of early childhood centres over time. There is no accountability in how they’re going to address ECE centres who have been downgraded in terms of their registration or even being deregistered. Yet, at the same time, this Government believes that ERO should be in charge of all of these. Well, we don’t actually see how they’re able to do that. Furthermore, we talked about the Teaching Council of Aotearoa.

Grant McCallum: They’re a disgrace!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The thing with the teaching council—what is a disgrace is the fact that the chair of the teaching council has a clear conflict of interest with the with The Teachers’ Institute, which he is a director of. There is a clear conflict of interest when one of their council members was appointed acting chief executive and was trying to do two roles in one go, before it was pointed out that, actually, you cannot do that and they had to step down as a council member. It was also the same particular chair of the teaching council, recently, who decided he was going to have elected members from the sector on that council and then found out that it was illegal for him to do that. What is really disgraceful about the teaching council is who this Minister has appointed as the chair. That is disgraceful. The Minister herself, at the annual review hearings, said that she got advice around the clean slate Act and that there was nothing the previous chief executive could have done in terms of some of the things that had been reported on in the Debbie Francis report. It wasn’t about caring for children; it was a witch hunt by this Minister.

Also, we talked about the curriculum, and I want to acknowledge all of the submitters currently in the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 3553. When we were looking at the changes removing section 127 in the previous bill that we saw here—again by the same Minister—as well as the changes we are seeing to the curriculum, what we were hearing is how it violates and undermines our Te Tiriti obligations. That, again, is under this Minister’s watch and under this Government’s watch. What we are seeing and being consulted on—all of us have gotten feedback, including the Minister, because we get CC’d on some of those emails from teachers, from experts, and from parents who are concerned about the curriculum and where the curriculum is going. The Minister often says, “Well, show us some numbers. What are some of the numbers?”, but I am yet to hear from the Minister on giving us tangible, actual numbers about who is writing the curriculum and how many people have been consulted. I mean consulted, not informed, because apparently this Government has a passing acquaintance with what is called consultation.

Here are some actual numbers from the select committee. In terms of the New Zealand school properties proposal, only 3 percent—only 3 percent—supported it. Only 4.5 percent supported schools of serious concern; 0.5 percent supported the changes of the teaching workforce proposal; 2.4 percent supported the attendance exemption proposal; 2.7 percent supported the monitoring studies proposal; 1.3 percent supported the charter school proposal; and 0 percent, not even a single submission out of 570, supported the changes we’re seeing here on curriculum. Those are the numbers, and that is an actual fact, not the spin that we’re seeing from this Government when it comes to education. What we are seeing is not evidence-based decision-making, but rather decision-based evidence making. That is what this Government is really good at.

There are so many more things that I want to say about this bill, and I do know that time is limited, but I do want to touch on some of the other points of this bill. I mentioned the power grab by this Government, and the teaching council is only one part of it—whether it the lack of clarity for schools of serious concern, which allows the Chief Review Officer to inform the secretary of the intervention, which, let’s face it, is, essentially, just a blatant way of saying, “We’re going to be looking into forced conversions into charter schools.” Let’s see what that looked like overseas in the UK with orphan academies as a result of academisation. We’re seeing that principals have had their ability to make sound judgments—and these are experts in the field—to be able to exempt people from school attendance based on community needs and also based on the context of the community and the hardship.

Overall, we are seeing sweeping changes overseas—in Australia, in UK, in China—that show that the standardised approach that this Government is trying to take, the one-size-fits-all approach that this Government is trying to take, no longer works and no longer serves its students. What we’re seeing with this Government is that they’re trying to hold on to the relic of a should-be-forgotten past, and they are no way preparing our tamariki for the future. “Mātai ki te rangi, homai te kauhau wānanga ki uta, ka whiti he ora.” [“Look beyond the horizon, and draw near the bodies of knowledge that will take us into the future of health and prosperity.”] That is the original intent of Te Mātaiaho.

What we need is a truly independent education system that trusts our teachers, that trusts the sector—a system that takes our young people into the future; a system that allows them to be curious, that allows them to thrive, not what we’re seeing here where we are putting our kids further into a box. So, the Green Party will not support this bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (21:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, first I would like to thank everybody who was involved in the select committee process, especially the submitters. We received submissions from more than 960 individuals or organisations, and we heard from more than 50 submitters—this was online and in person as well. So I want to thank them all. All submissions have been taken into consideration, and I do not intend to list all the changes that we have made in the select committee process, because the Minister of Education has already listed all the concerns that were expressed by submitters and how those concerns were addressed—the concerns which were within the scope of this bill.

But there were some submitters, as always happens, who submitted their views which were not in scope of this bill. Sometimes, it happens that submitters submit something that actually is based on an assumption or reflects, actually, a mistake in their understanding of how this bill works. I want to give an example—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What a way to call our experts and teachers a mistake.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —an example that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan should listen to as well. This is under the changes to the school attendance exemption. Many submissions reflected a misunderstanding about the current Act—this was regarding section 45—because many submitters assumed that the short-term illness exemptions don’t fall in this provision, but that is wrong. So if these submitters say that the points they made are not reflected in the changes, they should know that it is because what they said actually was not right.

The second example I would like to highlight is about charter school changes. We are making changes to the charter school model. Yes, some submitters submitted on the provisions that we are changing, but then many submitters also talked about why they don’t like charter schools. That is not in the scope of this bill. This is the same message I would like to give to the Labour Party member and the Green Party member who just spoke. If members speak about exactly what this bill does, then this debate becomes more meaningful.

The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:42): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Now, we are not represented on this particular committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, but I did want to make a few comments about it. First of all, it seems to me, sometimes you see a piece of legislation and you think, “Actually, I thought we’d already done that.”, because these are things which have been well signalled in advance, so they should not be surprises to anybody. They are things which the Minister of Education has been talking about for some months. So it is good to see them in front of us today.

I think we can all agree, despite all the rhetoric that’s been going on, that quality education is essential to the prosperity of this country, to the prosperity of the young people who are going through the education system. What is also very, very clear to us is that the education system is not working properly at the moment. I listen to the sound and fury coming from the Opposition, and they are trying to defend what, in my view, is the indefensible, because our education system has been going backwards for some time. We see the work that is being done under this Government and under the Minister who’s introduced this legislation, and it is putting education back on the right track; it’s actually seeing some better results.

If I could just actually mention a few of those, some of the achievements we’ve got there: we have mandated structured literacy. Now we have 58 percent of new entrants reaching or exceeding reading expectations by term 3, 2025, up from 36 percent. That sounds like a positive. Then we have maths improvement; we also have the work that’s been done in supporting students with learning difficulties—$746 million put into that, which is something that the teaching profession has been crying out for, and this Government has delivered on this.

There are four particular areas within the bill that I wanted to touch base on. The first one of them is the recognition of the value of micro-credentials, and I think that is something, particularly in the employment sector, that is really valuable. It is good to say you don’t actually have to be doing a course that lasts a year, two years, three years—actually, sometimes there is value in a micro-course—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yeah, that’s what NCEA is about, but they’re scrapping it—isn’t it?

ANDY FOSTER: —something that might only last a few months. Those things need recognition. I’m not sure if the Green Party disagree with this and they don’t think that micro-credentials are a good thing, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, it is good.

ANDY FOSTER: —but if they are a good thing—that’s fine, good; I’m pleased you support those things.

The second thing I wanted to mention was the health curriculum. Now, one of the things that this party, New Zealand First, has been very, very keen to make sure is that our health system actually teaches things that our parents are comfortable with being taught. So making sure that parents are informed about what is in the detail of what is in the curriculum and have the option of being able to opt out of that is something which we think is very, very important.

The next comment I wanted to make is regarding the Teaching Council. Look, I heard the comments that particularly the Hon Ginny Andersen was saying, but it’s as though, you know, she’s sort of glossing over that there are some failings, I think, in the teaching education process—that is, the education for teachers and the standard that we’re getting. We need to make sure that the people who teach our young people are capable of doing so and have the qualifications to do that—that is what this legislation is about trying to make sure happens. The Opposition are trying to say it’s all wonderful—it’s all wonderful—but it’s not, and so this legislation is about trying to fix that.

The other thing that I wanted to say is about the establishment of a school property agency. I’d like just to draw your attention—I mean, the way that Labour was delivering things, basically, is “Here’s the cheque book; let’s spend it—doesn’t matter how much it costs.” and that’s exactly the kind of result we got. That’s why, in many ways, we’re in the position that we are as a nation. They spent money hand over fist, regardless of what the result was. Now, in 2023, it was costing $1.2 million to build the average classroom; in 2025, it was $620,000, so barely half the price. That is efficiency. That is what this Government is delivering compared to what that Government delivered. We are giving more value for the taxpayer dollar, so I think that is a really, really good thing.

I’m going to finish off with one other thing, which is about Labour and the Greens’ comments, their dissenting views, about centralisation. Now, please, cry me a river. This is the outfit that brought us Te Pūkenga. This is the outfit that brought us Three Waters, which was “Oh, you can opt in.” then “You can opt out.” then “You’re damn well going to be in.” They cannot lecture anybody about centralisation, because they are the architects of centralisation. I suggest that they look in a very large mirror and try and learn some lessons, because if they are trying to preach to this side of the House, they need to look in the mirror, they need to learn the mistakes that they made, and they need to be very, very quiet about it. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:47): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I’ve heard from other members that the education system is going backwards. In my eyes, when it comes to Māori education, it has never been seen more than right now that it is going forwards, although by successive Governments we’ve only ever been funded 1 percent of the overall budget, for Māori education. We are reaching 100 percent pass rates across all NCEA, and that is, yes, amazing. It’s because we’ve established these systems on our own terms, what works for us, and it has not been a standardised, one-size-fits-all approach. That is our concern not just within this bill here but the overall education reforms that we’re seeing that will affect Māori education. Those are some of the points that I want to raise in tonight’s debate, not only focusing on this bill but all changes made to the education system that have affected Māori education specifically.

This Government has been chipping away with small, minor changes, legislation by legislation, but the overall picture of it is that it completely puts us in a one-size-fits-all, standardised, monoculturing education system.

Todd Stephenson: So, charter schools.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I support some of the charter schools that are in Waikato, but for the majority of us who are in the Māori education system, this is the way that we know that works for us, and really we just need to be funded more than 1 percent of the education budget, because we’re producing 100 percent outcomes.

When we look at this bill, which is the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, this bill tightens up provisions for attendance exemptions which currently allow the Secretary for Education and principal to exempt a student from attending school. Now, our concern around that is it’s giving more power to ministries and not to the teachers, to the communities, and to the people who can—for instance, education is not just in a classroom; it can be in many different forms, it can be in many different ways, and it’s not the ministries who are determining that. It’s the teachers, the whānau, and the communities who know what works best for their tamariki and for their kura.

So, the other thing is context. Historically we’ve seen within this coalition the context removal of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; changes to history curriculum in schools; and less Māori personal development and learning for teachers, also at the delivery; and narrowed focus on literacy and numeracy with the set timeframe of one to two hours a day. Even to the environment: no barnyard-style classrooms; even to the assessment, the removal of NCEA. Now, I agree that we should be looking at different ways of how we can assess but not with this lack of consultation.

The 2023 data shows that Māori education has outperformed with majority of 100 percent pass rates. Even to the consultation: lack of consultation with Māori leaders with the recent Waitangi Tribunal hearing in the Māori education space to the partnership; the removal of Te Tiriti in the Education and Training Act 2020. Then, specifically in this bill, it looks at the property space; kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori have said this will make it harder for people to access property. In our research, we found that there was a $39 million gap within early childhood education that could have gone to the 12 properties that kōhanga reo have requested, because if you’ve ever seen our kōhanga reo, you know that those are not proper classrooms that our tamariki can function in. We need more support in that area because there are 2,000 tamariki across this country who are on the waiting list for kōhanga reo. Our demand for Māori education is going through the roof but this Government and successive Governments cannot keep up with the supply in that area and that’s what we need to challenge.

So it’s not just this bill alone; it’s the overall approach in terms of Māori education and how we are funded less and how we are less resourced, and how we are outperforming the education system that has been imposed on us, that can work for not just Māori education, but bilingual and mainstream. Kia ora.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (21:52): I appreciate being able to get this call and I want to reassure the members and the Speaker that I won’t be speaking beyond 9.55 p.m., so, three minutes, there we go. Let’s see.

Hon Member: Lawrence could take less.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: He could, he could. I’m choosing to go home, though. I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging an achievement that’s happened over the weekend, which is the sweep of the Pavs Game Awards by two Dunedin developing companies, Atawhai Interactive and Balancing Monkey Games, and then I’ll go on to this bill now.

The Greens have—well, you know, I think that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and has already clearly articulated our opposition to this bill but, from my perspective, I see three key reasons why we’ve risen in support of this bill. The first is the democracy angle of things, and one of our serious concerns is that this bill—and consistent with how this Government has gone on with their treatment of submissions—has basically just ignored the public feedback. I mean, on the curriculum side of things, out of the 570 submissions on that specific part of the bill, none supported it. Now, this is a worrying and consistent trend with what the Government has done with other parts of the feedback, and basically how they’ve treated democracy throughout this term.

We’ve seen attacks on the media, we’ve seen attacks on the Public Service, we’ve seen attempts to basically restrict the franchise with the changes to the voting eligibility, and we’ve seen the most use of urgency this term than we’ve ever had across previous terms. This is why I really wanted to stress the democracy angle of things because ignoring public submissions is just really on brand with what the Government has done and their general treatment of democracy.

Grant McCallum: All the unions turned up.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, look, unions are a part of our democracy as well. They’re stakeholders as well, so I don’t see why we should necessarily ignore democratic organisations, which unions must—yeah, it’s 9.55 p.m., so thank you so much, Mr Speaker, and good evening to all the members here. Have a wonderful rest of your night and week.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. The House is suspended.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 14 May 2026

Bills

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House has resumed for the extended sitting. When we suspended last night, we were debating the second reading of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, with six calls remaining. This is call No. 7.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (09:00): It’s important for me to rise and remind everyone that this is a system reform bill. We heard a lot of debate yesterday that went well away from what this bill was actually trying to do. It’s trying to reform the system, and I think it’s very important that we remind everybody of that.

Most importantly, we’ve heard of a lot of great things within the Education and Workforce Committee and made great amendments with the recommendations from the officials. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (09:01): Mr Speaker, good morning.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Good morning.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Any Minister who is not prepared to put themselves on the line in pursuing reforms and trying to improve the system is really not doing their job, in my view, and any reform programme should be informed by ideology—that is, a political view about the way the world is and the way it should be. But, as legislators, we also have a responsibility, I think, to steward the public institutions to consider the long-term consequences of the policies that we promote, the good of the country, and the viability of those institutions and on that score, this bill and this Minister of Education falls well short. She, like many of her colleagues in this Government, habitually likes to present their reforms and their changes as technical adjustments that are sort of fine-tuning the system, which is often justified around administrative efficiency, but they almost always are deeply ideological. They betray a very particular political view of the institutions and the policies that they’re dealing with, and this bill is no exception.

The New Zealand education system is a complex beast. It is a partnership between educators and policy makers, and between public servants and parents, who govern the schools. It has for a very long time put considerable weight on the professional expertise of educators. They are the people who get up every day and go to school and go to our educational institutions with one purpose in mind, and that is to give our kids the best possible learning experience that they can. The talent and expertise of educators has been the reason that I think successive Governments have for a long time trusted them with things like the development of the New Zealand Curriculum and to guide the development of pedagogy. What this bill does is it undermines that and, taken together, some of the key changes in this bill amount to a sweeping change to the way that the education sector is led and to how power and influence is exercised within the sector.

Like so many other bills, this is not just a series of technical adjustments. It actually betrays a highly ideological world view, and I don’t mind that per se; I just disagree with the ideology. For the National Government, education is some kind of Punch and Judy morality play, where they politically try to position themselves as being the voice and the advocates of parents, and they see teachers and educators as being somehow the enemy—the enemy—who have to be neutralised and marginalised. That is, in fact, what they’re doing here.

I want to point, in the time I’ve got, to two of the provisions in this bill that are, I think, particularly troubling. One is the transfer of responsibility for teaching standards, registration criteria, the practising certificate criteria, and even the teacher code of conduct away from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education, who is the No. 1 public servant, who works for the Minister of the day. What does it mean? It means that there’s a real risk that teaching standards in our system become political instruments, effectively, in the hands of the Government of the day, with the Minister having their hands on the lever; it means that the registration requirements for teachers can shift with the ideology of the Government of the day; and it means that the independent, profession-led voice, which should shape our values and our expectations as educators, is reduced to being a compliance arm of the ministry. That is worrying.

The other key provision in this is that control of the New Zealand Curriculum—what our kids get to learn in school—basically, shifts to the Beehive under this bill. It gives the Minister sweeping powers to amend Curriculum statements, even without a review and without consultation, and it allows different Curriculum statements for different types of schools or groups of students. We should all, I think, take a deep breath and consider the implications of this. Are we now going to have a differentiated national curriculum, one that depends on the type of school or the type of student? It opens the door to a tiered public education system that perhaps reflects the hierarchical views of the members on the Government benches. It’s a very significant shift away from the spirit and the flexibility of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum.

This is not partnership, and so the way that this has been done also reflects this top-down, controlling approach that is so characteristic of this Government. There’s no co-design here. There’s no alignment with Te Tiriti. This is centralised prescription and control—political control—from the Beehive, dressed up as efficiency.

I want to say something to the members on the Government benches and the National Government: this bill effects a shift to top-down control by the Minister of the day and the ministry. Now, if the members on that side of the House and the Ministers in this Government were true conservatives in the real sense of the word, they would think far more carefully about nurturing the people and the institutions and the practices and the culture of our system—in this case, the education sector—to preserve stability and to preserve what’s good in our system, but, no, they’re not. They’ve got all the political depth of a puddle. They’re not actually true conservatives.

That’s why centralism and political control is their first instinct and, by politicising and centralising, they put at risk that voice and influence, which for a long time in the education sector has been decentralised, with a culture of collaboration across the sector. One of the virtues of that practice in the past and those decentralised institutional arrangements is that the education sector has a kind of stability that insulates this vital part of our society from the three-year political cycle and from the fads and the whims of whoever happens to be the Minister of Education on the day.

I say to the members across on the other side: consider this. It’s easy to let this genie out of the bottle—easier than it is to put it back in. Top-down control from the Beehive and from the top of the ministry might suit you now—you might like that now—but in a very short period of time there will be someone else sitting in the education Minister’s chair, at their desk. There will be someone else, and your particular ideology, I say to National Party members, a highly ideological and political view of the education sector, will be replaced by another view and another Minister with the same access to the policy levers and the buttons that you are now giving to this Minister. Think about that and think about whether the politicisation and the instability that you are introducing into the education system is good for our kids and good for New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before we go further, can I ask members to limit the conversations across the Chamber and to direct their comments through the Chair. I know you’re all engaged on education; that’s a great thing for New Zealand.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (09:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The challenge for the Opposition is that the Government is delivering in education. The challenge for the Opposition is to accept that this Government is being the voice for students and is achieving outcomes. The challenge for the Opposition is that this bill delivers the next step in actually achieving outcomes. I am sure that, across the House, we can all agree it is crucial that New Zealand has a world-class education system, and I’m sure we can all agree that every young person in New Zealand should reach, and should be given the opportunity to reach, their full potential.

Some of the things that enable that to happen are ensuring that the infrastructure of our education system works, and it’s hard for the Opposition to accept that we’ve gone from $1.2 million per classroom to $620,000. This bill takes the next step in that journey—creating the New Zealand School Property Agency. It’s about time the Opposition got onboard and supported us to take New Zealand education forward. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call—Georgie Dansey.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (09:12): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill does nothing to make things better for our children in our schools. This bill takes our education system backwards. This bill gives the Minister too much power and too much influence over the curriculum, and this bill does nothing to ensure that our curriculum is by Kiwis for Kiwi kids. We want our kids to be proud of who they are. We want learning that is tailored to our Kiwi kids, and the best way to have education tailored to our Kiwi kids is to have the input of our Kiwi kids and input from those who spend the most time with our Kiwi kids—our educators and our parents.

This bill is not a tidy-up or tune-up of the system we know; it represents a fundamental philosophical shift. I want to talk about a few aspects of the bill today, the first one being school attendance and the removal of the exemption from attending schools based on walking distance or other reasons. Under the bill, principals can only grant attendance exemptions under rules set by the Secretary for Education, and parents can be fined up to $3,000 for non-compliance.

Earlier this year, my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti and I visited Ka Puta Ka Ora Emerge Aotearoa, and part of what they discussed with us was a system that they are implementing, a multi-systematic theory (MST). This is a programme for high-risk youth aged 11 to 17 and their whānau. It’s a pretty remarkable programme, and they’ve been having excellent results. It’s whānau-centred and it gives whānau the tools to support the young people to have success. When they’re working with these people, it’s the high-risk ones, so they often are not in school, education, training, or employment. One of the key things that MST does is try and get that student back into the school system, because we know that if kids are in school and they have a good education, their outlook on life and their ability to achieve later in life is more successful.

I have some data from this programme. By the end of the programme, 78 percent of these students are in school or working; 85 percent have had no new arrests; and 94 percent stay living at home as the best place for them to be. We can all agree that those are good stats.

The reason I want to speak to this is because, when we were having these conversations with the kaimahi at Emerge Aotearoa, they talked about how you get a student who’s probably involved in the justice system, is very disconnected from school and disconnected from their community, back into school. One of the ways they do it is by getting that student to attend school maybe once or twice a week. You can’t just say, “Right, here you go from 9 till 3; you’re at school every single day.” That’s not going to work. It might work for some kids, but some kids need to ease into it.

The issue I take with this particular piece of the legislation is that, with these high-risk youth, there is a huge success rate but it’s going to take a while to get them back into the school system on a permanent basis. If there are further repercussions for not being at school, if it’s harder to allow someone to attend the school only two days a week for a short period of time, that is going to further isolate these kids from the school. In addition, if a parent is charged $3,000 for non-compliance, which is unaffordable for so many of our kids, particularly those that are in that are high risk, that is going to put such a huge barrier on whānau wanting to access and engage with the school system.

There’s so much to talk about in this bill. I’ve spent all my time talking about this one issue, and I could go on, but this bill has to change. It’s taking our education system backwards, and Labour does not support it.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (09:17): I rise to take a call on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. I’m having flashbacks to the select committee process, where we were having one unionist after another come in, and I’m thinking, “Am I listening to the Labour Party speaking, or am I listening to the union speaking?” That is the difference, right? We on this side of the House listen to parents, and on the other side of the House, all they listen to is the unions. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:18): That last contribution was really disappointing. It’s disappointing to hear that same old trope, “Oh, it’s Labour and the unions.” Who makes up the unions, Mr McCallum? The unions are made up of educators and teachers and people that work every single day on that front line. I am sick and tired, as are most of the people that work on that front line, of the absolute nonsense that comes out of that side of the House. We have people who know about education who sit within those unions. We have people that work there every single day. To have a contribution like that is incredibly disrespectful to our educators—the people that do the mahi and care about kids. It is absolutely disrespectful. I can tell you now, Mr McCallum, that they will be watching that contribution with utter disgust, as I was.

This bill, as we have heard today and last night, is a bill that is based in ideology that the other side fails to see is incredibly damaging to our education system. I have heard people yell across the House, “Oh, but we’re making changes that are for the better.” Based on what? The members on the other side of the House should go and look at those responses and those assessment measures that you are basing that on and see what the credibility of those assessment measures is, because they have no credibility with anyone that has any knowledge of assessment techniques in education. They are made-up assessment measures to prove what you think the result should be showing, and that is a dangerous position that we have in this country right now.

This bill should not be progressing in its current form. It is disappointing. It is handing far more power to the Minister, it is taking away—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Typical—typical of this Government.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Absolutely, you are so right my colleague over there, Rachel Brooking; absolutely typical of this Government who think that they know best—who think that they know better than the people. Rather than giving the support that our educators need to make the difference, they are taking that away and saying, “We know best.” And then they are here saying, “Oh, you’re there with the unions.” Well, we are standing with the educators, to be fair, and the people—

Grant McCallum: True—it’s true. We’re standing with the parents and the children.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Mr McCallum—I would like to know, Mr McCallum, where your qualifications in education come from, because they’re certainly not—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK. Can I encourage people to direct their comments through the Speaker and not to have these—

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall carry on then. Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. What I am saying is that we’ve got people on the other side of the House that think they know about education and absolutely have no qualifications, no experience, no knowledge of what is going to make a difference for young people in this country.

They think they know more than what our fantastic educators know. They think they know how to fix a system that already was doing well but needed the support behind it to make it into an excellent system. At the moment, we have a Government that’s taking it completely backwards, and they’re basing their idea that it’s going forwards on made-up results—they’re made-up assessment results. I’d like them to think about that one, and I’d like them to go and have a look at those assessment results to see whether they can find that there’s any credibility behind them, because I can tell them that there’s not.

As I’ve said, this bill is a terrible bill for education in this country, but I want to focus very much my contribution today on the part that removes the proposed shift in this bill of the early childhood regulatory functions to the Education Review Office (ERO) in its current form. This is potentially a very dangerous part of the bill. Not only is it dangerous because it takes and splits that function away from the Ministry of Education, but what it’s potentially doing is clouding the issue of where we’ve got supposedly an independent body who does the assessments in our schools and early childhood centres now having a regulatory function as well. And that’s clouding a rather unfortunate issue there. I’m struggling to see why you would make that independent body have a conflict of interest. That’s exactly what this part of the clause is doing, it’s making a conflict of interest.

In the submission process, a number of submitters actually brought this up, and a common theme was perceived tension between ERO’s existing evaluation review function and the new regulatory responsibilities proposed for the Director of Regulations. Several submitters, and I’m just—with your indulgence, Mr Speaker—I’m just reading this from the departmental report because I do believe that this is very important: “Several submitters argued that combining review and regulatory functions within the same agency could compromise ERO’s independence and the perceived impartiality of its reviews of ECE service providers.”

One of the issues was that when this bill was put through select committee, it was a late and irregular way that this was done. So submitters didn’t even really know what they were looking at at this particular point in time. That seems to be a real issue with transparency, and I’m really, really concerned that we’re in a space where the Government’s talking about that they want to make a difference, but they’re not giving the sector transparency at all around what that difference is going to be. I think it’s highly unusual that we would have that sort of situation. This is what submitters brought up in the select committee process. This could have a huge negative impact on early childhood education.

The whole way through this Government has been in place, they’ve treated early childhood like it’s not part of the education sector. It’s almost been like it’s been part solely of the care sector rather than the education sector. That goes against every single piece of research that shows that education starts the moment that a child is conceived. Therefore, we should be putting in the best education system in the world right from the word “go” for our youngest learners. And this part of this bill is not doing that.

This part of this bill is an ideological approach to early childhood. That is a real concern. I cannot understand why people that say that they are wanting the best, have actually let this go through, because it is completely wrong to do that to our youngest learners.

Now, Mr Speaker, I know that you and many of my colleagues on this side of the House met with the member of Parliament from New South Wales legislature recently who was the person that did the whistleblowing, really, or that shone the light on the fact that over there they’ve uncovered some rather nasty things that are happening in their early childhood centres. And unfortunately they have had a number of cases, even horrific, of paedophiles that have been working in those centres. Guess what, people? What we are doing here and what we’ve done with regulations in early childhood is actually setting us up to have the same regulatory regime that they’ve got over there that enabled that to happen. That is why I’m concerned that that side of the House has not taken this part of this bill seriously.

As a Government, they should be standing up and saying no to this part; they should be putting the safety of our youngest learners right at the centre, and they are not. It’s not just the learning here, it’s the safety of our young people, and I am very, very concerned that we are setting this up—

Simon Court: She’s taking about the teachers’ registration council—

Grant McCallum: That’s the one, yeah.

Simon Court: —that keeps registering paedophiles.

Grant McCallum: Correct. Ha!

Hon JAN TINETTI: And listen to them over there. They are laughing about it. That is a concern. That is a huge concern. They see that that is not an issue, yet the figures elsewhere show that what we are doing here is putting those conditions in place.

This is a terrible, terrible bill. I want to end my contribution here. Only 1 percent of submitters generally supported this bill—1 percent. Eighty-five percent generally opposed the bill. That shows—85 percent—that the educators who submitted on this bill know a lot about the harm that it will do to our young people and to the system. It’s a sad time that we put a bill like this through that’s going to damage our education system. I condemn this bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (09:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The second reading of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill is an important step along this process towards more safety in our system for young children.

Imagine if the Medical Council of New Zealand said that they didn’t believe that patient safety was one of the core functions of their existence. Well, that’s exactly what the Francis report found about the Teaching Council. So the changes that we are making here will redirect and refocus the Teaching Council and ensure that children are safe and that their education is paramount. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill and the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill.

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill, and the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill.

We come first to the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. We now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 16—amendments to the Environment Act 1986—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before we start, I think it would be useful to clarify where Part 1 and Part 2 are, and this is simply because of the way the bill is drafted with reference to other parts. If you just look at the contents page, it looks like Part 2 starts at clause 7, but I think, in fact, Part 2 doesn’t come until clause 17, and what that means—it’s relevant—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, it says on my list it’s the debate on clauses 4 to 16. I’ll just double check with the Clerk.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s helpful, thank you. It’s just that it’s a strange looking contents page. That’s just why I wanted to raise it right at the start.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s clauses 4 to 16? Yes, that’s correct.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (09:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Environment (Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill is an important amendment bill that supports the Government’s reform agenda in housing, transport, urban growth, and the environment. We are committed to bringing together the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, local government functions from the Department of Internal Affairs into one coherent new agency. The Government wants this new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport—which we’ll call MCERT—to be operational on 1 July. Of course, in order to do that, we must disestablish the Ministry for the Environment.

The purpose of this bill is to allow the Ministry for the Environment to integrate into MCERT alongside other ministries, agencies, and of these affected agencies, as I’ve stipulated, only the Ministry for the Environment was created by statute, and therefore requires us to gather here today to make the legislative amendments to disestablish it before it can become a part of the MCERT. Mr Chair, I’m happy to take questions from the committee.

LAN PHAM (Green) (09:36): Thank you, Mr Chair. Really appreciate being able to have some scrutiny on this bill today because the implications of it are quite serious, and the concern that we’ve had at the Environment Committee is the way that this bill has just been rushed through with such a truncated select committee process. I want to make the Chair clear that the literal time allowed at select committee to actually scrutinise the departmental report and the resulting bill was the entirety of 40 minutes. There are substantial concerns that have been raised by submitters—and, in fact, almost the entirety of submitters—and so I’m really looking forward to the opportunity to get some clear assurances from the Minister for the Environment about some really key aspects that I think everyone who put into this process is yet to hear.

The first one comes to the actual decision to go down this path of the establishment of the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT), and as part of that, disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment. I’m interested in what other alternatives were considered. This was particularly of concern because one of the academics who submitted very strongly on the bill was Professor Bronwyn Hayward from the University of Canterbury, and she made it really clear that she had very severe concerns about the actual Cabinet papers that went into this decision that actually talked about other countries overseas successfully integrating similar functions. Now, she found no evidence—sorry, this is to quote her from her submission, “No evidence of other countries that have successfully integrated such diverse oversight as environment with cities other than the Maldives and Kosovo.”, which she made clear have very concerning conflict of interest issues.

I’d really like to hear the Minister respond to that, because other similar democratic countries that we often compare ourselves to—the likes of Canada, Australia, even the UK—when they’ve merged the environment as a sector, as an agency, she’s pointed out, for example, the UK had a Minister and department for Environment and Food; Australia had Climate, Environment, Energy, and Water; and Canada had Environment, Climate Change, and Nature. Her concern has not been resolved and not been actually even adequately responded to, and it would be great to hear from the Minister what the alternatives were.

The other aspect that is of real concern with this mega-merger, is actually the purpose of MCERT itself.

I’m interested to hear from the Minister what that is going to be set out as. The Cabinet papers make it really clear in the establishment of it—they talk about the purpose being to provide joined-up advice with a regional focus on deals and delivery, backed by a strong economic engine and rich data and insights. Now, there’s no mention of “environment” in that. I know that we’ve heard insisted time and time again that, because there’s an “E” in the title, “environment” is somehow still functional and relevant within that, but I’m yet to see any evidence of that, and I’d like to hear assurances from the Minister for all those submitters who clearly underlined those concerns. Those are my first questions to the Minister. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (09:40): I thank the member Lan Pham for her questions. Some were unrelated to the bill but were interesting, none the less. Look, I do appreciate the concern that the member raises. I think, as I said in my second reading speech, the environment is deeply loved and deeply embraced by New Zealanders as a whole. That is why, with the passage of this bill, we’re actually taking action—yes, to disestablish the ministry, the form of the ministry, but not the function.

I think, to the member’s point around the submissions that were received—and yes, I do acknowledge 588 submissions; I think it was 22 that the Environment Committee heard, and I want to acknowledge the work of the committee. There was some really useful feedback in that, and one of those was to strengthen the oversight, which is exactly what we’re doing here in this bill by transferring the responsibility from the ministry to the newly appointed Secretary for the Environment, who will be the chief executive of the new ministry.

As a response to that select committee process and to strengthen those provisions and to strengthen that oversight, that new secretary will now be obliged to report on progress under the imperatives of the Environment Act. Again, I want to be clear to this House: this bill, in no way, shape, or form, changes the Environment Act. Everything that was a part of the Ministry for the Environment is now being uplifted and put under the responsibility of the Secretary for the Environment. I have absolute faith that this will not see an erasure or an erosion of environmental protections in this country.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (09:43): Well, my first question is: how? I will get to that in some more detail—remembering, of course, that this did not have a regulatory impact statement, either, as well as the shortened timeframe that Lan Pham has already talked about.

I want to go first to clause 4, which is the Long Title amended of the Environment Act. At the start of the Environment Act, it says, “An Act to (a) provide for the establishment of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: (b) provide for the establishment of the Ministry for the Environment:”—and that is being deleted; paragraph (b) goes. Then, in paragraph (c): “ensure that, in the management of natural and physical resources, full and balanced account is taken of (i) the intrinsic values of ecosystems; and (ii) all values which are placed by individuals and groups on the quality of the environment; and (iii) the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and (iv) the sustainability of natural and physical resources; and (v) the needs of future generations”.

A comment: I wish legislation that had wording like that was coming before this House at the moment, but it is not. That is our major concern: that this Government is so intent on destroying the environment that all of those “ensures” that I just read out—very good ensures—will be diminished and will not happen. My first question is: how will the Minister ensure that this new mega-ministry somehow holds up those “ensures” that I just read out, at paragraph (c) of the purpose of the Environment Act?

Then this relates to clause 5, which amends Section 2, the “Interpretation”, of the Environment Act. We see as well that the definition of “Minister” is repealed, and the definition of “ministry” is repealed, and then the definition of “secretary” is amended, but it relates back to the ministry. Subclause (4) says that “Secretary for the Environment means the chief executive of the Ministry”—but, of course, the ministry is not defined, because we’ve just deleted the definition of that above. I’ve got a number of questions on this particular point. Why is there no definition of ministry, even if it’s a reference to the mega-ministry or something else, or something that relates to those “ensures” that I just read out in the purpose of the Act? How does that all fit in? Should there, in fact, be a definition of a Minister somewhere? How does that relate?

Something that Lan Pham just touched on that I think other contributions will no doubt go into in more detail is this conflict of the roles. What we heard in submissions is that if there is no clear Minister—not a public official, a Minister—advocating for the environment—and somewhere in the select committee report it says, oh, well, advocacy is not something that’s in the Act; well, we can replace the word “advocacy” with ensuring that full and balanced account is taken of the intrinsic value of ecosystems—who is going to do that? That is my question for the Minister. How will the intrinsic values of ecosystems, as an example—how will the Minister get independent advice on that that is not mixed up with what the former Ministry of Transport might want in terms of roads, say?

We are very concerned that there will be further capture of that advice, because there’s no clear route for that advice to come through, and that in fact it will all be ignored. Those are my starting questions on clauses 4 and 5.

A more general question goes back to my first question of “How?” We heard the Minister responsible for RMA Reform say in the annual review debates a couple of weeks ago that the whole ministry will be doing better for the environment. Can the Minister tell us how that is going to happen?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (09:47): Look, I thank the Hon Rachel Brooking for her questions. Again, I want to reiterate that there is nothing in this bill that removes or weakens a single statutory protection. All existing functions that the member herself as a former Minister oversaw remain intact. We have actually strengthened accountability by introducing that annual reporting by the secretary that I referred to earlier.

The member also asked a question about the fact that there was no regulatory impact statement. Well, that is because, very clearly, the bill doesn’t change any regulatory settings. It doesn’t impose any new obligations; it simply, again, restructures how existing functions are delivered. The focus will continue to be, as it always has been, on improving effectiveness, coordination, and not on altering the underlying regulatory framework of the Act.

To address the questions around ministerial responsibility and accountability: ministerial accountability under the Environment Act remains unchanged. We are not changing the Environment Act. Funding continues to support environmental functions. As the new Minister, I have a Budget Vote.

Glen Bennett: It could easily get lost in the system.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: This bill does not remove accountability; it strengthens accountability through those additional reporting mechanisms and responsibilities. I hear some heckling over that side about getting lost in the system, and I think comments like that do a real disservice to Government officials who worked for the Ministry for the Environment, who are going through a time of change at the moment, and who will continue their role with the great passion and conviction and expertise that they’ve always brought to this role.

The point of bringing environment into a merged ministry like this is so that environmental imperatives are taken account of when we are dealing with big challenges like regional development, like transport development, and so on and so forth. So actually, this gives the environment more of a voice.

LAN PHAM (Green) (09:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments about her role as the Minister, because I think the concern, and what was made so clear, again through the actual Cabinet papers that undertook this exercise, is that the intention was actually that there would be one single Minister for the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), and we did not have it addressed at select committee whether there is a definite ongoing role for the Minister for the Environment or not. So it would be really great to have absolute clarity from the Minister that her Government is intending to continue the role of the Minister for the Environment rather than having one single Minister which is across all of these.

I think what really concerns me as well, from the Minister’s comments, is, you know, saying that some of my previous contribution was outside the scope of the bill; the point of concern—and thank goodness we have this committee of the whole process here in Parliament—was that it was such a short time frame that we had to consider this, and, actually, New Zealanders want to know what the alternatives were that were considered before rushing into this, which they so clearly have.

Then asking about the actual purpose of MCERT and how environment will or won’t be captured is directly relevant to the bill. You know, just diminishing these concerns and saying, “Oh, it doesn’t change the function—it doesn’t change the function.” Well, quite clearly, the functions are constrained. The departmental report clearly spells out that there are 15 Acts in the environment sector which will be under the new responsibilities of the chief executive for MCERT. That same individual has to also balance and provide for 54 other Acts across the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Transport, the Department of Internal Affairs, in terms of local government functions, and these are not small things. You know, this is our Housing Act; this is literally our Land Transport Act, our customs law, and yet, the environment, the actual functions, although you’re saying they’re unchanged, the depth and contemplation and delivery of these are clearly constrained. It’s clearly a different beast and we’re going to be able to look at that more as we go through the clauses, but that’s the point we’re trying to make, Minister, and that’s where we’re seeking really clear assurance from.

Now, I wanted to pick up, particularly, on the risks around this merger because we have this clear change from this dedicated ministry at the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) to MCERT, and we were provided—sorry, no, we weren’t provided at select committee. We had no information about the actual risks to MFE, and through an Official Information Act request we obtained some risk assessments and that raised real concerns that I’d like the Minister to address.

So you probably can’t see this very well, [Holds up paper] but what it says is across the board—all the red and the orange—there are high risks, high likelihood, and high consequences when it comes to things like competing priorities, undocumented relationships, resource capacity, risk, lack of clarity, unclear roles and responsibilities, business-as-usual systems affected by the change; these are all the actual risks, and the actual risk to the actual functions that the Minister keeps reiterating will not be changed. Well, these risks didn’t, presumably, exist before this merger was contemplated, rushed through, and will be undertaken. So I would like the Minister to address, very clearly, those risks. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (09:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on these clauses 4 and 5, the Minister keeps saying that nothing has changed in the Act, but there are changes. That is why we are talking to a bill in front of us. She has not said how it is that those issues in paragraph (c) of the long title will operate in this new ministry. Would she consider making some reference, even if it’s just in the Hansard here, about how she expects the new ministry, all of the parts of that ministry, to work with that long title? That would be helpful.

Then she also has not answered my question about how the removal of the definition of “Minister” and “Ministry” then works with other definitions that referred to “Ministry” or “Minister”. So we have the “Secretary for the Environment means the chief executive of the Ministry”, and we assume that the “Ministry” means this new ministry, but there’s no definition to that point—unless she’d like to take me there.

Then if we jump ahead to Part 2, clause 29, which is the “Secretary for the Environment responsible to the Minister”: “The Secretary for the Environment is responsible to the Minister for (a) the performance of their functions[…]; and (b) ensuring compliance with section 32.” Which Minister? Why is that not defined here? Those are some very basic questions.

So I have questions about those simple definitions and then the wider question of: how this big new ministry is going to operate with that paragraph (c) of the long title of the Environment Act. It appears that, yes, there’s some Secretary for the Environment, but we don’t know what the relationship is with that other functions of this new environment and who the Minister is. What is the “Minister”? Those are my questions there.

Then I’ve just got one further separate question and that is, again, relating to the “Secretary for the Environment means the chief executive of the Ministry”: what sort of delegations can that secretary make? This is important because if it is the chief executive of this new giant mega-ministry, then presumably they’re going to be really busy, and they will want to delegate those functions of the Secretary for the Environment. So how is that going to work in practice? And then, does it just all get devolved down to people at lower levels of the Public Service? That relates back to our general conflict question around how we think that the environment is going to be diminished.

We’re really looking here for the Minister to demonstrate to us that we are all totally wrong and what is going to happen is that this new ministry is going to be what Chris Bishop said and actually do better for the environment on all fronts of that ministry—every single limb: housing, local government, transport; everything is going to be suddenly focused on doing better for the environment. How is that going to happen, Minister?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (09:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just responding to the questions around clause 5: yes, the bill changes the definition of “Minister” to align with the standard definitions that are actually outlined in the Legislation Act 2019, and that Act states that: “the Minister is the person who the Prime Minister has delegated is responsible for administering the legislation.” That person is me.

The bill does not change references to the Minister for the Environment in other Acts, such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act—which you’ll hear more from me about later this afternoon. There will still need to be a Minister with assigned responsibility for environmental legislation and who will carry out specific statutory functions, like, again, those within the HSNO Act. So, again, I just want to reassure the House that the responsibilities under the Environment Act will continue.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know my colleagues will have specific questions on the clauses. I have two very specific questions on the departmental disclosure statement, because, as my colleagues the Hon Rachel Brooking and Lan Pham have highlighted, there is no regulatory impact statement. I also just want to mention that so far all we’ve heard from the Minister is reassurance, but not actually anything of substance or anything that can be substantiated by data, by numbers, or by statistics.

In terms of the departmental disclosure statement, I have two questions. I’m looking at 2.5 in terms of the extent of the impact analysis available, and it says that the financial implication of the merger has been withheld. Can the Minister please speak to why that financial implication has been withheld, if the Minister wouldn’t mind, because, again, this is a tangible thing that the Minister could respond to in terms of giving reassurances to the committee that, for example, the conglomerate in the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) will have, let’s say, the similar ring-fenced funding to Environment, as we’ve seen so far with the Ministry for the Environment and that that level of funding would be comparable. I think that kind of reassurance is something that is tangible and substantial.

The second question I have—and this is more of a concern to me—is about 3.1, consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations. Now, it says that the bill has not been assessed for consistency. That is a concern, because under our New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement, there are very specific and enforceable commitments around environmental protection as part of that agreement. Now, we have already heard from the EU counterpart their concerns with a suite of changes we’ve seen around climate targets, emissions targets, around the fast-track proposals, around the fisheries, etc. All of those are enforceable commitments that could have been challenged in the international space or even in a bilateral space by the EU on our involvement and our part that we play under the NZ - EU free-trade agreement, noting that this will have a significant impact for our exporters.

So I want to check with the Minister—what does it mean when they say the bill has not been assessed for consistency. Does that mean that there have been no conversations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on our obligations under the NZ - EU free-trade agreement, and if not, why?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:03): Thank you. Madam Chair. I too would like to urge the Minister to give us some responses to the various questions that have been asked, interrogating the first few clauses of this bill, particularly given the shoddy process of this bill through select committee, the arbitrary truncation of the time that the select committee had to consider this bill, the fact that 588 submitters made written submissions that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you just repeat which clause you are speaking to.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I’m speaking to the main clause of this bill, which is clause 8, which repeals the Ministry for the Environment and the process, and a general comment, Madam Chair, around the process that this bill has been through, which then requires some detailed responses from the Minister that we have not been getting.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee stage is to interrogate the legislation, not the process, so can you please just refer your comments, your questions, to the bill.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, I have—to the substance of this bill, which is clause 8, which repeals the Ministry for the Environment, which is why we here, which is what we’ve been trying to interrogate at select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And your question is?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: My question is: why will the Minister not respond to the many questions that have been asked about the substance of the changes that this bill makes? I have a particular question around the submission from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where he lays out the concerns he has around trade-offs that will be missed or competing priorities that will not be able to be managed in a way that is appropriate by disestablishing this ministry. I’ll get to that in a minute, Madam Chair. But what I want to ask the Minister is whether she considered the recommendation that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has made in his submission, which was to leave out the Ministry for the Environment from the amalgamation of the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), which is literally the reason why we’re here today.

This bill needs to go through because of MCERT subsuming the functions of the Environment Act and the Ministry for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has laid out why he thinks that that should not happen. And I want to know, given there’s no risk and no real analysis of this bill, whether the Minister has considered leaving the Ministry for the Environment out of the merger.

Just to go over the rationale for that—and I won’t go over the whole thing; I’m assuming the Minister has read that. The point is, as we make decisions around the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, both of which are coming through—they are at select committee at the moment—there will be a significant need to manage trade-offs between the protection of the environment, the natural environment, and all of the other decisions that are made around cities and urban planning and growth.

The concern that he laid out was that those trade-offs will be managed by the secretary. Clause 8, repealing section 28, means that the functions of the ministry transfer to the secretary. That’s what the Minister says in a previous response. Is the expectation that the Secretary for the Environment will make decisions either unilaterally or with other officials, in this new mega-ministry, around the trade-offs that are inherent in those decisions, or will they be elevated to responsible Ministers? I’d like the Minister’s comments on that. I would like her to step us through the process that is envisioned as a result of the repealing of this ministry.

One last question I have is in relation to a number of submissions that point to the concern that people have that this new mega-ministry will actually lead to inefficiencies and inconsistencies, the likes of which we have seen with other mega-ministries. The Minister has said that it will not, but she has not told us what will give us confidence, given that we’ve seen this before, that this will not happen. The Minister has said that it will not lead to inconsistencies, but can she tell us how, given that the new secretary will have to be responsible for a large number of things and not just the environment, the natural and built environment? So can she give us some give us some confidence as to why she thinks that the natural environment will not be subsumed in this new mega-ministry?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (10:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going to wrap a couple of those last questions together. As to the—oh, the Green Party member that’s not here any longer, the question—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We don’t refer to a member’s absence.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: No—I know that. That’s why I didn’t name the person. There is no regulatory impact statement because there is no change to the function, as I’ve already explained. And to the question of why there was no international analysis, that’s again, I’m advised by Ministry for the Environment (MfE) officials who have spoken with the, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, because there is no change to the function or those protections, so, again, I’m confident of that.

There’ a lot of rhetoric around the contestability of advice and whether or not the voice of the environment will be drowned out within this new merged ministry, and I understand those concerns on the surface. But, actually, again, I want to remind the committee that the functions of the Environment Act remain in place. They are transferred from the old ministry to the secretary, but this concern that highly capable, highly qualified, highly skilled MfE officials who will sit in the new MCERT will no longer be providing contestable advice I think is really a moot point. Again, there are no substantive changes being proposed to MfE’s functions. Their responsibilities and my responsibilities as the Minister remain in place. We are still expected to be providing advice on environmental implications and decisions, and we must all comply with relevant statutory requirements.

LAN PHAM (Green) (10:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to start on those functions remaining in place, I want to really specifically ask about that. Given the fact that we’ve just heard that the chief executive’s role will be—yes—the 15 environmental Acts for which they have responsibility, plus the 54 other Acts across considerable sectors, how will the Secretary for the Environment examine and document how conflicts of interest between the four merged ministries will be identified and managed? We keep getting these assurances, but it is so clear that subordination happens within ministries when there are competing priorities and there are limited resources and decisions need to be made.

Now, I’m noting that we haven’t had a response from the Minister for the Environment about alternatives that were considered, instead of going down this path. Again, it was really disappointing that we didn’t hear it at the select committee—and, Madam Chair, I want to make sure that you know from your now coming in to chair this that we had only 40 minutes of deliberations on this at the Environment Committee, which is why we’re seeking answers to these questions here. It’s directly relevant to the bill.

The other aspect that I wanted to address the Minister’s responses on was when we asked very clearly whether there will be an ongoing role for the Minister for the Environment, because the Cabinet paper clearly said that there was an intention for there to be one, single Minister. The Minister’s response just now has provided no assurance. She has simply said that there will be a Minister with responsibility for environmental functions. Can she please assure us and assure New Zealanders that that role is intended to be carried out by the Minister for the Environment? I think that that would go some way, at least at a very basic level, towards helping people understand that that will be a role that remains in place, particularly when it’s been so clear that this mattered to submitters in a unanimous way, apart from the one submitter who was in support of this.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (10:13): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t think—

Todd Stephenson: Oh, it’s a very simple bill, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just settle, settle—give me a chance to even open my mouth. I don’t believe that we have explored the whole of the bill in order to take a closure motion, but in the short time that I have been here, I’m hearing repetition already, and so I do urge members to move on. You can ask questions of the Minister, but whether the Minister answers or not, I cannot direct, and so we won’t labour the point. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to this point, which I have raised in a different clause, which is the delegations of the secretary to the staff and talk generally, and then I’m going to move forward here to clauses 9, 10, 11, and 12, which is where I’m at now. It’s a little bit confusing because it says “Part 2”, but it’s referring to Part 2 of the Environment Act, not Part 2 of this bill.

Now the point is: what this bill has done—and it’s a credit to the Parliamentary Counsel Office; they’re very clever at drafting—is that they’ve said, “OK, well, we’ll just replace the ’Ministry’ with the ’Secretary for the Environment’.”, and that is why the Minister keeps saying that there are really no changes. But, of course, there is a change because the ministry is a big group of people and it has a secretary at its head, and what we’re saying is that all the talk about that big groups of people is now just referring to the one individual.

My question is: how does that one individual then link back to a big group of people? Of course, we all acknowledge here—well, I’ve heard the Minister acknowledge it—that that big group of people are very important and they do excellent work. Some of them are also here, sitting behind the Minister while we’re talking about the disestablishment of their workplace, and so I have some sympathy for them being in that position. But my question is a structural one: when you move from a big group of people to one person, how does that work when there are already provisions relating specifically to that one person and what they do?

Back to the definitions: with the secretary, is that subject to delegation? Then, what we will have at new section 29 is that the secretary is responsible to the Minister, and then we move down to the functions of the ministry, which are now the functions for the secretary at clause 11, and there’s that replacement that I was talking about.

Then, at clause 12, it refers to section 32 of the Act, which is matters to which regard is to be given: “In carrying out the Ministry’s functions, every officer and employee of the Ministry, so far as is practicable, shall have regard to the matters set out in section 17(a) to (g).” My question there is this. That clause is very much about that big group of people—the ministry, not the secretary—and where is the replacement for that? Do any duties apply to those staff who will be employed by the secretary, noting that the secretary is the chief executive and has all these other very important officials doing lots of different jobs under them?

I’d like the Minister to talk through how, by doing this clever thing that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has devised by just swapping out the “Ministry” for the “Secretary”—how does that then relate when there were actually specific roles for the ministry staff and the switch-out doesn’t work because both already had provisions relating to them? We really want to know how those people in that ministry who are now part of the bigger ministry will still operate as a unit—which might be one way of describing it. I’ve asked the delegation questions in relation to clause 5 and also clause 9, which replaces section 29, and now I’m asking specifically about section 32, which is being amended. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:18): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m wanting to refer specifically to Part 1, clause 6, new section 2A is to be inserted: “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. In regards to the savings, Minister, I wonder if you can outline what savings are being referred to here. Presumably, in the amalgamation of these ministries, the Government is hoping to make some savings. What are those savings projected to be? Are those savings in the resource, expenditure, in the staffing numbers, in the allocation of ministerial staff even? And if there are any savings to be made and any reductions in the resources put towards the specific responsibilities for the Ministry of the Environment as covered in the Act—the current Ministry for the Environment—how, then, can you disabuse the New Zealand public of their incredulity at the suggestion that there will not be a dilution of focus and resource put on the environment?

Because it seems obvious to us, Minister, and whilst you are reluctant to specifically speak to this point, it seems obvious that if there are savings, a reduction in resources, reduction in staffing, and a reduction of ministerial focus and ministerial support, that there will be a reduction in ability to uphold the Act. Can you please speak to that point. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (10:20): Yeah, just acknowledging the member and his questions. We’ve made no bones about the fact that there is incredible double up and duplication across the bureaucracy of Government. I’m sure there will be savings, but the whole point of merging these ministries is to streamline and find efficiencies, yes, but, again, that does not mean, to use your word, the dilution of environmental preservation and protection. Metrics to improve the environment will not be worse off. As I’ve said to this committee on multiple occasions, we are bringing in stronger provisions to safeguard environmental performance. Of course, as I’ve outlined again, through the secretary’s functions, we’re providing more transparent public accountability. That creates a new and clearer line of sight, I think, on the outcomes that the ministry team within the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport will actually be delivering on. Again, I, as the Minister, so long as I hold this delegation, am accountable to the House and, indeed, to the New Zealand public.

Look, we are open to continuing to refine the metrics that are being reported on. We do want to ensure clarity and confidence in the secretary’s environmental functions under the Act. I think, rather than condemning this thing before it even begins, we should be excited about the opportunities it’s going to bring to an entirely new integrated planning system where the environment is actually going to be at the heart and the centre of it for once.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (10:22): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. Clause 13 deals with committees, and on the surface of it, it looks fairly routine. It replaces references to the Ministry for the Environment with references to the Secretary for the Environment. Once again, when you step back, this clause highlights a bigger issue with the bill. That’s why I think it’s heading in the wrong direction.

Committees are one of the key ways that expert advice, independent thinking, and challenge are brought into environmental decision-making and where science and technical expertise and community knowledge can be tested and debated before decisions are taken. That’s especially important for environmental issues, which are complex, long term, and often quite politically difficult. By shifting everything from a ministry to a secretary, clause 13 further embeds those committees inside the executive instead of sitting alongside a dedicated environmental institution. Their work is now controlled through a single senior official inside a very large, multi-purpose ministry. That matters for democratic oversight.

The closer expert advice sits at the centre of a delivery-focused mega-ministry. The closer that is, the easier it is for that advice to be filtered out. That’s exactly why I put forward an amendment linked to clause 13A, after new section 34(2). My amendment will require the secretary’s annual report on their Environment Act functions to be provided to the Environment Committee and published as a stand-alone document. That might sound simple, but it’s very important. It creates a clear line of sight between what committees advise, what the secretary does, and what Parliament can actually see and scrutinise. It ensures that the environmental performance isn’t just reported quietly to the Minister but that it is open to examination by the House and also the public. Without that transparency, committees risk becoming an advisory in name only, producing work that disappears into the machinery of a large department with little visibility about whether it has actually made any difference.

The fact that the select committee added clause 13A at all tells us something. It shows that there was already a concern that accountability would be weakened once the Ministry for the Environment was disestablished. My amendment simply strengthens that safeguard and makes it meaningful. If clause 13 and clause 13A are read together, a pattern emerges. The bill centralises control and then adds reporting to compensate for the lost trust and visibility that centralisation creates. In my view, that’s a step backwards.

My two questions for clause 13 are: how can committees provide genuinely independent and influential environmental advice when their work is controlled by a secretary embedded in a large delivery-focused ministry? My other question, Minister, is: doesn’t the need for stronger reporting and transparency through clause 13A and my amendments suggest that democratic oversight is being weakened elsewhere in the bill, including by changes to those like in clause 13?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (10:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call on this bill, and I’d like to ask the Minister for the Environment about something she has brought into the debate and, actually, gave a very lengthy answer about with no specificity. That was when she talked about the inefficiencies in the current system. We heard a bit of a speech about why this was going to make things more efficient, that there was duplication, and yet in the whole of that very long answer, we did not hear one example of what that looks like. Now, for viewers sitting at home, perhaps it could be a compelling argument, but without the evidence of that, it is utterly meaningless, so, Minister, please, can you give us some specific examples of the duplication and the inefficiency that you say underline the purpose of this change to the law, this fundamental change, that is going to sweep away, in one hit, an incredibly important institution that we have in New Zealand? Please give us some specific examples so that your speech doesn’t sound like hollow rhetoric and lines from a page and so that we can understand exactly what the efficiencies are that you are seeking to make happen here.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (10:27): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m very tempted, but I will give other members a chance to introduce new material.

LAN PHAM (Green) (10:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to assure you, Madam Chair, I’m really keen to just step through with new material the entire time. Again, we have not had the scrutiny on this bill, so I really appreciate the opportunity to do that. Now, firstly, just coming straight to clause 9, I think the fact that we haven’t heard assurance from the Minister for the Environment about an ongoing role for—as the Minister for the Environment, this is even more important because, so clearly, the Environment Act itself, given the changes that are proposed in this bill, should so clearly establish the position of the Secretary for the Environment and give it that sound statutory basis. At the moment, while it repeals the establishment of the ministry, this is not actually replaced with an equivalent provision for the Secretary for the Environment themselves. It simply states, in new section 29, that the secretary is responsible to the Minister for performance of its functions. This was emphasised by the Environmental Defence Society, saying, “If you are”—and clearly the Government is—“disestablishing this clear role for the Minister, then there should be an equivalence.” That’s why I’ve proposed, in my tabled amendment, to put in that equivalence, which so clearly can be something that is pointed to that actually gives people assurance that this has a sound statutory basis.

Now, I want to come as well to clause 6, because those transitional savings and related provisions still remain unanswered. They are basic things about how many staff within the Ministry for the Environment right now are contemplated to be transferred over, and what is being contemplated when it comes to—again, this is information that was not provided to the select committee. It was obtained via an Official Information Act request, and it says that there is a high likelihood with high consequence of competing priorities in this contemplated merger. What is actually being done to address that risk?

What about the high likelihood, with high consequence, of resource capacity risks, because the concern there is the high workload and attrition that comes from any of these mergers. We know that large-scale, machinery of Government changes invariably not only result in loss of experienced personnel through redundancy or reassignment but specialists leave, and that’s why it needs to be addressed. Again, we’re given this blanket assurance that, no, it will all be fine—

Ryan Hamilton: What’s the question?

LAN PHAM: —and yet the risks are documented here, and we members of the Environment Committee, who are talking to this right now, did not have this information.

Now, the Government may not be concerned about the risks, but I certainly am, and all of those who submitted are. They thought that this was a bad idea, and the table in this document tells us it is a bad idea. We want to know—and we want assurance from the Minister—whether she has seen the very real risks to the Ministry for the Environment that come from this merger, and what is being proposed when it comes to mitigating these, to working through them, and to being able to back up her constant assurance that everything is fine? We want to know that it will be fine, and so I’d appreciate answers to those.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (10:32): Throughout the duration of this committee stage, I’ve been asked a number of questions that are operational and that are not within my remit to respond to, so I won’t be, but I do want to talk about this ongoing presumption that the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment and the transfer of its functions to the new Secretary for the Environment will somehow negatively impact the environment of New Zealand. I am going to continue to push back on that because I want to keep reiterating that the ministerial accountability—and I accept that there have been questions about whether or not the Minister for the Environment will continue. As anyone within this Chamber who has been a part of a Government knows, that role is entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day.

I cannot predict the future and I don’t know that my role will continue, but, for now, I am the Minister for the Environment. I continue to be accountable under the Act. Those accountabilities remain unchanged. The funding will continue to support environmental functions. As I keep reiterating to the committee, the functions of the ministry are now being transferred to the new secretary. They are new and stronger provisions that require that secretary to report annually to me—who currently holds the role as the Minister—and to the Parliament on that work. That was recommended by the Environment Committee, which that member is also a member of. There is now a stronger level of scrutiny that occurs than before, and I cannot reiterate that point enough.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am reluctant to take any more calls, but I will have another go and see if we can move this on.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s still no answer on the amendment to section 32 in clause 12 and whether there is a duty on staff. That would be useful to know. Briefly, on clause 13, where “Ministry” is being replaced with “Secretary”, has there been any consideration of the new mega-ministry taking on that setting up of committees, rather than the individual of the secretary—short question.

Going on to page 5 of the bill, again, this bill looks a bit strange, but it’s Schedule 1, “New Schedule 1 inserted”, and this relates to transitional provisions. Clause 1 of the new Schedule 1 says, “The Ministry for the Environment is disestablished.” Given the Minister’s comments about how important the environmental aspects of the new mega-ministry will be, would she consider rephrasing that to something that is more positive—that’s one question—rather than talking about it being disestablished? Perhaps adding something like “the creation of a new ministry with environment at the heart of it” might be—I’m sure the Parliamentary Counsel Office can think of some better drafting than that. But would she consider some change there to turn it to the positive, rather than this negative word “disestablished”?

Does the Minister also agree with me, and not with the statement that she just made, that where statute requires there to be a Minister, the Prime Minister is constrained by the delegations that the Prime Minister makes towards what Ministers are required—because that is the point. This legislation requires there to be a specific ministry and it defines the “Minister”. That is now being removed, and so it is a change. While that might apply to some other parts of the Government, in the 1980s there was specific work to create these institutions, with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment being one and the Ministry for the Environment being the other. We were talking here about the Department of Conservation the other day, as well, plus the Resource Management Act. These are all a package, and so it is a change that the Prime Minister just gets to decide whether or not there is somebody with the delegation of Minister for the Environment.

My further question is going back to new Schedule 1 here generally and the transition period—and I know that we’ll talk about transition as well later in the title and commencement clauses. I know she’s talking about things being operational, but we do have huge changes in the resource management reform system, and there’s talk of the changes to local government, as well, that have come in since this bill was introduced. Has she given any consideration to the amount of change that is happening at the moment and the time frames for the transition, given that the first report must be made for the financial year that begins on 1 July 2026?

This new mega-ministry is, presumably, happening on 1 July 2026. With all this flux and all this change, some of which has been announced subsequent to this bill being introduced, has there been any advice or consideration on that point?

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (10:38): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question now close.

Lan Pham: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would you please let me take a call to address questions around the actual funding and expenditure of—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I’ve already put the question.

Lan Pham: Madam Chair, we are moving really clearly through the bill—we’re doing that. It’s new information that’s been raised—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I have already put the question.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to replace clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 9 to insert new section 29(c) is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to replace clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to replace clause 12 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 12A is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 13A, inserting new section 34(2A), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 13A, inserting new section 34(2A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 13A, inserting new section 34(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 13B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to other Acts, and Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2, which is the debate on clause 17—“Amendments to other Acts”—and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am interested in the Minister’s view. Maybe it’s an optics question, but my question relates to the phrase “delete ‘for the Environment’ ” in Schedule 3. We see that in the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in Schedule 3 of the bill: “delete ‘for the Environment’ ”—“delete ‘for the Environment’ ”. Then we go over to the amendments to the Resource Management Act. Again, in section 360K(4), it says to “delete ‘for the Environment’ ”, in clause 3(1)(a) of Schedule 1AA, it says to “delete ‘for the Environment’ ”, and then in clause 5(1) of Schedule 1AA, it says to “delete ‘for the Environment’ ”. Even in the amendment to the Waste Minimisation Act, we have “delete ‘for the Environment’ ”.

The question here is a very simple one for the Minister, and those people who are so interested opposite, and that is: is “delete ‘for the Environment’ ” emblematic of this Government?

LAN PHAM (Green) (10:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. What I’m really hoping for some response from the Minister on is the very clear concern that came from the actual disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). This came primarily from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but it was echoed by many, many, many submitters. Because of this disestablishment, as we go forward into Budget and the expenditure that is associated with what would be the Ministry for the Environment, which is soon to be disestablished and then be part of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, how will that impact on existing appropriations and transparency when it comes to those appropriations?

Now, again, at the Environment Committee we were not offered any assurance that there would be clarity about these ongoing buckets of money that will be directed towards MfE, which will no longer be MfE. What can the Minister provide in terms of assurance that the funding will be transparent, that the vote appropriations will come to the Environment Committee, or not? What kind of assurance can we provide to the many submitters that were concerned about the funding of these environmental functions becoming less transparent and harder to scrutinise? This is particularly important when it comes to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s role in actually assessing environmental expenditure. His concern around that is also of concern to myself and other members on the select committee.

Now, I would love to hear what the implications are and what the Minister’s understanding of the implications are, because this is something that just seems like a gaping hole where, again, we are provided with a response where there’s nothing to see here and nothing changes, but, actually, the question has been unanswered, and even clerks at select committee level were unsure how this will actually play out when it comes to expenditure.

So if the Minister could please address that, and I note that there are also outstanding questions when it comes to the actual costs of the merger and the so-called savings that are yet to be answered in this entire process.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to Schedule 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:57): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 2, which is the commencement, and that is “This Act comes into force on 1 July 2026.” Obviously, that is very soon, because we’re in May—May already. We know that a chief executive for this new mega-ministry has already been appointed, and I’m wondering if the Minister for the Environment is concerned at all by that appointment being made before this legislation has been passed, and that element of retrospectivity. That is my first question.

My second question relates to one that was unanswered in Part 1, relating to whether or not there had been any consideration of the larger changes that are happening to the wider environmental and resource management and local government systems, with changes that were just announced, I think maybe a couple of weeks ago, about local government and merging of local government. Of course, the relevance to the Ministry for the Environment and then this mega-ministry is that they are all the people in charge of resource management legislation, drafting it and then implementing it. We know that this Government has brought back the Resource Management Act and then is going to divide it into two: one that fits quite neatly with regional councils and one with territorial authorities. But that is a lot of upheaval, plus we have this local government upheaval that has only been announced subsequent to this bill going through the select committee process.

So has the Minister considered what the impact will be on the transitional provisions for all of that resource management and local government reform that this new mega-ministry will be also part of? It just seems like it’s going to be a very bumpy ride, and so my question to the Minister is about that bumpy ride. How is that going to be addressed? Can she give us any comfort?

Now I turn to the title. My question there is if the Minister for the Environment keeps saying, and so has her colleague Hon Chris Bishop, that in fact, this is a positive change, that in terms of the environment, the new mega-ministry is going to take heed of the environment and be a more powerful implementer of good environmental things—those are my words, but they seem to be what the Ministers have said. Again, would she consider removing this word “disestablishment” and adding some positive words in there? It could be “This Act is the Environment (Becoming more Powerful by being the Central Consideration of the new Mega-Ministry Act”? I mean, that’s a positive statement, isn’t it? The Minister’s nodding her head. I’m looking forward to the Government amendment that makes the title change here. If the Minister can confirm to me that that is her intention, let’s get it on the Hansardthat this is going to be the centre of a big powerful ministry and the environment is going to be where it should be—at the centre of all our economic decisions, because of course, that is where our economy all comes from.

Or does the Minister think that it should be this negative? So rather than the “Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment”, should it be the “Environment (Disestablishment of any Pretence of Care, of Thought, of Advocacy for the Environment) Amendment Bill”? Is that actually what this is part of? It’s part of the bigger picture. We’ve been here this week talking about the Conservation Act, we’re in select committee talking about the Resource Management Act, and it does seem emblematic of this Government that they just want to do worse for the environment. I’m giving the Minister an opportunity to give us all some comfort to say that, yes, let’s change the negative Nelly name of this bill. Let’s make it—sorry to Nelly. I don’t know why I bought Nelly into this. I apologise to Nelly. Let’s be positive. Let’s be positive for the environment. Let’s do better.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Looking forward to your response, Minister for the Environment.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (11:02): I’m so pleased to answer this question. It seems finally we’re in alignment because this is exactly what we want to be doing and where we want to be going. We are being positive for the environment. I just want to address the Hon Rachel Brooking’s earlier questions about whether or not I’m concerned about the chief executive’s appointment. In a word, no. Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) was established separately by Order in Council on 1 April, and Mr Jeremy Lightfoot was then appointed as the chief executive. I have since met with him and am very comfortable and confident about the transitional arrangements that are in place.

But again, just to quote the member, the bumpy ride that she talks about, actually, this is an opportunity to get excited and lean into this change, and this is exactly why MCERT is being created—to make it easier to connect and to align these agencies and the people within them. Let’s not forget that it’s actually the people within them who are doing this work, and they are really looking forward to the opportunity, but I love this member’s newfound positivity about this change.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’m always positive about the environment, just not the damage of it.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I’m probably not going to agree with her name change. However, I think we can probably all agree on the sentiment that we are here—yes, the Environment Act was created, and the Ministry was created back in the 1980s. In fact, I think it’s probably just about as old as I am. But what a legacy it has created, and so this is not actually about dismantling that legacy. This is a new chapter. This is a new story of environmental management in New Zealand. It is not the end of the story. Comments have been made about international examples, but actually, New Zealand, historically, has been a leader in how it develops and creates public policy and indeed the agencies that drive that. As I keep saying, this is about updating the machinery of Government to reflect today’s challenges where environment will sit proudly at the centre of it so that infrastructure development and urban development are all centred around the environment and are all deeply interconnected. I welcome the member’s positive attitude towards this change.

LAN PHAM (Green) (11:04): Well, look, if only greenwashing could get us somewhere, we would be—just imagine, we would be soaring; we would be in utopia right now; we would have solved it all. Sadly, the elements and the evidence of the environment ground us in our reality and we know that it’s not that, and it’s so far from that. I want to pick particularly up on clause 2, because this Act comes into force in just a few weeks, and my request and plea to the Minister for the Environment is to consider the Act coming into force on 1 January next year. The reason why I’d love the Minister to seriously consider this, and actually her entire Government, is because not one party campaigned on this. You do not have the mandate as Government—sorry, not you, Madam Chair; the Government does not have the mandate to put this through.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good save.

LAN PHAM: Thank you. It would do justice to the people of New Zealand to put the question to them whether a dedicated voice at the heart of Government is something that they actually want. Because again, we already heard from submitters that that is what they want. And even more than that, it is so important to them. It matters to them and it matters to me. Personally, as a new member of Parliament, I could have never contemplated—

Ryan Hamilton: Get over it.

LAN PHAM: —to actually come here and be debating the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment. So I’m not just going to get over it, Ryan Hamilton, because it’s actually not something to just flippantly dismiss like that. And it’s really unfortunate coming from you when you’ve been—sorry, Madam Chair, from Ryan Hamilton, when he’s been sitting there, so-called listening to submitters. I think that’s the role of. Government members.

Ryan Hamilton: Have you read the bill?

LAN PHAM: Yeah, I have read the bill, thank you, Ryan Hamilton. Now, I would love that consideration, and thanks for the suggestion about what the title should be, because I also propose that the title would be more helpfully the “Environment (Forgot about the Foundation of our Collective Wellbeing and Buried it in a Mega-Ministry) Amendment Bill”, because that is the reality of what we’re seeing here. The dismissal and the lack of assurance that we’ve had the whole way through is absolutely astounding. I think the fact that it’s this constant dismissal is just telling, that either there’s such a misunderstanding and lack of comprehension about the implications of this that is really just telling for this Government—because like the Hon Rachel Brooking mentioned, this is part of a bigger picture. We still haven’t had any response about the actual risks. We still haven’t had any response about the purpose of the new mega-ministry—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are debating clauses 1 to 3.

LAN PHAM: —which has so clearly been documented, and we really need assurances and we haven’t had them. I would love the Government to consider particularly the commencement date. I would love them to understand how much this matters to New Zealanders and how little support there is, because even though we’ve been through this process, that has not been heard, and it’s completely unacceptable.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (11:09): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment replacing clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 54.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come to the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. We start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start these proceedings by thanking the 168 individuals and organisations who submitted on the bill, including the 35 who made oral submissions to the committee. I want to specifically acknowledge the survivors of abuse in care who submitted and thank them for their courage and bravery and willingness to be part of the process.

Following the second reading, I wanted to make some clarifications on aspects of the bill after hearing some of the speeches from the different parties. Firstly, it was in relation to some of the speeches given by the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori, who made claims that survivors would be excluded from financial redress. If a serious offender wants to apply for financial redress, the bill creates an additional process they have to go through. The bill does not exclude serious offenders from redress. Survivors who are serious offenders are still able to access the personal apology, wellbeing support, access to care records, Survivor Experiences listening service, and other supports. Their applications will be considered by an independent, qualified decision-maker who is a skilled legal professional, considering a range of factors, including submissions from the survivor.

It is expected that many serious offenders will receive financial redress after consideration by the redress officer. For context, so far, since 9 May, around 2 percent of new claims since that date have fallen into this scope, the presumption scope. We’ve seen from the Australian scheme that those who haven’t overturned the presumption are those who have undertaken rehabilitation and have gone on to reoffend. The Government considers that the payment of financial redress to survivors with convictions for serious violent or sexual offences could bring the State redress system into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the redress system.

Now, I understand that the survivors who are also serious offenders are victims too, but requiring these additional steps for the most serious offenders is necessary to ensure public confidence in the redress system. In some cases, people have gone on to significant serious offending, leaving behind them many victims of crime and ruined lives. We think this deserves a separate process, where an individual case is carefully considered. Putting this process in place will help to avoid a situation where financial redress is provided to a person who has committed the most egregious offending and public confidence in the redress system as a whole is undermined.

The additional steps will only apply to those convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences and sentenced to five years or more for that offence. We acknowledge that this is a difficult balancing act. What happened to survivors of State care was horrendous, and we also acknowledge the royal commission’s findings about how some survivors ended up in the criminal justice system, but it’s also important to note that the combination of specified offences and a sentence of five years or more sets a very high bar. As New Zealanders know, only most serious crimes attract a sentence of five years or more. As stated in the House at second reading, of the survivors who have lodged claims since May and completed a declaration and criminal record check, less than 2 percent have been identified as in the scope of this process. We know, from overseas examples, that of that 2 percent the vast proportion of those who go through the process receive financial redress. This is for the most egregious cases.

The apology provisions will support the redress agencies to make more fulsome personal apologies to survivors, apologies that acknowledge and take responsibility for harm that survivors experienced. The personal apology is a key component of the redress offered by the State system. The royal commission found that, while some survivors have received meaningful personal apologies, the majority have not. The legal protections are necessary to enable the agencies to make apologies to survivors, as they’ve asked for, and that they’re made in the context of a redress process that does not substantially test or investigate the allegations made by many survivors.

The bill does not change a survivor’s ability to take their claim to court. I say that again for the benefit of some people who, last night, claimed that this would: the bill does not change a survivor’s ability to take their claim to court. On that, I just want to make it clear to the member in the Chamber Helen White, who made that claim last night, that this is an alternative dispute resolution system that is full and final, but if a survivor wishes to go through the court system instead of the alternative dispute resolution system, they are able to do that.

But if they do choose to go through the dispute resolution system, the apology that is provided to them as part of their full and final settlement will not be able to be used as evidence in a court process, which allows the State to be more fulsome in our apology. What it means is that that apology cannot be used by someone else in a court proceeding that they choose to take—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Did you, Minister, want to take—

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, Mr Chair. Almost done—by someone else who is choosing not to use the alternative dispute resolution to be able to use that apology in court. I do welcome the opportunity here from the members of the House to answer their questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:20): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister for that opening address. I also want to acknowledge members of New Zealand Collective of Abused in State Care Charitable Trust who are currently in the gallery today, watching the committee of the whole House stage as we go through this. I do have a couple of, I guess, simple questions for the Minister at the beginning, picking up on what the Minister said in terms of the ineligibility of serious offenders when it comes to redress or a redress scheme.

I want to start by looking at clause 3(a). My first question to the Minister is: what is the Minister’s understanding of a “legal presumption”? Because subclause (a) is very clear that the legal presumption is that they are not eligible for financial redress under the redress scheme. Yes, subclause (b) sets out the process, like the Minister has stated, but I want to check at the beginning of the Minister’s understanding of the term “legal presumption”.

My second question to the Minister—again, looking at the purpose of this Act and then following on from what the Minister said. One of the things we’ve heard from the select committee stage is when we are looking at—sorry, Mr Chair, we’re looking at Part 1, preliminary provisions—the ask was clear that what the survivors have asked for is a survivor-centric and survivor-led approach when it comes to redress. Now, the Minister mentioned before that there is independence, but can I check—just for the sake of argument, and also for the sake of what we’ve heard in the select committee stage, and then also as a part of the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry—under the purpose of the Act, when you were looking at the legal presumption, when you were looking at the process set out in clause 3(b), how much of that is survivor-led and how much of that is appointees? Independent, yes, but still an independent process as established by the Crown—aka, as established by the very people who abused these survivors in the first place.

So those are more two questions for clause 3(a) and 3(b). What is the Minister’s understanding of a “legal presumption” and is any part of the process in clause 3(b) survivor-led?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (11:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow on from that contribution, specifically around presumption. I have tabled some amendments—they may have not come through from the House Office just yet on it. But my proposal is that in clause 3(a), after “establish” that we remove the words that are currently there, which is “the legal presumption that serious violent and sexual offenders are not eligible”, and replace it with the new words, “a process to assess the eligibility of a survivor of abuse in care sentenced for a serious violent or sexual offence”. The royal commission into abuse in State care and the high-level design group and a vast majority of the submitters to the select committee advised survivors who had been sentenced to criminal offences or spent time in prison should be eligible for redress, including financial redresses. The presumptive exclusion goes against the established evidence about the connection between trauma, abuse, and harm, and criminal behaviour, which the Minister acknowledged in her opening statement. It removes the responsibility of the State to provide full redress to people that it harmed.

Providing financial redress to survivors who have been sentenced for serious violence or sexual offences have been receiving financial redress since the first claims process was set up 20 years ago. The introduction of a presumptive exclusion will now disadvantage a very small group of people. These are the people who have been unable to engage in the redress process up until this point, meaning they are likely to be significantly traumatised, lack literacy, or have cognitive impairments or disabilities. This is highly discriminatory. Given so many settlements have been resolved, the presumptive exclusion will disproportionately impact on a disproportionately small number of people.

I spoke to this in the second reading, and I want to highlight for the Minister’s consideration in rewording that clause 3. The evidence that we had before the royal commission in its report, Pathways to Prison, the royal commission found that imprisonment rates were higher for survivors of abuse and neglect in care. Previous research found that one in five and up to one in three individuals who resided in social welfare institutions during the inquiry period served a criminal custodial sentence later in life. This experience was even worse for Māori survivors, who were disproportionately put into social welfare institutions and prison. That is also noted in the Cabinet paper.

I spoke about the Whakapakari programme, where 100 percent of children placed in the Whakapakari programme by Child, Youth and Family ended up in the adult justice system. Survivors who have been sentenced have already received the punishment for this. They do not need to be punished further by being presumptively excluded from the financial redress. So my question to the Minister is: would she consider removing the legal presumption and replacing it with a process to assess the eligibility of a survivor of abuse in care sentenced for a serious violent or sexual offence?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:27): I thank that member for her contribution and thoughtful speech that she gave in the second reading. This is something that we considered. This is something that Cabinet considered. There are a number of different ways that countries look at this issue. Some start from a position of neutrality and some start from a position of a presumption against. We did look at all of those. It was Cabinet’s decision that we start from a place of a presumption against. So I want to make the member aware that it was something that was decided on by Cabinet.

When we weighed and balanced this, we looked at the numbers. We know that a very, very small number of people will be caught up by the presumption—as I’ve already mentioned, less than 2 percent so far. Of those, the vast majority will receive their redress. We know this through overseas examples. This is for a very small minority of egregious cases. It’s worth noting that, yes, there were a number of people—a lot of people—who went through the prison system after being in State care, but the vast majority of them were not for serious, egregious crimes that meant that there was a prison sentence of five years or more. As I’ve already said, only a small number of these people are caught in the presumption.

Regarding the, again, thoughtful comments around the fact that we have been making payments for 20 years to everybody who has come forward—that is the case—however, there has never been a spotlight on our redress system and on survivors in State care and on this issue that is a dark stain on our past as there is right now. Yes, over the last 20 years, we have been paying out serious offenders who have left behind them a trail of victims and even potentially current ones who’ve done that very recently.

It is the view, though, of Cabinet that it is reasonable to expect that we take another look at those who have been caught up in the presumption by an independent, highly qualified person to take another look at that case to make sure that, given the highlighting of this issue more recently and the considerable interest by the media and the public around this, it is important that we safeguard the system and public confidence in the system, so that New Zealanders know we are taking another look at the very small percentage of people who have been serious criminal offenders and have been sentenced to five years or more for their criminal offending, which does create a very, very high bar. Cabinet believed that that was entirely reasonable, but I do want to state to the member that we were not oblivious to the fact that there are a number of different ways of doing this, but it was Cabinet’s decision to start with the presumption against.

In response to the first member’s questions, the legal presumption sets out a starting point that they are ineligible. It’s an assumption that law requires a court to make, unless there is enough evidence to prove otherwise. It sets out a starting point that they are ineligible, but it can be overturned if a redress officer considers, and those things that they should consider are laid out in the bill.

In relation to the second question by the first questioner, it sets out a very simple process, one that is easy to understand and that’s transparent. Survivors have a choice whether or not they choose to go through the process with the independent redress officer or if they choose not to, or if, in fact, they choose to wait and go through it at a later date, or, in fact, choose to go through it and then wait and go through it again if they are declined in the first instance.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was interested in the comments made by the Minister when she introduced this process right now. One of her comments was that if people were excluded from this process, they didn’t have no redress; they could go through the normal court process. I’ve been thinking a lot about the concern that I’ve got that this piece of law really denies responsibility for the causal connection between the abuse of people—often severe—and their repeating of those kinds of abuses in their later life, leading to imprisonment. Those things are not comfortable truths, but they are scientific. The reality is there is a connection, and that does not deny self-responsibility for such actions, but it is something that we need to understand as a society.

I’d like the Minister to comment first on whether she accepts that despite there being issues about our own responsibility for harms that we do to others, there is also an undeniable connection between abuse that we don’t deal with, abuse that happens, and repeating those kinds of abuses in our culture and whether, in fact, we have a concern here where we are denying that.

I have a concern also that the 2 percent that we’re talking about in this situation are probably very likely people who have suffered even more severe abuse. Those are the people that have gone on to offend heinously. Those people are often, also, the most broken, and they are now going to have to rely on a system beyond this one, which is the normal court process. I’d like to know why that was seen as the appropriate channel for people who are probably the most inarticulate and probably the most broken and whether it’s a cynical calculation that they won’t go on to take these cases in the normal court process.

I wanted to know, from the Minister, how she reconciles the fact that in that further court process, if they make it through the gate, they are likely to receive a lot more money than through this process and they are likely to go through a process where what has happened to them is acknowledged and that the lack of causal connection that is true between what the Crown should be paying them to compensate them for unspeakable acts that happened to them and the fact that they actually perpetrated such acts against others is something that the normal court process, in its justice settings, simply won’t take into account, because it’s illogical. A judge looking at such a case of somebody who’s been through that process is not likely to look at this situation and say, “Oh, well, you committed an act to somebody else; therefore, the State owes you nothing.” They’re likely to do the opposite and make the decision without fear or favour on what the Crown does.

I’m interested in the decision in the second part of this clause by the drafters to say that the apology counts for nothing. This is another question for the Minister: is the Minister saying that the apology counts for nothing in those courts, because the court system and the Crown are expected to act in a way that tries to deny and minimise what’s happened to these people at that second stage? I’d just like a few more minutes to actually just explain why I am talking about this, and I appreciate I’ve only got 10 seconds to go, and I won’t take the whole call, but I’d like to finish this.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you, Mr Chair. The concern I have is one I raised in one of my speeches on this. We had a situation where our Crown solicitors, for years and years and years, minimised the heinous acts of the State in these cases, and they did it, saying it was the right thing to do. We had a situation where we were in the public arena having a discussion about whether our Crown solicitors should have been doing that, minimising in that way. There was a great kick-back at our Crown solicitors doing that to victims of abuse. There was actually a public reaction to that that found that behaviour hideous. We talked about whether the person doing that work should be working in our State, given that that was their instinct. We went through a public discussion about this.

What I want to know is why we would have any kind of separation out there of the act of apology and say we couldn’t use it. We either accept we did it or we didn’t. Are our Crown prosecutors, in those 2 percent cases, expected to go hard and deny these events happened, given we now have six volumes on what happened to these people, given that we have had recommendations that we wholeheartedly apologise to people who this happened to, and given that we accept responsibility. Why would we deny that in this particular law and suggest it shouldn’t apply? Do we expect them to go through a system of minimisation?

I hope you understand why I wanted to finish this concept, because I think it’s fundamental to us accepting or otherwise the realities of the situation in where we go to from here under this piece of law. I’d like the Minister to confirm that she expects that those people will have full rights under the alternative, which is the normal court system, and what kinds of settings she expects them to face under her leadership as the Minister. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:39): Thank you. Many of the points that Ms White raised, I already spoke of, but I’ll go through them again. The presumption is focused on the most serious egregious offending. As I acknowledged in my opening speech, the connection between abuse and later offending is a very complex issue, but the redress officer process is focused on the offending and the subsequent rehabilitation, and laid out in the bill is the decision-making framework that they would go through in order to make their determination, the nature of the offending, the term of the imprisonment imposed at sentencing, the length of time since the relevant offending took place, any rehabilitation undertaken, any information or submissions put forward by the person, and any other matter the redress officer considers relevant. They will be looking at a range of documents that they will have access to, including sentencing notes and the like.

It is important to note that if a survivor is declined and the presumption is not overturned and it is upheld, there is the ability for the survivor to come back, multiple times, if their circumstances have changed: time has passed, rehabilitation has been undertaken, any other things that the officer deems to be relevant to make, potentially, a different decision. I acknowledge that there can be challenges with accessing financial redress through the courts and that is why the bill provides an opportunity for the serious offender to reapply to the out-of-court schemes after three years if their circumstances have changed.

This is a decision that Cabinet took for the reasons that I have already outlined and a very small number of people will be caught up by this. As we’ve seen in overseas jurisdictions, the number of presumptions that are upheld are low and they are predominantly for those at the most egregious end, and taking into account the framework that I’ve already gone through. This was a decision that Cabinet made because we want to make sure that the public can have confidence in the scheme and it doesn’t bring it into disrepute.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following up from my earlier question, I do want to thank the Minister for responding to the question I had around legal presumption. But it is perplexing because then it does actually contradict what the Minister said right at the beginning, because the starting point—yes, I hear from the Minister—is ineligibility, and they have to then jump through all of these hurdles to then apply to see if they can overturn. That’s a very different thing that is not applied to, for example, other survivors. I think that’s an important distinction that must be clarified.

I just want to check with the Minister if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding to the question around process. I specifically asked whether the process—I know we’re going to discuss more of the detail of the process, but how much of that process is survivor-led?

Now moving on to clause 3(c)(i) and (ii), and I will leave this call at clause 3 and I’m happy to move on to further clauses after this call. Now, I hear what my colleague Helen White has said and what the Minister has responded, but I do want to check this (i) and (ii) isn’t referring to the redress for abuse in care, but what happens if survivors come into, I guess, contact with other parts? I’m specifically looking at clause 3(c)(i) because it’s not relevant to any determination of fault or liability, presumably of a person to a survivor. I want to check in terms of the wording for that. The question there is what then happens when the survivor comes into contact with other parts of our legal system as a result of abuse in care? Is that something that is touched on by this particular clause?

Now the reason I ask that is while I understand, for example, clause 3(c)(ii) where the evidence of an apology is not admissible in civil proceedings seeking remedies because presumably the redress of this is providing that remedy and therefore civil proceedings may not be required. But what happens if you’re looking at not civil proceedings but criminal proceedings? Is that covered under clause 3(c)(ii)? Then, in that case, for example, how is the experience of a survivor as a result of abuse in care considered as a part of any criminal proceeding, and how would the apology comes into contact with that?

Furthermore, in those contexts where a survivor of abuse in care is in front of a criminal proceeding or is a part of a criminal proceeding, how does that apology and this particular bill and this particular part of the Act interact with section 27 of the Sentencing Act around cultural reports? Are there any interactions, then, regarding the apology and any potential section 27 report?

So the question that is still outstanding from the Minister is regarding the process being survivor-led, and also the new questions around potential criminal proceedings and interaction of the apology with any criminal proceedings and section 27 reports. Those are my two questions at present.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:45): I already answered the first question, but in terms of the second one, the apology, as is clearly laid out in the bill, only applies in relation to civil claims. It does not apply to criminal proceedings. But in a criminal proceeding, the evidence required would be retested and would be required, so there’s a much higher bar for that evidence to be produced than in a civil proceeding. So that should answer the member’s question.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask a question about clause 4(a), that the purpose of this scheme is to “(a) recognise a person’s experience of abuse in care;”. I’d like the Minister to tell me why she thinks that the legal presumption against compensation, the denial of the acceptance that has been a problem here, and that there has been actions of abuse and an apology for that—why those things are consistent with recognising a person’s experience of abuse in care? Because I can see the other way around that that’s true. The purpose of the apology is to accept the experience of the abuse in care, but the denial of it can’t possibly be. I’d like the Minister to answer that.

I’d also like to ask the Minister what discussion she has had around a concern about the immorality of unjust enrichment through the scheme, in terms of that. So my argument before the committee when we were going through this discussion was we’ve got these people who have conducted terrible criminal acts and they’ve ended up in prison and they often have gone on to victimise other people, but couldn’t we look at something where we recognise what’s happened to them and then we’ve moved into a space where that money perhaps gets ringfenced for the victims of those other acts. Then we’ll be recognising our causal connection, and we’d be allowing people to show remorse.

None of that seemed to be acceptable. What we ended up with was the money staying with the Crown and that seems to me to be an unjust enrichment. So, “I cause an act which causes you harm, but I’m off the hook because I proved you harmed someone else.”—that to me seems like an unjust enrichment of the State. While I accept that there is a possibility—we don’t know how remote—of coming back and asking for this money at another time, it doesn’t seem a reasonable outcome in terms of public sentiment that the State is enriched by this.

I would like the Minister to answer that question in terms of the purpose of what we are doing here, which is to recognise this abuse and that it happened. Thank you; I’d really like your answers.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:49): Thank you. I’d love to give them. In relation to clause 4, there is a recognition of a person’s experience of abuse in care through the supports that they receive, the access to their records, the survivor listening experience through the Survivor Experiences Service, and, of course, the apology. As I’ve already noted on a number of occasions, there is the ability for the person who is caught by the presumption to come back multiple times and test whether or not they can have the presumption overturned.

In relation to the member’s second point, about finding the victims and using the funds that are potentially not paid out to someone who falls within the presumption, this was considered. As you can imagine, we considered a range of different things. It is extraordinarily complex, not only to find victims—and there have been attempts to run this kind of process in the past, through other mechanisms in other areas, and it hasn’t been particularly successful—but I think the thing we came down to was also that the person is able to reapply after three years, and then again and again and again when their circumstances change. It would be an unusual thing to do to use the redress to pay out a victim and then have to pay out redress to the survivor, potentially, in three years, and again and again and again. We certainly did consider that, but on balance we decided to make sure that the person caught up in the presumption was able to reapply on multiple occasions.

It’s also important to note that it’s not a saving by the Crown. There are many victims of State abuse in care. As you know, we have a backlog that we’re trying to address through the mahi we’ve put in through the last Budget, but every dollar is going into the redress scheme and to paying victims the redress.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (11:51): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for the issues they have been exploring with the Minister and for her responses. I did want to ask the Minister whether she would actually consider changing the reference to “serious violent and sexual offenders” and replacing it with “a survivor of abuse in care sentenced for a serious violent or sexual offence” in every instance that it appears throughout the bill. It does appear in clause 3.

Hon Erica Stanford: Did you put an amendment in on this?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, that is a tabled amendment.

Hon Erica Stanford: Do you have a number?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I don’t have a number on the one in front of me, sorry. It’s the one on the top of my pack. It’s in Part 1, Part 2, Schedule 1—it’s throughout. I’m talking to clause 3, where it is the first reference to “serious violent and sexual offenders” in clause 3(a).

The rationale for this is that labelling them throughout the bill as “serious violent and sexual offenders” reduces them to the criminal act that they have committed at some point in time. It’s erasing the entire person and their experience of abuse through a label such as this. It is pejorative, and it undermines their mana. The royal commission and high-level design group recommended that restoration and healing for survivors, their whānau, and communities was a paramount priority for a redress system. The question to the Minister is whether she would consider replacing references to “serious violent and sexual offenders” or “serious violent and sexual offender” with “a survivor of abuse in care sentenced for a serious violent or sexual offence” in every instance.

The other thing I wanted to add to the apology section—and it is new, Mr Chair—is another tabled amendment that I have, which is to clause 3. The amendment is that a new subparagraph be inserted—clause 3(c)(ia), it would be—which says that an apology must be developed in partnership with the survivor in order to apologise in a way that is meaningful to them, as part of the wider healing.

The reason for this is that developing an apology with a survivor is a recommendation from the royal commission’s redress report HePurapura Ora, he Māra Tipu. This is because survivors have different needs and expectations from an apology, and working with them to discuss these and develop the apology will result in an apology that has meaning to a survivor. Meaningful apologies can help survivors heal and move on with their lives.

Given that there is the proposal here that that apology then limits any ability to take civil proceedings—and I understand that the Minister clarified around legal—but in the civil case, the strong recommendations of the royal commission were that these things be done with the survivors’ participation being meaningful and addressing part of their wider healing. Those are just two matters for the Minister to consider before we move well off clause 3.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (11:55): In response to those two, I’ll cover the last one first: at clause 3, insert new (c)(i). We have considered this, but we won’t be supporting it. We believe it’s best covered in the guidance that will be developed as part of the common apologies policy.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What was that, sorry?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We won’t be supporting it. We think it’s best covered in the guidance that will be developed as part of the common apologies policy. The Government is also still to formally respond to this recommendation from He Purapura Ora, and so it would be premature to codify it in legislation.

In relation to the other amendment, which I hadn’t seen but I’ve just looked at now, there is a legal definition of “serious sexual and violent offenders” already in law, and changing that would be highly problematic. I can assure the member that we’ll be very careful in our communications and guidance that is put out and soften our language, but in terms of the bill, it’s really important we stick with the legal definition.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (11:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to be speaking on Part 1, clause 3. I know it has been spoken about, but I just wanted to clarify some of the kōrero that has already happened, particularly the comments around the public’s confidence in the scheme. Understanding where that clause 3(a) establishes the legal presumption that serious violent and sexual offenders are not eligible for financial redress under a redress scheme, what advice did the Minister receive that upholding the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care that all survivors received that financial redress?

I am really interested to know what advice there was around the public not having confidence if they were to be given that financial redress. Acknowledging the survivors who are in the gallery with us today and everyone who is listening and reading this, we know that the effect of this presumption is that everybody who applies for redress is going to have to do a criminal check.

Hon Erica Stanford: No, that’s not correct.

KAHURANGI CARTER: Is that not? OK. The Minister has just indicated that that’s not correct, so that’s great to know. The advice around where this could potentially bring it into disrepute—I think the Minister also talked about examples of schemes overseas where this was used, as well. I’d like to know where this decision came from in terms of assuming that is something that has been done for a really long time and that New Zealand will now bring it into disrepute. That would be great to know.

Also, just in response to the Minister’s kōrero on clause 4 around there being an ability for a survivor who has had financial redress denied because of the ability in clause 3(a) to reapply every three years, and then over and over and over again, what advice has the Minister had on that success internationally? If we’re modelling it off a redress system that’s already out, we did get some advice on that in select committee, and it was a tiny, tiny proportion—a tiny percentage—of survivors who had been denied that and who did reapply.

Leaning back on that feels like it’s a bit insincere, because it’s probably not going to happen. We’re talking about survivors who’ve been through the worst of the system, had so little trust, and fought so hard to be recognised and to have this apology, only to then be denied. Then to say to them, “Oh, but you can come back in three years.”, and that being used as a reason why this is moral or legally OK when we know that they’re probably not going to reapply, seems wrong.

Two questions there: one around clause 3(a) and what advice did the Minister receive that the public would think that financial redress would bring the system into disrepute. The second is around the international evidence for reapplying every three years after being denied, and what advice there was that this would actually be effective for those survivors. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:01): Just clearing up one of the misunderstandings: not all survivors will have the check undertaken. The redress agency has discretion as to whether to undertake a criminal check. Survivors who make a declaration saying “Yes”, or if they are unsure about having been convicted of one or more of those offences, they will continue through the criminal check process. Survivors who make a declaration saying “No” will not automatically be checked. There will be a randomised check carried out to protect the integrity of the process.

As I’ve already mentioned a couple of times now, these decisions were very finely balanced. We do know that only a very, very small number of survivors will even be caught by the presumption. At the moment, it’s less than 2 percent, and the number who will continue to be caught by the presumption after going through the process is even smaller, but they are the most egregious cases based on the criteria that the redress officer will use.

Cabinet took the approach of the fact that there are other victims out there, and potentially recent victims. As I’ve already mentioned, the fact that there is much more of a spotlight on the apology and the process and redress and this dark stain on our history, the cases where these very few—very few—serious criminal offenders are paid redress could well bring the scheme into disrepute. That was a decision that was made by Cabinet.

There are countries overseas that we have looked at. There aren’t that many who have such a scheme. We looked at Australia and we looked at Scotland, and they are very different than our scheme—theirs have different complexities than ours—but we can look to some of those schemes. Our scheme is very different, so it doesn’t necessarily correlate—some of the outcomes of their presumption cases will not directly correlate here. We can only sort of use it as some learnings.

We are trying to create something that is bespoke for our country, with a Cabinet that believes that if you are a perpetrator of a serious criminal offence in the sexual or violent areas, and with the process that the redress officer will go through—we believe that it’s important to make sure that we are acknowledging the other victims of those crimes out there to make sure that the system is fair, and that we’re taking all of the different aspects into consideration through the independent redress officer.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We are getting a little repetitive with some of these questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:04): Thank you. I want to look at, first of all, clause 4A, which is the decision that is an amendment, and it is that we are going to exclude issues where there has been torture.

I’d like the Minister to explain why there was a decision made that the public would not see this as an issue, if somebody had committed an action, etc., that was criminally liable at that kind of level, and the torture would be that flashpoint that would change the public response. I’d like to know why we’ve made this exception, and why there is a line drawn in those situations.

I’d also like for the Minister to have a look at the interpretation clause, and in particular the interpretation’s definition of an apology. I can see, from my reading, that it’s very easy to look at what people have landed on as core elements of a sincere apology. To be brief, they involve clear responsibility—accepting responsibility—specific validation, and absolutely no conditions; you cannot make conditions on the apology. It can’t be an “apology, but …” It’s got to be clear, no deflection—you don’t bring up external circumstances and stressors—an expression of empathy, an offer to repair, and change to behaviour. There’s often just a belief that it is very important in the case of an apology that our actions speak louder than our words. That is important, in terms of where we’ve all landed—in terms of the wisdom of what a real apology looks like.

Now, if I look at the definition of apology in the Act, it says that it “means an acknowledgment or an expression of sympathy or regret … includes any statement of facts on which the apology is based” and “may include an admission of fault”. That’s very interesting terminology. It might include an admission of fault. I think it probably does—it probably has to, right? If you look at that definition of apology, I’d like the comment of the Minister on whether she agrees with what I just read out, which I don’t think is an unusual—I haven’t gone out searching for a definition of sincere apology that matches my thinking. That’s pretty mainstream.

If she looks at this, does she agree that this definition of apology in the Act lacks the elements that most of us as a society need to be there in order to consider it sincere. How does she reconcile that with the huge “but” in this legislation, which says, “We hurt you, but … We caused your life to be destroyed, but …” And then we don’t do that for torture, but we do do it for somebody who’s been raped. It's a really sincere question. How are we reconciling that?

What I’d also like to know from the Minister is whether she thinks that the public whose opinion she’s referring to in this would actually be at all worried about the lack of correlation with sincere apology in our legislation and what we do today? Thank you—I’m very interested.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:09): When the Government agreed to introduce the presumption against financial redress for serious offenders, it agreed that the redress scheme for survivors of torture at the Lake Alice psychiatric hospital and adolescent unit would be excluded from the scope.

Now, this recognises that the response to torture at Lake Alice is a discrete process—separate—relating to New Zealand’s international obligations. The response to torture is primarily driven by our obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention against Torture requires States to ensure that any victim of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to be fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. Torture, to date, has only been acknowledged at the Lake Alice child and adolescent unit. However, the Government agreed that should torture be acknowledged in any other context or an individual be successfully prosecuted for torture under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989, any redress provider would not be covered by the presumption. Redress for torture in other contexts would be provided outside of the existing State redress schemes as covered by the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime—I’m aware that, as I entered to the Chamber, the previous Chair had said that we have been starting to get a little repetitive, so I would like these to be questions, rather than speeches, on specific issues that maybe haven’t been touched on before.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:10): Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. That was in relation to clause 3. We are now moving into clause 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If it’s not repetitive and it’s a new clause and it’s just a question rather than a speech, that’s OK.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Well, I’m going to talk to my tabled amendment. It requires a bit of an explanation.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, you can explain.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. My question to the Minister is: would she consider this tabled amendment? Talking to clause 4 and my proposed amendment, which I understand is on the Table in a bundle, and they don’t have numbers specifically allocated to them. This is one in there on clause 4, and it is around inserting new paragraph (ab) with the words “aim to heal and restore individuals’ mana, tapu, and mauri”.

The reason for this is that there are three components to the royal commission’s first recommendation in the report He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu. The aim to heal and restore individuals’ mana, wellbeing, sacredness, and life force is core to what a redress scheme is about and what survivors need. The other two components were acknowledgement and apologies for the abuse and harm and trauma and taking decisive and effective steps to prevent further abuse. For a bill that legislates for a redress system, it is my submission that it should have this aim at its core. The question to the Minister is: would she consider inserting new paragraph (ab), which includes the words “aim to heal and restore individuals’ mana, tapu, and mauri”, coming directly from the royal commission’s redress report?

While the Minister gives that some—oh, are you ready?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:12): Thanks. We won’t be supporting this. These changes are inconsistent with Cabinet’s decisions on the purpose of redress. The Government has also declined the He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu recommendation one and said it would not implement recommendation two in the way the royal commission has suggested. I want to point out that, in section 4(b)(iii), there is counselling and other wellbeing support that is provided to survivors to ensure that they get the support that they need in order to heal.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:13): That is unfortunate that Cabinet doesn’t believe that restoring or acknowledging that the purpose of the scheme is to heal and restore individuals’ mana, tapu, and mauri, but that is the response that the Minister has given.

My next tabled amendment for clause 4 is whether the Minister would consider inserting additional paragraph (ab), which would give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This was the royal commission’s second recommendation in Whanaketia. The royal commission considered that the redress system should be explicitly required to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This was because of the disproportionate number of Māori in State care and affected by abuse, and due to their findings of multiple ways Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations had been ignored or not fulfilled by the people and systems responsible for the care of children, young people, and at risk adults. The question to the Minister is: would she consider including a paragraph which inserts “giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:14): I already answered that in my previous answer.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are you saying that Cabinet has already made a decision not to support specific recommendations in He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu? One of those is the Treaty—sorry, I don’t have it in front of me, so if the Minister could just—

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll read out exactly what I said again. The Government has also declined He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu recommendation one and said it would not implement He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu recommendation two in the way the royal commission has suggested.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:15): Just to also be clear: that is a rejection of He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu , but have they taken further decisions on all of the recommendations throughout, Whanaketia, which makes references to the importance of including Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Government’s response? Sorry, the Minister’s nodding her head, but I think she should answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just keep asking the questions and she will answer.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. While the Minister takes further the advice on that, the next tabled amendment pertaining to clause 4 that I would like the Minister to consider—sorry, it is quite a separate topic, Madam Speaker, and I think the Minister would probably want to hear me.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll make sure that she gets the question. So that’s fine—keep going. We’ll make sure.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure—sure. The next clause, which I believe the Minister also needs to give some consideration to, is inserting a new paragraph, which would be clause 4(b)(iv), and that would be to consider putting in the words “assistance with accessing care records”. That would also be in clause 5, where, under the definition of redress, a new clause could be inserted around “assistance with accessing care records”.

The explanation for this one is that for many survivors of abuse in care, getting their official records is an important part of understanding what happened to them and helping them to heal. Records are often necessary for survivors to be able to make claims for services or access other information or opportunities. The royal commission found that records were sometimes not kept, were inaccurate, destroyed, or otherwise difficult to access for survivors. Providing assistance to access records was part of recommendation 25 of the royal commission’s He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu report, and this is a key part of the redress. Before the Minister perhaps responds to that particular paper, I am keen to get that clarification on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:17): In relation to the tabled amendment in the name of Willow-Jean Prime, the access to care records, National will be supporting this amendment, and thanks to the member for giving it to us in advance so that we could take a really good look at it. Assistance with access to care records is an important part of the State redress system, and we agree it should be explicitly recognised in the bill. For many survivors, information related to their placements and time in care is a critical part of building their understanding about what occurred to them.

The royal commission found that record keeping was often sporadic, at times inaccurate, and that obstructive and bureaucratic processes around accessing care records increased distress for survivors. In some instances, records were deliberately destroyed, and some survivors have had to take court action to try and access their records. Including assistance with access to care records explicitly in the bill makes it clear to redress agencies that this is a key part of the redress process, not a secondary consideration.

The amendment also complements the changes that were passed in the first bill that responded to the royal commission that the enhanced power of the Chief Archivist to monitor record keeping across agencies and require improvements where necessary. That bill also empowered the Chief Archivist to conduct earlier re-audit of agencies identified as having poor information management and to require timely improvements to record keeping. It clarified that Archives New Zealand may inspect all stages of agency record keeping and increases transparency through mandatory reporting. Again, I thank the member for bringing the amendment forward. We considered it at length last night and agree it’s a good amendment, so we’ll be supporting that one.

On the Treaty provision, there are a range of Treaty findings and recommendations that the Government has responded to or not yet responded to. The relevant recommendation for this definition is He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu recommendation 2, which the Government has agreed not to implement.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (12:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m speaking to Part 1, clause 4. I do want to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done for the survivors of Lake Alice. Many of them have talked about the process and the access to redress as being part of that healing process, and I know that the Minister has worked really hard on that.

I want to ask around the further work that will be done there—I guess, how this law is going to be applied to other institutions where there was also torture—and then acknowledge that many survivors never go on to offend, but, for those that do, and those in the serious offender category, who are going to be denied that financial redress, we know that many of those survivors have ended up with criminal charges because of the inappropriate standards of care, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment. We know a lot of those survivors were misdiagnosed—if they were schizophrenic or if they had a neurodiversity—and then what has resulted has been severe neglect and harm, which could be interpreted, in a legal sense, as torture.

I would like to know what advice the Minister has had, particularly around those who were misdiagnosed, those neurodiverse kiddies, those kids who had schizophrenia, those mental health needs that were misdiagnosed, and then went on to have terrible treatment which could be classed as torture. Has any work been done in that area which means that some of these survivors who have these serious criminal charges would then be excluded from that clause in Part 3 because it would then be classed as torture?

It would be really helpful to know what work has been done in that space, because I know that the work that’s been done with Lake Alice has been a pathway to some healing. It would be good to know that those people who are in our prisons because of misdiagnosis and mistreatment and, potentially, torture could also benefit from this clause here. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:23): To the very first point, what is happening around torture and other areas is not in the scope of this bill, so I’m not going to make a comment on that.

As I’ve already outlined, torture is not included in this bill, and I’ve already outlined a number of times now that we acknowledge that the connection between abuse in State care and serious criminal offending is extraordinarily complex, which is why we have a very descriptive decision-making framework that is laid out in the legislation for the redress officer to use when they are deciding whether or not the presumption should hold. I already mentioned those: the length of time since the offending, the nature of the offending, any sentencing notes. They’ll be taking into consideration rehabilitation; any other submissions put forward. There is a process to go through to make sure that the legal professional who is taking this into account uses that framework to make their decision.

As I’ve already said, less than 2 percent of people, at this stage, are caught up by the presumption, and we know from other jurisdictions and from this decision-making framework that the people who will have the presumption held will be a very, very small number of people who have committed the most egregious crimes, taking into account the decision-making framework.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:24): Thank you. I’m conscious that there have been people watching in the gallery, and there are also people watching at home who would have some questions that we have not traversed, so I want to do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just be mindful that this has also had a select committee process, so a lot of this actually won’t be new information to some of those people. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE: One of the things that I would like the Minister to address is why the list in clause 5—under “redress scheme”, there’s a list of institutions that we are looking at here. We are looking, basically, at State care ones, not church ones, even though the inquiry looked at both. Could the Minister explain what would happen if you were in one of the other institutions? Then there’s also the exclusion of Lake Alice, which has its own process. If the Minister could explain why those two things are being treated separately, I’d be grateful. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Willow-Jean Prime, just ask your question while the Minister is being briefed. I will make sure that the question gets to the Minister.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:26): Sure. I am now moving on to my proposed amendments to clause 5. The last ones that I did all covered clause 4, and these are still the preliminary provisions.

In clause 5, would the Minister consider—the definition of “abuse in care”—deleting “arising from, or relating to, acts or emissions [of the State] that occur”, in clause 5(a), definition of “redress scheme”, and replacing it with this: “the abuse of children and young persons in the care of Oranga Tamariki”?

Hon Karen Chhour: They weren’t in the care of Oranga Tamariki. It was Child, Youth and Family.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right, and so my proposal is that the Minister consider replacing it with “the abuse of children and young persons in the care of a predecessor agency of Oranga Tamariki”—given the Minister for Children over there can see the issue with having the definition to something that actually is a newer organisation than we are referring to. So you can leave the words “Oranga Tamariki” in there, but referring to “a predecessor or agency of”.

The clause as currently drafted could now require claimants to prove that the abuse they suffered was a result of an act or omission by the State. This is a shift from the current practice, and this creates a requirement for payments to prove that their abuse occurred due to an act or omission, placing further burdens on survivors. In the definition of “redress scheme”, it is not clear why Oranga Tamariki and its predecessors were treated differently to other agencies. There should be no differential treatment. This was one of the major issues the royal commission found, in that survivors were treated differently by different agencies’ redress schemes.

So, for the benefit of the Minister for Children, this is the tabled amendment in the package of them, which includes 10, when you get to clause 5. It might be that the Government wants to take a bit more time to consider that one. I don’t want to jump right ahead, therefore, to clause 10, because there might be other contributions that others might want to make.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, just keep going.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Well, I’ll leave it there, because that’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, if the Minister is ready to answer, we’ll let the Minister answer, and then we’ll get you to clause 10.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:29): I’m just going to refer back to Helen White’s question around why we’re not talking about non-State redress. The Government hasn’t taken decisions yet around non-State redress. Those are future decisions yet to be taken by Cabinet. This is around the existing State redress system, and so, of course, in that instance you would expect not to see any mentions of non-State redress, for example, the church, in this bill. We’ve made that clear in the past, and the member should know that.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will move on while I await an answer on the tabled amendment, hoping that they will give it consideration.

Before getting to 10—Madam Chair, you might have been a bit excited that we were really moving along.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member referred to clause 10.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I did.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It wasn’t me that started that conversation.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I did think we were at 10—clause 9. I have a tabled amendment for clause 9. It replaces clause 9 with a new clause which states that the State must assess exclusion from financial payment. So the proposal there is that a survivor of abuse in care sentenced for a serious violent or sexual offence is eligible for financial redress under a redress scheme unless the redress officer appointed under section 10 determines, section 19, that financial redress should not be made available to the person. So that is our proposal—to replace the current clause 9.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Actually, we’ve just had a regroup up here. Clauses 9 and 10 are in Part 2.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, OK; sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll wait for the Minister’s answer and then I do intend to move on to former issues.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I have got so many tables in front of me. Yeah, my next amendments are to the next section, but are you saying, Madam Chair, that we can’t move on to the next section until this one’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’ll just wait until we close off the section. We’re just waiting for the Minister—if she wants a bit more time.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:32): There are several issues with the amendment. We’re not going to be supporting it. The definition of abuse in care reflects current eligibility criteria for the State redress schemes and redress must be related to some fault on behalf of the State. So it would be difficult to remove that. The suggestion is to refer to “care” rather than “care, protection, and control” could actually narrow that definition.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Too late, Mr Costley. You may wish to be a little quicker next time. I can’t close in the absence of a closure motion, but Ms White beat you to it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:33): Thank you. It’s really nice to be able to have the Minister respond and then be able to draw on things that we’ve talked about—this is a real debate.

The issue there with the definition, the rejection of the definition of abuse in care is it goes to a point I tried to make earlier and I didn’t really get a response to, which is the issue about the nature of the restriction on apology. The restriction on apology includes a “may” accept fault, yet this, when the Minister was talking about the reason, is the acceptance of fault in the terminology around abuse in care that we accepted. So I haven’t had an answer on this as to why we’re using the term “may” in relation to fault, because surely we should at least accept fault here, with an uncategorical fault acceptance. We seem to be trying to do that in the definition of “abuse” but not doing it in terms of what our apology is, and our definition is cagey as. So can I please have an answer as to why those things are not in alignment? Thank you.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (12:34): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 569 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to Part 1 replacing the phrases “serious violent and sexual offenders” and “serious violent or sexual offender” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 3(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new paragraph (ab) relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new paragraph (ab) relating to the restoration of an individual’s mana, tapu and mauri be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clauses 4(b) and 5(1) regarding access to care records be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 5(1) amending the definition of “abuse in care” and “redress scheme” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 5(1) replacing “redress officer” with “redress panel” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part. All those in favour say Aye—

Hon Members: Aye!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —to the contrary No.

Hon Member: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Ayes have it.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Noes have it. Party vote, please.

Tim Costley: No, it was called—too late.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I didn’t hear the call.

Hon Member: No, they didn’t call.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Party vote, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear it. But obviously there are two members actually saying that they did call—

Hon Member: They didn’t.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, Kahurangi did.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I’m going to take their word for it, and I’ve got someone here that actually heard it. So I’m going to actually take that vote again.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will say on that point, next time there is a vote, I would like to hear it, please. Also to members, when they’re standing up to take calls, make sure that you’re effectively taking them with haste.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Redress system for abuse in care

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 to 25, including proposed new clause 26, “Redress system for abuse in care”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:44): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to know a lot more than I do about the redress officer position. One of the issues that I’ve got is in clause 10(1)(a), and then the options that are available for the appointing of that officer. There is an officer who is supposed to be either “(i) a retired Judge; or (ii) a King’s Counsel;”. Then there is “(iii) a lawyer of not less than 7 years’ legal experience;”. Now, my experience is that’s a really big gap between King’s Counsel and a lawyer of not less than seven years’ experience. That is a gap in terms of the recognition of competence and the reality of experience. I’d like to know why seven years was landed upon as adequate competence, and whether, given the financial difference between hiring a King’s Counsel or a retired judge and a lawyer of seven years’ experience or more, we may get a tendency to hire at that lower financial band. What consideration went on in terms of choosing that category?

I would also like to know about the nature of that work in terms of anticipating whether it would be exclusive as a role. So a lot of those roles that we have—and I think some of those people in those roles are wonderful—are full-time roles. I appreciate what the Minister said about this being a small category of people. Would this be anticipated to be a full-time role for those people? If not, how are we dealing with the potential conflict that might occur between the rest of their work? Given the list of competencies here, how are we going to deal with that if they’re not exclusively working on this? Because a King’s Counsel with experience in the criminal justice system and an understanding of victims’ rights, etc., will be in hot demand and they’ll be earning a lot of money beyond this work. So is it acceptable for them to do this job and work with people who are charged with criminal offences or victims, etc., alongside it? Is that seen as something that will enrich the work that they’re doing or conflict with it?

I do see the point in the fact that at those higher levels of experience, people have a depth of knowledge of the realities of the situation, but I’d love to know more about what’s envisaged there, given the amount of work required and how many hours on the ground somebody like this is supposed to put in. I also would like to know what training is envisaged for them. We already have huge issues with training in understanding particularly abuse and the psychology of abuse, and then the issues around sexual violence. These are all really important issues. If they’re going to be dealing with the victims of this violence, who are our most vulnerable, and that’s recognised under this law itself—I’ve seen reference to the vulnerable adults that we’re dealing with—what training will be given to that person? My worry is that we’ve got this single person that we’re relying on to be a lot of things at once, and it’s really important that we have somebody who’s doing that job very sensitively. I don’t mean to be disparaging of anybody who steps into that role. I have met extraordinary people doing roles like this. But I just want to know what is envisaged in terms of making sure that they’re up to date.

I take the point and I’d just like to finish my point, but I promise it won’t be the full call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Make it quick.

HELEN WHITE: OK. So if the Minister has a look at the clause, for example, of the criteria, we have that this person has to have the ability to make a balanced and reasonable judgment of community expectations. That is actually quite the unpacking that needs to happen. So what do we expect from them in that way? How are they going to be armed and supported to do that job? What will they have to do in terms of making inquiries into that area in a time where there are changing norms around this, and very much the legal profession has been part of the problem, rather than solution at times. So I would genuinely love some answers to those questions. Thank you for your indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just for the benefit of the speakers to my right, the member did seek the call, and I gave her an extended time to take.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:50): Thank you. I’ll go through those one by one.

As I’m sure the member knows—because I know she’s a lawyer—lawyers of more than seven years’ standing are eligible for appointment as a judge, and it’s commonly used in appointment provisions. But I’d also point her to clause 10(1)(b), with all of the criteria set out for the person that they would have to have, because we do want to get the right person. I think this was covered in the select committee—around the fact that this is unlikely to be a full-time role given, as she’s already raised, that a very small number of people will be caught by the provision.

But, as she will also be aware, in the bill there is the ability to appoint an alternative redress officer. It provides a way to deal with any conflicts of interest. But, as you can imagine, conflicts of interest obligations would apply.

Around the comments she made around whether the person would be up to date, I think if she just reads clause 10(1)(b), that answers her question.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of Part 2, of course, this is the part with the substantial section around the presumption that we discussed in Part 1. We’re not going to discuss clause 9, because I think that’s well-covered as part of Part 1. But the detail is what I would like to cover, starting with clause 10.

I’m hearing what my colleague Helen White has mentioned, and I just also note to you as well, Madam Chair, that the Minister has yet to address my question around survivor-led process. When it comes to clause 10 as well—if you look at clause 10(1)(a), the Minister must appoint a redress officer who is a retired judge and all of those. I hear what my colleague is saying, but the issue we have is looking at that presumption and the fact that you are asking for a redress officer that a survivor has to then deal with, being one of those people.

I think it’s important that at this stage we remind the House that as part of the apology, Crown Law and the Solicitor-General came out and apologised for the role that Crown Law has played in all of this trauma that has been placed on the survivors over the last X number of decades. Yet we’re seeing over here that the redress officer is part of that same system that traumatised the survivors and actually went against the experience and the stories and the narratives and the voices of the survivors in the first place.

So I guess my question to the Minister is: how does the Minister expect survivors who need to challenge the legal presumption to trust the redress officer, when the people who are appointed as redress officer were part of the problem to begin with? I think that aspect of trust is really important. I understand why the Minister would do all of those, but I think that is a genuine question that the survivors really deserve a response to.

I also want to check—this is something that I heard the Minister refer to quite a bit in Part 1, which is that “this is not my decision; it was part of Cabinet”. I also want to acknowledge the Minister’s challenge as the coordinating Minister, which requires a lot of other people’s buy-in. But it is also important to check with the Minister: how has the Minister played her role as the coordinating Minister in pushing for a more survivor-centric approach in all of this, including what we’re currently seeing in Part 2? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating the House on the active role that she played, despite potential opposition from Cabinet. But what has she done to ensure what the survivors asked for is being met?

In terms of some of the other criteria for clause 10(1)(b), in terms of who has all of this knowledge and understanding, my understanding is this is something that was added on as part of the select committee process. But again what I’m not seeing as a part of that—knowledge and understanding is important, but, at any point, has the Minister considered the role if anyone who is a retired judge, a King’s counsel, or a lawyer of not less than seven years of legal experience also would have had an experience as a survivor? Genuine lived experience is not the same thing as knowledge and understanding. There is a difference between being empathetic and being sympathetic. So I want to check with the Minister as well if experience was ever considered as a part of the criteria in clause 10(1)(b).

Sorry, Madam Chair—oh, you’re just listening. I thought you were going to say something.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, no—I wasn’t going to say anything. I’m just waiting for your question to finish so the Minister can answer it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: My final question to the Minister for the time being is in clause 10(2), the Minister may at any time appoint an alternative redress officer—oh, look, it’s under clause 10(3). I’m happy with this.

Those are the main questions I have for the Minister under clause 10(1)(a) and 10(1)(b).

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (12:56): Right. I’ll be taking those, hopefully, in order. I disagree wholeheartedly with that member’s point that a retired judge, a King’s Counsel, or a lawyer of not less than seven years’ experience are part of the problem. I would point out to that member that many survivors have legal representation using lawyers that they trust. These are highly respected people and in clause 10(1)(b) have to have a range of experiences to be able to do this job.

I’d also point out that when we went through a process that I am particularly proud of, the torture redress scheme, we appointed Paul Davidson KC, the most exceptional human being that you could meet. That process went extraordinarily well, and the survivors of torture in Lake Alice that I spoke to said to me that “You could not have picked a better person.” So I disagree wholeheartedly with his statements that these people are part of the problem. They are, in fact, part of the solution. Paul Davidson is an exceptional human being, and we will look for another exceptional human being to run this process—hence why we have inserted clause 10(1)(b).

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (12:57): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Thursday)