Tuesday, 19 May 2026

Tuesday, 19 May 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

Obituaries

Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE PC KC

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:01): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the death of the Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE PC KC.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That this House express its sympathy and condolences to the family of the Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith ONZ KBE PC KC, who passed on 13 May 2026, and acknowledge his immense contribution to New Zealand law, international law, legal education, and law reform.

Motion agreed to.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER (14:01): No petitions have been delivered for presentation. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02): Government response to the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on how well public organisations are supporting Whānau Ora.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:02): Seven select committee reports have been presented.

CLERK (14:02):

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Long-term Insights Briefing 2025

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Stiffany Adanza

petition of Terry Morris

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the:

briefing on parliamentary scrutiny of confirmable instruments

briefing on the confirmation of land transport revenue instruments under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003

notice of motion to approve the Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026.

Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading, and the reports of the Regulations Review Committee and the long-term insights briefing are set down for consideration.

Bills

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill

Disability Support Services Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:03): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK (14:03):

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill, introduction

Disability Support Services Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Debates

Ministerial Announcement—Public Service Cuts

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:03): Members, I’ve received a letter from Camilla Belich seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the announcement that the Government has set a target to cut Public Service roles. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings Harrison, Carter, and Wilson, ruling 224/4. In this instance, the announced changes will take some time to implement, and forecast savings generated by them will be subject to debate in the Budget process which commences next week. The application is declined.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:04) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about delivering better value for money?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:04) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Today, the Government announced, as part of the Budget, we’re embarking on a fundamental overhaul of the Public Service to lift productivity and deliver better service and value for taxpayers. There are three objectives for this work: (1) streamlining the number of Government agencies and entities; (2) increasing the Government use of AI and other digital tools; and (3) getting public servant numbers back in step with historic norms, with a focus on hiring and retaining talent. To drive progress and ensure agencies actively seek efficiencies and better ways of working, the Government is putting a sinking lid on their operating budgets. Our expectation is the Public Service adopts efficiencies and finds better ways of working.

Ryan Hamilton: What savings, if any, will these changes deliver?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, over the next four years, these initiatives will deliver savings of $2.4 billion, which will be redeployed to deliver more health services, lift education outcomes, build job-rich public infrastructure, and strengthen the defence force and police. Taxpayers, rightly, expect that their hard-earned money is used for the public good and front-line services, not an army of bureaucrats.

Ryan Hamilton: Is it possible to deliver better public services for less?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are some who believe there is a linear relationship between Government spending and better outcomes for New Zealanders. There is evidence to the contrary. From 2017 to 2023, Government spending increased by 73 percent, Government debt was tripled in dollar terms, and the size of the Public Service expanded from 47,000 people to more than 63,000. In the same period, education results went backwards, health waiting lists grew, immunisation rates fell, violent crime increased, and the social housing wait-list almost quadrupled. There are examples to the contrary. When we came into Government, the Ministry for the Environment had around a thousand people; it is now around 700, but that has not stopped the ministry doing exemplary work on reforming the Resource Management Act. There are fantastic public servants working for this Government and Governments past, and with good leadership at the top, they are capable of doing extraordinary things.

Ryan Hamilton: Why are the financial sustainability and efficiency of the Public Service important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Every dollar saved through duplication and inefficiency in the public sector is a dollar that can be redirected towards lifting productivity and supporting growth. The changes announced today are about ensuring the Public Service is modern, focused, productive, and sustainable over the long term, with a focus on front-line delivery. It’s not going to happen immediately or overnight. Reductions in core Public Service numbers will be achieved progressively over several years through digitisation, mergers, simplification, and natural attrition. We will be monitoring progress regularly and making sure that these results are delivered.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:07) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:07): Absolutely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his economic plan is working, why are there now 40,000 more people out of work today than there were when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve canvassed with the member before, when you increase Government spending by 84 percent, you drive up inflation to 32-year highs, interest rates go up 13 times, the economy slows down, and people lose their jobs. That’s why this Government’s working incredibly hard to make sure that we get spending under control, including in the Public Service; make sure we lower inflation into the band; and, importantly, lower interest rates to get the economy growing and get people into work. Wasn’t it encouraging to see just a very slight improvement in unemployment numbers last month?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if his economic plan is working, why—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just start again, if you don’t mind.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if his economic plan is working, why, nearly three years after he became the Prime Minister, is unemployment at a 14-year high?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, unemployment has dropped to 5.3 percent, as the member will be aware. That means there are more Kiwis in work, and total hours’ work has increased three quarters in a row. The economy, as the member will know, was turning, and we have a conflict to deal with now which will have some impact on inflation, some impact on growth, but that’s why we’re managing it sensibly so that we can pop up on the other side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his economic plan working in Auckland, our biggest city, given unemployment in Auckland has doubled under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve talked about before, when you have a Government that drove up inflation and interest rates and put building and construction at risk in Auckland City, it’s taking a little bit longer, but we have the City Rail Link project, we have major events funding coming, we have an Indian free-trade agreement coming on track. So we’ve got a lot of good things happening that will drive future growth and employment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is it a sign that his economic plan is working when almost 100,000 young New Zealanders, under his leadership, are not in any form of education, training, or employment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s exactly why we’ve announced the reforms that we have to the education system. It was utterly unacceptable to come into Government to find that 55 percent of our kids do not go to school regularly. Half our kids hitting high school are not at the standard they need to be at in reading and 80 percent are not at the standard they need to be in mathematics. I’d just ask the question: who was the previous Minister of Education?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does a 49 percent increase in hospitality businesses going into liquidation in just the last year indicate that his economic plan is working?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is backing tourism and hospitality. The work that we have done around the Major Events Fund has actually created huge opportunity. Every dollar we have spent has been typically driving $3.20 back into the tourism and hospitality experience. Think about the State of Origin. Think about the changes we’ve made to Eden Park stadium. Think about the events that we’ve attracted to New Zealand, including the Raglan surf that’s going on this week. I hear it’s really good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the economy is back on track, why are company liquidations at a 15-year high?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’m sorry that I have to explain to the member how economics works, but when you spend more, drive up spending 84 percent and spray the cash bazooka around the way that it was, inflation goes through the roof to 32-year highs, interest rates go up 13 times, businesses have got high inflation, actually softening revenues, and as a result they end up laying off workers. We have worked our way assiduously through those five component parts to create opportunity for New Zealanders. The good news is that we have had 9 percent growth in Kiwis coming home from overseas. We’ve had 6 percent fewer Kiwis going overseas. If the member actually cared about working New Zealanders, he’d support Resource Management Act reforms, support job-rich fast-track projects, support the repeal of the oil and gas ban, support council rate caps, support the income-tax thresholds, and I could go on and on and on.

Hon David Seymour: Would this Government ever consider borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pump up the economy with a short-term sugar hit—

Scott Willis: It’s already done it.

Rawiri Waititi: It’s already doing it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s what they’re doing now.

SPEAKER: Just a minute—sorry, there’s no one speaking other than the person asking the question.

Hon David Seymour: Would this Government consider pumping up the economy with reckless borrowing to get a short-term sugar hit, leaving New Zealanders to suffer the consequences for years to come?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. The New Zealand people voted to put the adults in charge and to turf the teenagers out.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:12) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

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

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister support nuclear vision energy for Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re very interested in exploring all sorts of energy options for New Zealand. It’s an “and, and, and” strategy. We have a massive renewables boom under way. We need to make sure that we open up opportunities for oil and gas, and, of course, we are supporting fusion, which we think has got some long-term potential as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he tell this House where the radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years, from nuclear vision will be stored, and has he consulted with any iwi on whose w’enua it might sit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The work that we have exploratorily supported is that work around fusion, and that, of course, is a new technology which we have some interest in here in Wellington. There are some great companies doing some amazing things. We’re going to explore all sorts of energy options, because what we’re not going to do is actually create an energy crisis that ends up cranking up to $800-MWh prices and putting low and middle-income New Zealanders out of work across regional New Zealand. That isn’t happening.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. My question was “Does the Prime Minister support nuclear vision energy for Aotearoa?”, not fusion.

SPEAKER: You can have another supplementary.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he clarify the answer given by Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Ms Packer. We’ll have everyone other than the questioner silent.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he clarify the answer given by Minister Shane Jones on 29 April when he said the Government was planning a new “nuclear vision” announcement; did he mean nuclear “vision” or nuclear “fusion”?

Hon Shane Jones: Vision, vision!

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would actually let you direct that question to the Minister himself. I’m not aware of his remarks, but all I can tell you is that we are very aligned on the fact that we need to do oil and we need to do gas. We’re open to looking at fusion. We’re open to looking at supercritical geothermal. We’ve got a renewables boom up and running and under way, partly because of fast track. I’d just encourage those members, if you want to care about working New Zealanders, to get in behind fast track, get in behind the Resource Management Act reforms, and repeal the oil and gas ban. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, the drowning out of answers is not acceptable, and so some people on the very backbench there need to just think before they get too rowdy.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it Government policy to backtrack on our 40-year - long commitment to nuclear-free Aotearoa; if not, why is the Associate Minister for Energy continuing to explore nuclear vision energy options?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen the Minister’s remarks, and I encourage you to direct your questions to him. He’s quite capable of answering for himself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is natural white—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It’s not fusion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And when I’m talking, you don’t talk.

SPEAKER: Please start the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that natural white hydrogen is coming out of New Zealand’s soil right here, right now—and it has been doing so for centuries—and does he agree with the Green, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori members of Parliament that he is able to ban that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think we should be looking at all hydrogen options, whether it’s clean or orange, or whatever colour.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Prime Minister introduced or does he intend to introduce legislation to repeal the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, which makes nuclear vision—vision—illegal, and, if not what exactly is this Minister proposing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, no.

Education

Question No. 4

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:16) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about replacing New Zealand’s national qualification?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:17): Last weekend, I announced the details of our new senior secondary qualifications. From 2028, level 1 NCEA will be gone, replaced with a foundational award in literacy and numeracy that is drawn from the year 11 English and Maths curriculum. From 2029, year 12 students will sit the New Zealand Certificate of Education, and from 2030, year 13 students will sit the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education. Students will be marked from A+ through to E for each subject—back to a grading system that makes sense for parents, students, and employers. The qualification is underpinned by an internationally benchmarked, nationally consistent curriculum to set Kiwi kids up for success.

Carl Bates: Why is the Government replacing our national qualification?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The 2024 ERO or Education Review Office report statistics speak for themselves: 70 percent of employers did not consider NCEA level 1 to be credible; 60 percent of teachers didn’t think it was a reliable measure of what students know and can do; half of parents and 40 percent of students don’t understand how the system works. It was a standards-based qualification system that was designed to be flexible but, in actual fact, has led to the ability for students to game the system by pulling together random credits that don’t always form a cohesive package of learning or pathway into future study. These changes are about ensuring curriculum drives assessment, and that cohesive, well-sequenced and -structured subject content is assessed through a combination of both internal assessments and, importantly, in an end-of-year exam.

Carl Bates: How will students gain the foundational award?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: To achieve the foundational award, students will need to pass a literacy and mathematics assessment that is drawn from the year 11 English and Maths curriculum, typically sat in year 11. The foundational award can also be achieved in later years by passing English and Maths at year 12 or 13. There will be a two-year transition built into the system where students can also gain the foundational award by gaining the current literacy and numeracy corequisite. This award is designed to ensure students are set up for success with strong literacy and numeracy skills, enabling them to both access the curriculum in higher year groups and set them up for future study and work.

Carl Bates: How will years 12 and 13 students obtain the new national qualification?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In years 12 and 13, all students will need to take at least five subjects and pass a minimum of three subjects to gain the qualification. The number of subjects passed will be recognised on student certificates, shown as NZCE 4, 5, or even 6, as we encourage and recognise achievement and aspiration. Two endorsements will also be available to recognise excellence in both vocational and academic achievement. For example, three A grades could enable a student to be awarded a certificate with distinction. The exact design and names for these new endorsements will be confirmed in the coming months.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she received on these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received great feedback on these changes. One retired teacher wrote to me to say, “I applaud your strategies and desire to elevate learning outcomes for students. I’m ashamed of the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association for wanting to choke your timely initiatives. I’m saddened that grumbling teachers who have criticised the NCEA models are now grumbling because change is about to occur now”. Auckland Grammar School principal Tim O’Connor told Radio New Zealand (RNZ) that “The proposed replacement system would provide greater consistency and students”—[Interruption] I’ll start that again. Auckland Grammar principal Tim O’Connor said to RNZ that “The proposed replacement system would provide greater consistency for students nationwide”, saying, “Students from Invercargill and Tokoroa will know that they’ve learnt and been assessed against the same … students in Auckland and in Wellington”.

Auckland

Question No. 5

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:21) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by his statement, “When Auckland succeeds, New Zealand succeeds and when Auckland grows, New Zealand prospers”; if so, what are the Government’s specific targets to grow Auckland’s economy?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:21): Yes, I absolutely do. When Auckland does well, New Zealand does well. The Government’s target is to grow the New Zealand economy, lift productivity, increase job opportunities, and as our largest city and economic engine room, Auckland is central to those targets. What matters is specific outcomes. We’re delivering for Auckland, including through projects like the Port of Auckland wharf expansion, which was first approved under the Government’s fast-track approvals process—just one of eight such programmes. We’ve also signed the landmark Auckland city deal, the first of its kind in New Zealand. This aligns central and local government and establishes shared accountability, recognising the size and significance of Auckland. That deal includes specific outcomes, including a new Crown uplift funding tool and a coordinated 30-year transport strategy.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Auckland succeeding when the number of Aucklanders who are unemployed has doubled under the National-led Government since the March 2023 quarter?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What we’re seeing in Auckland is the inevitable effect of years of high inflation and high interest rates under the last Government. The good news for Aucklanders is that inflation and interest rates are now under control under this Government. If that side of the House truly cares about jobs for Aucklanders, then they should back the fast-track process, which I outlined in my initial primary answer. The Port of Auckland project alone delivers $5.4 billion to the Auckland economy and sustains nearly 160,000 jobs by 2053.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Auckland succeeding when the number of young Aucklanders not in employment, training, or education has increased by more than 15,000 since the March 2023 quarter?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I’ve outlined, the key deliverable—which, on this side of House, is what we’re focused on: deliverables and outcomes, not slogans. The last side of the House had six years to deliver for Auckland, which it didn’t, but our focus is around making sure that we’ve got projects and infrastructure investment that creates jobs for our young people that are based in Auckland. This gives them hope, and that’s what we’re delivering.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Auckland succeeding when the number of Aucklanders on jobseeker work ready has increased by almost 13,000 since the March 2023 quarter?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On this side of the House, we are aspirational for the opportunities for Auckland, because Auckland is the powerhouse of our economy. When Auckland is growing faster, when we’ve got greater productivity, and we’ve got better connectivity for Aucklanders, we will all do well. That’s what we’re focused on on this side of the House.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister had any feedback from his fellow Aucklanders after they discovered in the royal commission that they were locked down much longer than they needed to be, and would they like to have a go at that again?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I do know is that Aucklanders are looking for delivery and outcomes—they are not looking for slogans—and on this side of the House we are delivering that. The Auckland transport governance bill that was passed last week alone ensures that Auckland transport is now back in the hands of democratically elected individuals in our city. That is one example of delivery, and we have many more to come.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he guarantee that the Budget will provide real relief for Aucklanders, given, on his watch, Auckland’s unemployment rate is almost double what it was three years ago, the number of people on a benefit is up 40 percent, and the number of young people out of work and/or training is up almost 60 percent?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what I can guarantee, and as I’ve outlined already, is that on this side of the House we are focused on delivering economic growth for this country and for Auckland. We will ensure that we continue that delivery; the Auckland city deal included four areas of growth focus, including Drury, the city centre, Eden Park, and those are going to be key areas of focus as we progress that deal structure.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:25) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:26): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “We are resolutely focused on front-line service delivery.” and if so, how does he define a front-line service?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, absolutely we are. It’s about the people that are delivering the services to Kiwis who desperately need them. But what we’re not interested in doing is running up the Public Service from 47,000 to 65,000, with, I think, a 46 percent increase in support and admin roles, and only an 18 percent increase in front-line roles. That’s why this Government works every day to take taxpayer money seriously and get the maximum value out of it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Would he define a service that supports our rangatahi to understand healthy, safe relationships; our teachers to deal with disclosures of sexual harm; and our Defence Force to deliver family violence training as front line?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve said before, excluded from the baseline savings exercises are the New Zealand Defence Force, the Police, the Ministry for Children Oranga Tamariki, Corrections, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Government Communications Security Bureau, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, the Education Review Office, the Crown Law Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Serious Fraud Office, and parliamentary agencies. Those are the agencies that have been excluded from the baseline savings exercise.

Hon Marama Davidson: Following the news that RespectEd Aotearoa, Wellington’s only specialist sexual violence prevention agency, will close in August following his Government’s cuts to their funding, what, then, does he say to the quarter of the country who have personally experienced violence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I look forward to that party’s support of the new National Party policy which is to abolish good character tests for all sexual offending.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that the annual cost of sexual violence is $6.9 billion, with over 90 percent of that cost borne by individuals and their communities, and if so, is it resolutely focused to lose entire organisations and workforces to make short-term Budget savings when we are seeing an increase in sexualised violence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are continuing the previous Government’s work on the sexual violence plan. We want continuity there, but we also want to make sure that we get better return out of the money that we are spending. So we ask everybody to make sure that they are getting outcomes and results across the whole of the Government and the whole of the Public Service.

Hon Marama Davidson: What other front-line workers will be saving his Budget this year since he’s already scrapped pay equity for 150,000 New Zealanders last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the Budget will be announced next week and the member will have to wait for that.

Finance

Question No. 7

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:28) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:29) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her promise of no cuts to front-line services apply to her plan announced today to reduce the headcount of the Public Service by 8,700?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of Minister of Finance, the Government is focused on growing front-line roles in the Public Service to deliver better services for New Zealand taxpayers. But what we can’t support is the unsustainable growth in the Public Service, from 47,000 in 2017 to more than 65,000 by 2023, which was nearly three times faster than the wider workforce.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she release a list of all the jobs to be cut and who will do those roles to meet her targets?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I think the member is getting slightly ahead of herself. What the Government has announced today is the start of a multi-year process of reform for the Public Service, partly involving a reduction in the workforce numbers—the overall headcount—but also involving the use of AI and digitisation and also involving the streamlining of, and reduction in, the number of Government departments and agencies. All of those three things put together are going to take a considerable amount of time, energy, and effort from the Government. We have asked agencies to make 2 percent baseline savings this year, 5 percent next year, and 5 percent the year after that. All of those things will need to take place and roll through for precise jobs and precise job titles to roll through.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she doesn’t know what jobs will be cut, how does she come to the 8,700 number, and how can she be sure they won’t be front-line service jobs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it returns the Public Service to what we consider to be a sustainable level of percentage of the total workforce and the total economy. It’s 1 percent of the total population. It was around 1 percent; it blew out under the last Government to around 1.2 percent, and we’re now going down to about 1 percent. It is larger, in headcount terms, than where it was in 2017, but we’re accounting for population growth in that time. It’s a rough number, and it will take some time to get there, but what’s really important is that we are on the journey to a more sustainable and fiscally effective Public Service.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she only planning to cut front-line services like school-based nurses in Porirua and Wairarapa to help save her Budget after giving tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies?

SPEAKER: Sorry, you have to reword that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why?

SPEAKER: Because of its supposition at the end of it. You can’t do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we’ve had questions from Government Ministers today that contained a whole lot of suppositions about the Opposition, let alone about the Government. Is the same standard applicable across the House? David Seymour’s question would have been ruled out of order on that basis, as would, I think, one of the questions from Winston Peters.

SPEAKER: No. I’ve listened to all those questions. In the case of David Seymour’s question, he was referencing the royal commission report, not anything else. But, look, there’s only a slight change that’s required.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why—

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s good. Good start.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: —is she only planning to cut front-line services like school-based nurses in Porirua and Wairarapa to help save her Budget after giving tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Countless times, we have said that it’s a total lie to talk about tax breaks to tobacco companies. They’ve admitted that to the media, but they, in this House, keep on repeating it every day.

SPEAKER: I think it’s very hard to say that a tax not applied is a tax break, in my opinion, so, as I said, there’s a different way of wording it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. It’s a simple matter of economics. The reality is that if less cigarettes are sold, then less tax is collected by Inland Revenue. That’s precisely what happened. This sort of idiocy should not be submitted in this House or agreed to by you.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not permitting Government policy. I’m not permitting Government policy or preventing Government policy. The reality is that I’m simply judging a question. The Minister will know that some of the tax that comes from tobacco comes from the amount of excise that is applied. If it’s not applied, it’s hardly a tax cut. I’ve agreed with the Minister to that point. Just a slight rewording.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m very confused by this logic. You’re saying that if someone’s not charged a tax that they were previously being charged, that’s not a tax cut?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you idiot.

SPEAKER: Ah, no—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That seems to be what you’re saying.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s reasonable to say that you’re confused about that, because, clearly, if a tax is not applied, then it hasn’t applied before. So if it’s not increased, which is what the excise programme is about. I’m not going into any further explanation.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s—

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was going to answer the question or try to. There’s nuclear confusion over here.

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait on—excuse me. Mr Bishop, we’ll get the question right, shall we?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she only planning to cut front-line services, like school-based nurses in Porirua and Wairarapa, to help save her Budget after giving tax breaks for landlords and excise levy breaks for heated tobacco companies that are only applicable to one tobacco company?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, there are three facile and fallacious statements and assertions in that member’s statement. Dealing with the last point, as has been extensively litigated, there are no tax breaks for tobacco companies advanced by the Budget. Dealing with the second assertion, I note that members opposite were arguing on the weekend that bringing back the interest deductibility rules was not a tax increase, which is a little bit inconsistent with their argument today that that is a tax break for landlords. Reversing one can’t both be one and the other. On the first assertion, that is incorrect.

Agriculture

Question No. 8

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (14:36) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting high-value horticulture?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:36): On Friday, the Government announced changes to protect investment from high-value horticulture exports such as kiwifruit, apples, pears, and potatoes, as examples. The Government is strengthening plant variety rights and restoring provisional protection for growers and breeders from the day that they apply. This will help protect the significant investment that goes into developing new plant varieties, support innovation, and grow our export returns. This is particularly important for horticultural breeders where protected varieties underpin a large share of export earnings and help drive jobs, regional growth, and international competitiveness.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How significant are plant variety rights - protected varieties to New Zealand’s kiwifruit export success?

Hon TODD McCLAY: They are hugely significant. In 2024, around 75 percent of the $3.5 billion of kiwifruit exports came from plant variety rights - protected varieties, like SunGold and RubyRed kiwifruit. That demonstrates just how important intellectual property protection is to maintaining New Zealand’s premium position in global horticulture markets. Projections show that extending the plant variety rights term for SunGold kiwifruit alone could generate an additional $1.8 billion in extra revenue over five years. That would be $1.8 billion directly into the pockets of kiwifruit growers in regional New Zealand.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is restoring provisional protection important for growers and breeders developing new high-value horticultural products?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Because it means growers and breeders are protected from the day they submit their application, rather than waiting until rights are formally granted, which can take some years. This gives growers and breeders greater certainty and allows them to take legal action if new plant varieties are commercially exploited during the application process. For New Zealand’s renowned horticultural exporters, it gives them the confidence to further invest and innovate in high-value hort products that will strengthen New Zealand’s export economy for many years to come.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will these changes benefit exporters in overseas markets?

Hon TODD McCLAY: For New Zealand exporters, the changes back them where it counts: protecting the innovation behind premium New Zealand products as they go offshore. The world wants high-quality, safe food from New Zealand, and this Government is committed to giving growers and breeders greater confidence to invest in expanded new markets and compete. The Government’s committed to ensuring our food and fibre sector has the best possible opportunity when competing on the world stage, because we know that when our farmers and growers do well, all of New Zealand does well.

Economic Growth

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:39) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement, “Growth matters. It means more jobs, higher incomes and opportunities for families to get ahead”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:39) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Growth: Yes. Before the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, an economic recovery was under way and was expected to broaden in 2026. Since then, the conflict has triggered a global supply shock, as the member knows, that has sharply increased oil prices. That will have an impact on inflation and economic growth in the near term, but those impacts will delay—they won’t derail—the economic recovery.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does cutting a further 8,700 public sector roles contribute to more jobs and more opportunities for families to get ahead?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, it’s hard to know where to start. The idea that increasing the size of the Public Service year on year is the answer to New Zealand’s economic problems is precisely the kind of mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. Actually, what we saw over the last six years before this Government was elected was a large, unsustainable increase in the size of the Wellington Public Service bureaucracy, a massive explosion in debt and Government spending more generally, and, all the while, Public Service results went backwards, whether it’s education, health, law and order, or anything. As I said in response to the first question of the day, there is not a linear relationship between the size of the Public Service and better results for Public Services for New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the 5,200 people across the Hutt Valley employed in central Government will lose their jobs as a results of the Government’s planned extra 8,700 public sector job cuts?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, as I said in response to her colleague’s question earlier in question time, precise impacts on departments and agencies and job roles will be worked through as part of the process. As I said, also, we are at the start of the transformation of the Public Service to be more relevant to New Zealanders, deliver better Public Services with a smaller headcount and a smaller footprint, utilising some of the tools that every other Public Service around the world that New Zealand likes to compare itself to is using—for example, digitisation and artificial intelligence to make sure that we can reduce cost, reduce inefficiency, and deliver better services for New Zealanders. We do not believe that just increasing the size of the Public Service inexorably is the answer to New Zealand’s economic problems, and the mentality that that is the solution to our problems is precisely why the last Government got booted out of office two years ago.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was Chris Bishop correct when said, “Many of the people who are losing their jobs in the Public Service will get jobs elsewhere”; if so, would there be 6,000 more people unemployed in Wellington if that was the case?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no. On behalf of the Minister of Economic Growth—thank you to Louise Upston for reminding me—the member seems to be of the view that we live in a zero-sum economy rather than a dynamic, market-based economy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Look around Wellington—we are.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well that’s exactly—10,000 jobs lost to this.

SPEAKER: Hang on, we’re not having that. The question will terminate, which won’t be good for the person asking, if we get that sort of discussion across the House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We live in a market economy, and over the next four years alone, over 200,000 jobs will be created in this economy—tens of thousands of jobs. In the private sector—which, by the way, makes up the vast bulk of the number of people employed in New Zealand. I know the members opposite are obsessed with the Public Service, but most people in this country are employed in the private sector. In the private sector, people lose their jobs and go for new jobs every day of the week—in fact, in the time that we have been answering these ridiculous questions, there will almost certainly be people accepting jobs and declining jobs and losing their jobs. That’s what living in a market economy means, and so, yes, there will be job changes in the Wellington Public Service, and, over the last two years, guess what! That happened; and over the six years before that, guess what! People in Wellington lost their jobs, but also, guess what! There are other jobs that people go to and get re-employed in. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait for all your colleagues to give you the space to ask a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does the Minister realise that people across the Wellington region, including the Hutt Valley and Newlands, deserve representation from someone who wants job creation and not someone who just says “Hope so.” to job losses? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the present Government looked at the bureaucratic build-up, three times that of the private industry and private employment, and came to the conclusion that Labour wasn’t working?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question—that doesn’t need to be answered.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did you want me to reword that one?

SPEAKER: Well, have another crack.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Minister realise that people across the Wellington region, including the Hutt Valley, will be directly affected by 8,700 job cuts to the public sector, and does he understand that if someone says “Hope so.” to job losses, this makes the lives of families struggling under the cost of living even harder?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Economic Growth, I know the quote the member is referring to; it was made by the member of Parliament for Hutt South, who was talking about Kāinga Ora in Opposition. I know for a fact that the member is proud of the performance of Kāinga Ora, because hundreds of people are no longer employed at Kāinga Ora while, at the same time, tenancy satisfaction is up on average, from memory, about seven points, build costs are lower, and net debt is down. I take issue with the member’s characterisation that Wellingtonians are some special breed of New Zealanders that don’t care about wider economic prosperity. They are Kiwis too. This Government is focused on making sure that Wellington, which is too often typically characterised as some Public Service town for which there is nothing else going on, actually grows like everybody else—through Wētā—

SPEAKER: Yep, good—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —through Xero, through Sharesies, through the high-tech manufacturing jobs in the Hutt Valley—

SPEAKER: That’s it—point made.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —through all of the great things happening in this fantastic region. The idea that Wellington is a Public Service town and only that is wrong and offensive.

Defence

Question No. 10

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:47) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made around defence spending?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister of Defence) (14:47): Yesterday, I had the pleasure of announcing the delivery of the first new homes of the Homes for Families programme for service personnel and their families. Just seven months after shovels hit the ground, I was delighted, yesterday, to celebrate the opening of 23 new homes for military families, including eight at the Linton Military Camp—alongside the member asking the question, by extraordinary coincidence—five at RNZAF Base Ōhakea, and 10 at Burnham Military Camp.

Suze Redmayne: Why is investing in housing for our defence personnel important?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Strengthening New Zealand’s national security includes supporting the defence personnel who uphold it. Decades of underinvestment across successive Governments has meant that many military families were residing in homes that were no longer fit for modern family life—some dating back to the 1930s. Improving living conditions supports the wellbeing of our defence personnel and their families, which contributes directly to workforce sustainability and suitability. This is crucial for the retention, readiness, and overall effectiveness of our New Zealand Defence Force.

Suze Redmayne: How will this programme benefit the communities surrounding defence bases?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, the Government intends to invest up to $600 million in this programme through the Defence Capability Plan, with further homes planned through new builds and long-term leasing arrangements in locations that include Devonport, Trentham, and Whenuapai. This money is being spent in New Zealand regions, boosting regional economies by supporting local builders, contractors, and suppliers, helping to create and sustain construction jobs across New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: OK, question No. 11—Dan Rosewarne.

Suze Redmayne: Supplementary?

Dan Rosewarne: My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing. What advice, if any—

Simon Court: Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: This better be a good point of order, and it better not contradict Speakers’ Rulings and Standing Orders when it comes to supplementary questions.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Simon Court: It doesn’t, as far as I’m aware. I understood that one of the members still had further supplementaries, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Did you indeed? Well, you were wrong. Dan Rosewarne.

Dan Rosewarne: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, members of this House have a right to raise a point of order without the kind of crap that he just got from you.

Question time interrupted.

Withdrawal from Chamber

Hon David Seymour

SPEAKER (14:49): The member will leave the House.

Hon David Seymour withdrew from the Chamber.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Small Business and Manufacturing

Question No. 11

Question time resumed.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:49) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What advice, if any, has he received on the increased rate of liquidations for small operators?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing) (14:50): As Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing, none.

Dan Rosewarne: Why were liquidations at a 15-year high before the fuel crisis?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I think this has been well canvassed by previous speakers, particularly the Prime Minister, that these liquidations are a direct result of an overcooked economy where we saw inflation up to 7.3 percent, food inflation up to over 12 percent, where we saw interest rates up—12 consecutive official cash rate increases. This Government is all about low taxes, controlling interest rates, and managing inflation as best we can given this difficult environment.

Dan Rosewarne: How many of the 188 liquidations last month were from small businesses?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I ask the member to put that question to the young and dynamic Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, because that is the Minister who gets the monthly update from the Companies Office as far as business data, which includes the number of liquidations.

Dan Rosewarne: What immediate support is he providing to stop small businesses going under right now?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: If the member wants me to go through our achievements over the last two or three years as to how we’re supporting businesses, then I’m happy to do that, but I don’t want to trifle you, Mr Speaker, because it’s a long, long list. But I know, working with our business advisory groups and our manufacturing advisory group and being out at the Hutt Valley Manufacturing & Innovation Expo, the feedback that we’re getting is the Government is supporting them. We’re on track for sustained growth once we get through this difficult situation, but as Westpac bank said just last week, we are still growing. It might not be what Treasury forecast late last year; that growth has been delayed, but growth is coming, and this Government supports it.

Dan Rosewarne: If that is the case, are the 66 percent of small and medium sized businesses dissatisfied and indifferent with the Government, as surveyed by the annual business monitor, right to feel that way?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I invite the spokesperson to come out on some of my goodwill tours around the country to meet with small businesses and manufacturers. They know that we’re in a difficult international environment, but this Government is working with business, is working with manufacturers, and we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. That is why businesses and manufacturers are going to back this Government for its re-election, and it’s exactly why they will not return the last lot—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —when small to medium sized enterprises were voting well against them.

SPEAKER: No need to make those comments.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:53) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:53): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was the Prime Minister correct when he answered to me last week that “we want to see downward pressure on power prices, for sure—that requires us to put in place an energy strategy”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and our vision is abundant and affordable energy. That’s why we’re increasing the supply of renewables through things like fast track. It’s also why we’re increasing our thermal capacity and firming energy as well. We need to lower the dry-year risk; that takes the risk premium out of power bills. Let’s put the downward pressure on power prices.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So is the Government working on an energy strategy, as he said to me last week in this House, or was the energy strategy work programme cancelled by his Government, as our Official Information Act request shows, in March this year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for her question, but we don’t do just strategies and bumper stickers and Post-it notes. That’s what ended the oil and gas ban. We get on, crack on, put the money in, make the investments, and get into action rather than just talk and waffle and more Post-it notes and more bumper stickers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So why do we need a critical minerals strategy but not an energy strategy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have an energy strategy. I’ve explained it to the member before, actually. We’re experiencing a massive renewables boom, and no one in the Labour Party or in the Greens supported fast track or the Resource Management Act reform that’s enabling the building of renewables at a rate we haven’t seen for some time. Equally, we need to make sure we’ve got a strategic coal reserve, a strategy diesel reserve, and we’ve actually got options to explore with investors to discover more gas, as well. The good news is that, on critical minerals, we have them. We want to exploit them, because we are a country rich in abundant natural resources, and, actually, that’s how we get wealthier. When the other side ask me questions about youth unemployment and they say Kiwi kids are going to Australia to do mining jobs in oil and gas, well, actually, you should say yes to them here in New Zealand rather than over there in Australia.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If it is socialism, as he called the Green budget, to invest in renewable energy, why is it not socialism for his Government to invest in fossil-fuel production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not aware I made that comment, but I think it’s a fair one.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is it socialism to invest in renewable energy but not socialism to actively invest hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds into fossil-fuel production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that when the member was part of a Government, they had a terrible energy policy. It ended up creating an energy crisis in 2024. You had your go, you mucked it up, you caused an energy crisis, you put people out of work—that is the reality of all of your energy policy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell the truth.

SPEAKER: That concludes—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can’t say that. You’re not in your caucus now.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a little moment for the House to settle down.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:57): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 20 May 2026 to consider the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill committee of the whole House stage, Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill second reading, Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill third reading, and Public Service Amendment Bill third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Vacancy of Seat

Papakura

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:58): I move, That, under section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Papakura Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Judith Anne Collins.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:59): I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:59): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most. Our Government is concerned about welfare dependency, particularly among young New Zealanders who should be in work or study, rather than being on a benefit.

The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to support fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by better targeting financial assistance to those most in need. This is the key goal of the bill. It reflects our Government’s commitment to reduce benefit dependency and support long-term fiscal discipline in the welfare system. To achieve this goal, the bill introduces two key policy amendments that were part of Budget 2025 announcements. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on each of the two proposals.

Firstly, the bill tightens the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test. This means that when this initiative is implemented, young people will need to meet the parental assistance test criteria before they can access or continue to access one of these benefits. To meet the parental assistance test criteria, a young person will need to demonstrate that they have a support gap with their parents, meaning that they can’t reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support and/or that their parents earn under the parental income limit. If a young person has a support gap with all their parents, then they will be considered to meet the parental assistance test.

Modelling indicates that jobseeker support clients aged 18 and 19 are estimated to spend, on average, 21 future years supported by main benefit. Our Government has far greater aspirations for young New Zealanders than a life spent on welfare, and that’s why, through this initiative, I’m committed to reducing welfare dependency amongst young people, by encouraging them to enter employment, education, or training as the best options for their future. This initiative will set our young people up on a path to future success. It will reduce benefit dependency, and target welfare assistance to young people who have no other means of support. Young people who don’t study or work and who can’t support themselves financially should be supported by their parents, rather than taxpayers.

This initiative is proposed to be implemented from 2 November this year. Young people already receiving jobseeker support will be required to complete a parental assistance test at their next 26-week application for jobseeker support after the go-live date, or their next application for the equivalent emergency benefit. If a client has already received a notice to reapply from the Ministry of Social Development before the go-live date, then they will not be required to complete the parental assistance test at their next reapplication, but at the reapplication after that.

This change will not apply to 18- and 19-year-olds with dependent children, or to those applying for other benefit types such as the young parent payment or the supported living payment. This initiative builds on a range of measures that I have already introduced to encourage young people into work, such as phone-based employment case management and more places for young people to get community job-coaching.

The second amendment I am proposing through this bill is targeting the accommodation supplement more tightly to some homeowners with high weekly qualifying accommodation costs relative to their income and assets. From April next year, the entry threshold, or the minimum weekly contribution that some homeowners must make towards their housing costs, will increase from 30 percent to 40 percent of their income. The entry threshold settings have not been changed since the accommodation supplement was introduced more than 30 years ago. As the proportion of income commonly spent by households on accommodation costs has increased over the last three decades, there is a need to align the homeowner entry threshold with a higher accommodation cost in the current housing environment, particularly as these homeowners are being supported by the taxpayer to acquire a significant personal asset.

This change will not apply to renters or boarders. Homeowners who are receiving New Zealand Superannuation, the veteran’s pension, the supported living payment, or the emergency benefit that is equivalent to supported living payment will not be impacted by this change, as they are likely to require longer-term social assistance.

Any partner or spouse of a recipient of one of these benefits will also not be impacted by this change. This initiative will target the accommodation supplement to homeowners with the greatest need, while continuing to support some of the most vulnerable groups. It is crucial that we have a welfare system that supports those who have no other resources to rely on, while also encouraging those who can support themselves to take reasonable steps to do so. It reflects the expectations of most hard-working New Zealanders whose taxes go towards welfare payments.

These legislative changes are critical components of the Government's efforts to appropriately tighten access to welfare assistance and to ensure long-term fiscal discipline in the welfare system. These reforms will ensure that our welfare system continues to be a safety net for those who need it, while also encouraging young people to move into work, study, or training and requiring homeowners to contribute more towards their home ownership costs before they can receive taxpayers support to accumulate a personal asset. We will continue to support those who genuinely need State support, but our expectation will be that those who can support themselves will be supported by their parents and should be taking reasonable steps to do so. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We do not agree to this bill. I want to start by making it very clear that this Government is making it worse for our young people, not better. The proposals in this legislation are going to make it even harder for our young people and their whānau, who are already struggling in this cost of living crisis. Christopher Luxon promised to make the cost of living better, but things are getting worse. Everything costs more, the economy is weaker, and people are worse off. At this time when families are struggling with the cost of living crisis, this Government is making things worse for our rangatahi. Under this Government, we have seen 11,000 more young people on jobseeker support. We have seen more than 32,000 fewer jobs since National took office, and there are more than 100,000 young people not in education, training, or employment. This Government decides to kick those rangatahi while they are down and make it harder for them and their whānau.

I want to bring to your attention a story recently on Radio New Zealand where it was reported that there are thousands of those who are unemployed, who are on jobseeker benefit, who are looking for work in Te Tai Tokerau—in Northland, in the far North, where thousands of people are out of jobs, out of work; and yet in Kaikohe, only 15 jobs advertised. What hope is there for our rangatahi when this Government is saying to those young people, “We want you to get a job”, but—

Grant McCallum: They’re welcome to go and prune kiwifruit.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —but Grant McCallum, member for Northland—there are no jobs there for them. “So what will we do? We will punish those young people.”

Grant McCallum: Why don’t they go and prune kiwifruit?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, but you don't have the jobs yet. And yet you're going to take away their supports. You're going to make it harder for those young people and their families—telling them to simply “Go and find a job.” when the member knows those jobs do not exist.

The debate across the House proves my point: where the other side of the House believe that these young people should simply get a job, when those jobs do not exist. I will remind the House: recent reporting from Radio New Zealand—

Grant McCallum: Ha, ha! Rely on them?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Are they wrong? Are they wrong? Oh, I look forward to your contribution. Fifteen jobs were advertised on online—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, I look forward to them making their calls and their contributions.

So we have young people who the regulatory impact statement says—this was not their preferred option. What they recommended the Government do is actually invest in more programmes around employment, around education, around training; that this is going to come at a significant cost to these young people and their families, and that it is going to have potential detrimental effects on them further in life. The things that the Minister has said in her opening statement are what officials warn could be the result of this policy, and so this Government is doing the opposite of what the officials advised.

It has also cut funding to the Apprenticeship Boost, it has slashed Māori trades training, and it has recently broken yet another promise to young people by cutting the fees-free scheme. All of these things were in place to help our young people. Our young people need a plan and they need action to support them at this really important time in their life. Instead, we’re going to punish these young people and their families. It was also pointed out that the cost of these policies was going to increase compliance burdens and potentially increase hardship and mental health issues.

There is one other small issue that is covered in this bill, which is around the accommodation supplement, and what I will simply say again there is that it is going to make it harder for people who are already struggling in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with this Government increasing the percentage. These people are going to be worse off under what this Government is proposing to change in terms of the accommodation supplement. When people are struggling in a cost of living crisis, this Government continues to kick them while they are struggling, instead of looking at things to support families in a cost of living crisis. We do not support this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is yet another example of how this Government’s priorities are to punch down on those who need our support while quite happily spending billions of dollars on landlords and on military equipment and telling low-income families that there’s not enough for them. The changes in this bill will leave thousands of families worse off and, potentially, in hardship and struggling to afford their basic essentials.

I’d love to know what $59 a week means for the Minister. Maybe for someone on her salary and wealth, it may not mean a lot, but $59 a week is a lifeline. It’s a lifeline for low and middle income families who are affected by the changes to the eligibility of the accommodation supplement in this bill. It is literally what could prevent a family from being able to meet the costs of their bills or to put food on the table.

This is just so typical of the Minister because this is what she omitted in her speech. Of course she omitted the types of families that are going to be impacted by this because I don’t think she wants the public to know. She doesn’t want the public to know that 68 percent of the families affected by her changes to the accommodation supplement are families with children and that more than half of the families affected by her changes to the accommodation supplement are families on low incomes.

A huge proportion are people on jobseeker support—people who are already struggling to make ends meet—and for the families with children whom she is leaving worse off, she’s leaving them worse off by $42 a week. Perhaps for a Minister on that salary it may just mean a couple of Uber Eats orders, but for a low-income family, it’s literally their ability to make ends meet. She does not care. Next time that this Government talks about mum and dad homeowners, this is a reminder that this Government seems to hate those very same homeowners—often first-time homeowners on low incomes—that this bill is negatively affecting.

When it comes to the welfare changes, once again we have a Government that refuses to acknowledge that under no Government over the past hundred-plus years has there been enough jobs for every unemployed person out there. The system is built with unemployment at its core. That is how it is supposed to work, and if the Minister doesn’t believe me, she can try and point to a period where there’s been enough jobs compared to the amount of unemployed people out there.

It’s of course telling, as well, that during the previous contribution, in relationship to comments around how there’s a high rate of unemployment up north, the New Zealand First Party resorted to, basically, blaming it on migrants, once again. It is as though they seem to claim that now they don’t support the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, which is just incredibly baffling. I dare them to actually come out and say that they’ll cancel it, since that seems to be their problem when it comes to youth unemployment.

Stripping young people of support and leaving their parents worse off will not lead to better outcomes. The Government’s own officials recognised that, if anything, it would lead to more costs in people needing hardship assistance to make ends meet. That seems to be the solution.

If this was a Government that wanted to invest in our young people, they would not be cutting graduate programmes, so that people who go into education have a job to go to. If they were serious about young people going into education and then being able to find a job in the field they trained in, they wouldn’t be cutting thousands of jobs in the public sector. If this was a Government that was serious about supporting young people into employment, they would be investing in apprenticeship schemes, as opposed to leaving young people without opportunities. It is no wonder so many people see Australia across the ditch, removed from many of their support networks, as often the only viable means of survival. It doesn’t have to be this way.

This bill is a piece of rubbish, and it’s really telling that this Minister doesn’t want it to have adequate scrutiny by giving it only three months at the select committee stage. Why are they in such a rush? Are they worried that experts and community members will come and trash it, as they rightfully will, or is that they’re just in a rush to desperately save money, taking it from the families who are struggling the most so that they can claim that they are now investing in military equipment, in landlords, and fossil fuel companies.

This is a Government that has its priorities upside down. For all their talk about how fossil fuels will lead to more jobs, I dare them to look at the evidence that shows that this will simply not happen, because we haven’t found fossil fuels offshore in decades. Anyway, we will look forward to scrutinising this bill as it deserves, and the Green Party will not be supporting it and will take the first opportunity to get rid of it.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the first reading of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Listening to that previous speech, clearly it shows that they don’t respect taxpayers’ contributions, that people work really, really hard to make in the form of tax.

On this side, we think this bill basically is about spending taxpayers’ money in a fair and responsible manner. That is what this bill does. Yes, it does tighten eligibility for a couple of criteria for which people receive support from welfare. That should be done time to time when we see the circumstances are changing and the way our communities operate are changing, and we need to change our systems as well. Moreover, it’s really important to note that the welfare system is to provide a safety net, and that is how it should be seen. We also want to make sure that the welfare system remains sustainable for people who really need it.

The two changes that this bill makes—one change of course, that the Minister has already talked about, is about teenagers. When they turn 18 and 19, they receive jobseeker support. Bringing in the parental assistance test is actually a really good thing we have seen so many families continue to support children in their families when they turn 18 and 19 to get into employment or to continue their education or to get into training. People should not expect that welfare should support them when they have the support available from their family. That’s why this change is a good change.

The second change about strengthening the threshold or changing the threshold for the accommodation supplement for homeowners is another good approach here, which basically shows that, yes, we take spending through the welfare system very responsibly. I hear members on the other side, the Opposition, saying that this is a very harsh approach, and I would say to these members that a policy should not be judged by how much we are spending but it should be judged on the basis of how targeted it is.

What this bill does is it is bringing a targeted approach, because it’s quite clear, in this bill, that support for young people—those who turn 18 and 19—will be available if their family circumstances are such that they don’t have the support from their family, but where the support is there, then, yes, they should not be expecting support from taxpayers. I’m sure these young people will respect that too, and their families will respect that too. Overall, this bill strikes the right balance, and the ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, there are two aspects to this bill. Firstly, there is the tightening of the eligibility for jobseeker support for young people aged between 18 and 19 and, in specific cases, between 16 and 17 years.

Last night, I had the honour of representing the New Zealand First Party at the start of Youth Week here in Parliament. I actually stood there, while I was on stage, and looked across at all the young people in that event, and thought, “We don’t want our young people on jobseeker”, and that should be the first thing from any Government and from any person in this House. We should be having three aspirations, and one of them is a young person going into employment. As the Minister on my right here correctly said during another speech, those opportunities, especially in our primary industries and our orchards—there are an abundance of jobs there and opportunities.

If they can’t get into employment, into training and education is where they need to be heading, and where we need to be encouraging our young people. We do not want to have young people going on jobseeker and having decades of dependence on benefits, and we’re seeing, over time, how that is a waste of their time, a waste of resources. We have, in this, a parental assistance test to make sure that there is a back block to understand the test that will be put in place. New Zealand First has always championed a welfare state umbrella to meet the general and deserving needs of people, but we can’t have human and economic waste—what is a blight on the nation’s productivity, our youngest people on jobseeker—so we want greater parental responsibility.

The second aspect is the accommodation supplement for student homeowners, and it’s around that qualifying income. Homeowners, there’s that entry threshold for the accommodation supplement, and, currently, that sits at 30 percent. Through this bill, it looks like it’s being reviewed, and it hasn’t been reviewed since 1993, so looking at reviewing that from that 30 percent to 40 percent of the current housing costs. What that does is try to make sure it remains—that it’s targeted, and New Zealand First is really happy that it’s not targeting specified persons. In the bill, we’re talking about New Zealand people on superannuation or veterans’ pensions; they’re specified people in that they won’t have their qualifying income tested.

As you know, also, New Zealand First, we have a top-line, as our leader says—a top-line for superannuation at 65. It’s something that is non-negotiable. It’s a bedrock for our policy, so keeping that superannuation at 65 in a policy like this, that’s written in legislation, is really important for people that are receiving superannuation.

New Zealand First will be very interested in the submissions along this. We do understand around hardship—that may be cause for lower income earners, that 30 to 40 percent step that I’ve mentioned, through submissions, I think we, as a committee, can give that a lot of thought, understand the impact on those people, and I look forward to the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:23): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, and in solidarity with all our Māori electorates from Muriwhenua to Murihiku, because this bill is going to hit hapori Māori the hardest. It will push whānau already suffering further into the margins and it targets our rangatahi.

There are 263,620 rangatahi aged between 16 and 19 here in Aotearoa. Around 92,000 are Māori, and a majority of those rangatahi Māori reside in my rohe of Tāmaki Makaurau. These aren’t mere numbers; they are future leaders, and the future of our future leaders is being risked by this Government. This bill is testament to that.

Introducing a parental assistance test for 16- to 19-year-olds seeking jobseeker support assumes that all rangatahi have parents who can support them, that every home is safe, and that every whānau has spare money. Well, that’s not the reality, and that is not the case in every Māori electorate.

It’s tough in Tāmaki Makaurau. The cost of living is brutal. Homelessness is beyond crisis point. Access to tertiary education has been narrowed even more by this Government, and yet its solution is to blame and then burden parents—parents who are often working multiple jobs. This bill weaponises bureaucracy against our whānau. It tells our rangatahi to go back home and prove your hardship before we will help you.

In Te Tai Tokerau, youth unemployment is high and housing is precarious. Forcing rangatahi to rely on parents who may themselves be on benefits or in unstable work will push them further into unreported hardship, into unsafe homes, or simply out of the system altogether.

In Hauraki-Waikato, intergenerational poverty and low wages mean many whānau are already stretched. This bill demands that parents carry even more while their tamariki are denied direct access to support unless they can prove that their parents’ income and circumstances are valid.

In Waiariki, seasonal and tourism-based work means income rises and falls. Rangatahi often rely on jobseeker support between jobs on training. Tightening access will push them into debt and desperation, not into stable employment.

In Te Tai Hauāuru, many of our young people must leave their rohe to study or to work. This bill punishes that move by insisting that they still rely on parental support even when distance, cost, or whānau circumstances makes that unrealistic.

In Te Tai Tonga, from Porirua to the deep South, the cost of living and housing is rising while incomes lag behind. Rangatahi Māori there will face yet another barrier to accessing the basic support—basic support—that they need to stand on their own feet.

Across all seven Māori electorates, the pattern is the same. This bill makes survival harder for rangatahi and then it blames them for struggling. If this Government truly wanted more rangatahi in education, then why repeal fees-free? Why keep the parental income threshold for student allowances frozen? Why make it harder to live and then lecture them about personal responsibility?

The bill also raises the accommodation supplement threshold from 30 to 40 percent of income, which will force some homeowners to spend almost half of their income on housing before they can even qualify for any help. Mortgages and rates are sky-high across the country, but not more so than in my rohe of Tāmaki Makaurau. Raising that threshold—the threshold rates—is going to raise hardship rates. It’s going to push whānau closer to arrears and foreclosures. It’s going to force the whānau in Te Tai Hauāuru to choose between heating and kai, and it pushes the people of Te Wai Pounamu, who are most vulnerable and exposed to the realities of winter, and winter is coming.

Remember, Māori are underrepresented among homeowners precisely because of land loss, precisely because of discriminatory policy and economic exclusion. This bill does nothing to fix that, it simply tightens the screws on those who have managed to hold on. Who is that? The wealthy few.

Kei taku iwi Māori, anei taku kōrero ki a koutou.

[To my Māori people, this is my comment to you.]

This bill does not target support; it strips it away. It does not encourage independence; it punishes poverty. It does not ensure sustainability; it entrenches inequity. It goes without saying that Te Pāti Māori does not support this bill or any bill that keeps kicking our people while they’re down instead of lifting them into position for prosperity.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just thought it might be time to add a little bit of balance into this, perhaps. What I think that the Opposition has forgotten in debating this bill is that there’s a thing called the student allowance and there’s a thing called training and there is a thing called responsibility and accountability. What we want to see is young people in training or in work. If you go to work and you’re on the minimum wage, you can earn up to about $950 a week—that’s a lot of money. If you want to go do some training, which sets you up, gives you some skills, creates some networks and some opportunities, you will get paid a student allowance, which will help you and will help pay your bills.

Let’s just be very clear that it’s not about stripping away every cent that somebody is able to get from the Government. We are here to help but we want young people to aspire to work or training and I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:29): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just remember, when there was the last election on, how much talk there was of how people could expect support from a National Government: they were going to get a better life. How’s it going? Actually, something like this matters to people. It matters to people who’ve got a couple of kids and are on the median income. Do you know how much the median income is? It is, I think, $69,000—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Here you go, Helen.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. He’s just lending me his glasses, and I should use them. There is an issue with those kinds of incomes in this country. People actually don’t have a lot of money. That’s the median income. It’s not the low incomes that a lot of people will be on; it is right in the middle. We are sitting in a situation where this Government has created greater unemployment, and those numbers of unemployed sit in the youth sector. There are huge amounts of our kids who are not getting jobs, because this Government has decided to run the economy in a certain way. It has decided that its priority is not employment. I hear it—I hear it a lot. I hear the Government say, “Don’t worry, trickle down, we’ll get there in the end.” Well, it’s still waiting. They say, “It’s all right. It’s the last factor that’s going to come right.” Well, we’re still waiting, and crickets.

It’s not the last factor that comes right for me; it’s the first. It’s the first thing I care about: whether people can get jobs. Instead of making sure that people can get jobs in this area, we are going out on some sort of parental criticism, where people have to be responsible for their own children. Twenty-five percent unemployment, and it’s all the parents’ fault! They can’t possibly be accommodated, even though they are actually finding it hard to make ends meet! Why shouldn’t we help this group of people? Why shouldn’t we help this group of youth, and why shouldn’t we help their parents? Why have we got into this blaming culture, where the Prime Minister talks about how they could take a Marmite sandwich to school, and Dana Kirkpatrick gets up and tells us about self-responsibility? Well, I actually think it is time for a change of Government, because I want to see a Government that actually gets it—that understands that, if you are on $69,000 to $70,000, it’s pretty tough. We’re not on that. In here, we’re not on that. We are on a lot more money than that in Parliament.

It’s really important we never lose sight of the fact that, if you’ve got a couple of kids at school and a couple of teenagers and you’re on that kind of money, it’s incredibly tough. It isn’t a case of self-responsibility or self-discipline, or winners or losers. It’s none of those things. It’s to do with the decision that was made by this Government to make sure that the unemployment issue was just not one that was prioritised. Do you remember, when there was first a change in Government, one of the first things this Government did was get rid of that measure from the Reserve Bank’s decision-making. They weren’t allowed to look at employment any more. That turned out to be something that was not prioritised by this Government, who said—promised people—that they were going to be better off and looked after. Well, they’re not. They are not back on track. They are actually in a much worse financial position, and when a fuel crisis comes rolling along, they’ve got no savings and now they’re being told, “Self-responsibility”, “Look after your children”—who, by the way, are unemployed, when they wouldn’t have been under a Labour Government—“Look after your children when they are that age.”

Actually, I’d rather see some efforts, some real efforts, going into getting those people employed and into prioritising employment. This is coming to my select committee, and I will be asking as many questions as I can during this process, because I think this kind of patronising, judgmental, completely out-of-touch Government needs to go, and this piece of legislation needs to go to. Thank you.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (15:34): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Government is strengthening the fiscal sustainability of the welfare system by better targeting support to those in need. These changes reflect our firm, fair, and simple approach to welfare. That last speech kind of sums up the difference between the left and the right. The last speaker, Helen White, is a lovely lady, she’s well intentioned, but parents need to be responsible for their own children. The left thinks that the State should be responsible for everyone—that they should be the parent for everyone. That is not how our country will be successful.

When I was a young 17-year-old looking at who I was going to vote for in the first MMP election, which was three days after my 18^th birthday, I was a young guy who came from a hard background, no money sometimes, no food sometimes. We had things pretty tough. I was working my butt off to try to get out of those difficult situations. I looked through all the election manifestos of the different parties to try to figure out who I was going to vote for in my very first election. Why did I go with the centre right? Limited Government. I knew, from my background, that the Government doesn’t help poor people. I needed every cent I could get to try to get out of that. Lower taxes: I wanted every cent I could get to try to help lift myself up—not think that the Government was going to do it for me. Self-responsibility: I knew I needed to take responsibility for myself, and I needed to work to try to change my reality, not expect a Government to do it for me, because I knew that would not realistically happen. Reward for achievement: why? I wanted to be rewarded for the work I did, and if I worked harder and did more, I wanted to be rewarded for that. So I chose to vote for a National Government way back in the first MMP election, and I’m here today as an MP, and I’m proud.

We do not want our young people sitting on benefits. We want them to be in employment, we want them to be in education, or we want them to be in training, not sitting on a benefit. There is no hope and no opportunity for them in that. The State will not save them. They need to learn the skills to give themselves the sense of a future. That’s what we’re here for, and the opportunity New Zealanders to vote for that is in November. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:37): At a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high, the Government decides that now is the time to cut entitlements. This bill will apply a parental assistance test—income threshold and parental gap test—to restrict the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for young people aged 18 and 19. The Government was given a range of options—five policy options, in fact—to address how they could assist young people into work, and they chose to go with the cheapest option. They decided to go with the most cost-effective option for them, to the detriment of our young people.

It doesn’t add up. Most of the burden of this cost will fall on 4,300 young people and their families, who will no longer be eligible for support. Not only will the young person miss out, but their parents will now have an additional monetary burden as well. This policy will place additional compliance requirements on young people, both in their initial application for support and reapplications. That means more compliance costs for the Ministry of Social Development and those administering the means testing. It really puts young people at risk, and the reason it does is that, if a young person is in a situation where their parents do not provide support, there is a risk they won’t have any support at all. My question is around the test for this. What constitutes when a young person cannot reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support? How do we meet that test? There is a huge risk here that young people will miss out simply because their parents will not, for whatever reason, support them. Every single one of us has complicated relationships with our parents, and we are not in a position to judge how complicated that relationship is. Young people will miss out on support, at all, due to this test.

This is the part that doesn’t add up for me. There are 40,000 fewer people employed than when Luxon took office. Not only are there not jobs for young people; they are also getting their entitlements cut while they’re looking for a job.

Young people not in employment, education, or training is up to 60 percent. This Government is giving young people no option: there are no jobs, there are no opportunities for training, and now they don’t even get the support they need to get into those positions. The Government is kicking young people off income support just to make its books add up. It is making life harder for New Zealanders just to meet their targets. The bill is simply about saving the Government money at the expense of our young people.

The Government is going against advice received from MSD on this matter. As I’ve mentioned, there were five policy options, and they went for the cheap one. MSD advised that the Government should be investing in education, training, and employment for young people, and those members were like “Nah, don’t think so—not today.”, but, instead, they’re going to cut services by the Minister. Apprenticeship Boost is gone from this Government, Māori trades training is gone from this Government, and now the fees-free scheme for university students is gone from this Government.

In the midst of a cost of living crisis, this Government is making it harder to get by. People are working hard and getting nowhere. Pay doesn’t stretch, bills keep going up, and this is all happening at a time when record numbers of Kiwis are leaving the country for better opportunities overseas. If we don’t have any jobs for our young people and we’re not supporting them, they will continue to move to Australia.

The Labour Party believes in having a more affordable New Zealand, right here in Aotearoa. On that basis, we cannot support this bill.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:42): Look, honestly, it astounds me, or, actually, it doesn’t really surprise me at all—the difference between this side of the House, or the Government side, and the Opposition. Ultimately, as the Minister has said, this is a safety net and a backstop, not an entitlement, as the Opposition has so pointed out. Every single person that leaves high school in this country should have a promising pathway into education and further work.

Actually, for those people that cannot find jobs and cannot get into education—if the Opposition thinks that it’s just happening to every single young person, which is not what I am seeing—there is still a safety net for them to be supported financially. But those people who are financially able to be supported by their families should be, and they should actually be encouraged into work and training because that is the country that we need to see. We need to see opportunities for our kids, and if we let them stay at home, then we will.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (15:44): The question is, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to Social Services and Community Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:44): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Our Government’s priority is getting young people off benefit and into—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but the motion that she has just put has to be put under Standing Order 295, which refers to the member’s first reading speech. In Standing Order 295(1)(b), it says that “if it is proposed to move any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, [it must] indicate the terms of that proposed motion.” Now, in the member’s first reading speech —

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —she did mention the report-back date, which was 20 August, but she did not mention—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, I did.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —any other special powers whatsoever.

If you turn to Standing Order 298(1), it says that “When the House has determined the committee to consider the bill, and if the terms of a motion for any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill have been indicated … the member in charge may move that motion.” So she can only move a motion that refers to the special powers that she has referred to, and the only special power she referred to was the truncated report-back time.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Speaking to the point of order, I am repeating exactly what I said before I started my first reading speech, and the member must have missed that. If he wants to refer back, I can give him a copy of the speech that I read at the time, but it was also in the drill sheet, which absolutely gave the same instruction that I have just moved.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I took advice from the Clerk, who also confirms that the Minister is within the Standing Orders.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government absolutely sees it as a priority to get young people into earning or learning and not starting a life on welfare. This initiative is absolutely intended to reduce benefit dependency amongst young people, encouraging them to enter further training, work, or study. That’s why we have set the report-back date as 20 August—we want to ensure that we’re able to get on to this soon. This was well-signalled. It was in Budget 2025, and so young people and their families have had a long time to get used to this expectation.

We want more for young people; it is urgent. Our Government, the members on this side of the House, see the future of young people isn’t something that should be wasted. As I said before in my first reading speech, 18- and 19-year-olds who currently go on to welfare are, on average, going to spend another 21 years on welfare. It’s simply not good enough, and that’s why we are dealing with this at pace.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:47): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I would like to take a call on this referral motion, and I just wanted to comment on a few things the Minister said in her call. First of all, she made the argument that because this was well signalled in advance, it justifies having a three-month report-back date, and I don’t think that actually stacks up.

The Green Party is not supporting it for the reason that if the Minister had signalled that this was going to come well in advance, she could have introduced this bill earlier and allowed it to have adequate select committee scrutiny. In between her announcement and now, there hasn’t been the opportunity for public submissions and there hasn’t been the opportunity for members of the Opposition to engage in the select committee process with officials. I just think it’s outrageous that for whatever reason the Minister and the Government chose not to introduce this bill earlier, now we’re seeing a justification that just because she mentioned it was coming, it therefore deserves less than adequate scrutiny.

I think that’s a disservice because in the period between now and 20 August, I am particularly concerned that despite the powers that the Minister is proposing for the committee to meet outside of sitting days, etc., in those three months we’ve got scrutiny week and we’ve got Budget week. We’ve got the significant amount of extended sitting hours that we’ve seen over the past few months, and a record amount of the use of urgency, which, in my view, will—

Grant McCallum: It’s called working hard.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, none the less—really? I hear the member say that they think this equates to working hard, as opposed to undermining democracy.

The other argument is that ultimately this, at least for sitting days—and the members of the Government will know this—will only leave, say, like 8 to 9 and 1 to 2 on the Wednesdays, as per usual when there’s extended sitting hours or urgency being used by the Government, which massively prevents adequate public engagement on the bill.

I think also that the use of select committee hearings during adjournment ultimately creates an opportunity cost for every MP—list or electorate only—in terms of whether we spend time in, say, the community or engaging in the select committee process. I just think that there’s no solid justification provided by the Minister on this.

My concern, as well as that, with the three-month period is that we’re likely to see a shortened amount of time that people can make for submissions. Now, if we look at the demographics of who is impacted by this bill—and I would assume that everyone, Government or Opposition, would want to see people who are impacted by this bill submit on this bill—we’re talking about working families on low incomes. I assume some of these working families on low incomes may be working multiple jobs. These are some of the families that, as I mentioned in my speech, may see an up to $59 a week reduction to their weekly income, which is significant. Now, if you reduce the select committee scrutiny and likely reduce the amount of time there is for submissions or the period for people to choose a time slot that can best accommodate their schedule, you’re also more likely to see those working families on low incomes disproportionately impacted by the bill less able to participate in the process. This really undermines people’s ability to give feedback on what it will mean for the 68 percent of working families on low and middle incomes that will see an average of $42 less in their accommodation supplement. We will see less of those kinds of demographics represented in the select committee. I think that’s a disservice to the process.

The challenge that I have, particularly in the lack of synchronicity between what the Minister has said and the document that we have in front of us, is that the Minister talks about how this is a targeted approach, but the evidence in front of us talks about how people may be likely put into hardship as a result of the provisions of this bill, including working families. I’m really concerned about that lack of scrutiny.

Now, when it comes to the shortened select committee process—and particularly I want to focus, now, on engaging with officials—one of the challenges I have had with a lot of these saving initiatives—and I think of, for example, one of the previous bills we’ve had in the Social Services and Community Committee that reduce the amount that people with boarders can receive when it comes to the accommodation supplement—is that we were told at the time, on that bill, for example, that the savings that will be produced were unclear, because you may be saving some money by taking the accommodation supplement from some groups, but then those groups, as we were advised by the Government, may need to access other types of Government assistance, like hardship grants, student allowance, etc. It’s very similar to what we’re seeing in these bills. The same advice has been produced. My concern is that if we have a shortened select committee process, we won’t be able to adequately scrutinise and unpack what’s the projected amount that people may need from Work and Income to make up for the loss of the accommodation supplement in the form of hardship assistance.

When you have a shortened select committee process, we encounter the issue that when you ask some of the more complex questions to officials, they’re having to work under humungous time pressures, and, due to those time pressures, sometimes we’re not able to receive—not through a fault of the officials themselves but just through the time pressures they’re facing—the robust answers that, I think, we and the public that is interested in this bill deserve. That’s another reason why we are concerned and do not support this referral motion.

I think this is particularly important—I think of some of the other bills that have similar cost-saving initiatives and affect people who receive the accommodation supplement. I have yet been able to find out through my written questions, etc., how much people have seen a reduction to their accommodation supplement. Therefore, we’re none the wiser of how much the Government has actually saved through those previous saving initiatives to the accommodation supplement. As we go on to the scrutiny of this bill, and well knowing that the previous saving initiatives have yielded nebulous results, I think, you know, it’s all the more reason to have a really proper select committee process.

Now, I wanted to touch on some of the hours that the select committee will likely end up sitting under extended hours and urgency. I know I mentioned that briefly, but I’m just going to expand on that a bit. When we think about working families working multiple jobs, often to make ends meet or just with really long working hours, because often, at least on sitting weeks, we end up just having the 8 till 9 and 1 till 2 p.m. slots during extended sitting and urgency, which is almost becoming, more often, the default than otherwise, we’re, effectively, asking working people to forego their lunch break to make a submission. We’re often asking working families—

Grant McCallum: Working hard.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —to—well, they may claim that they’re working hard, but it is part of our jobs, and the member Grant McCallum may be getting paid to listen to submissions, but working families are not getting paid to contribute to how this bill will affect them. If you’re asking them to give up whatever small break they have during their shift, I think this is a bit of a disservice and almost disrespect, I think, to the working families who are indeed working very hard and are working even extra hard unpaid to try and analyse how this bill will impact them and to try and contribute to the democratic process which they should be afforded more flexibility over. Again, I don’t think this goes against the idea that working families are working hard or otherwise; this speaks to the fact that because working families are working so hard, we’re actually restricting their ability to constructively engage on this.

The other reason why I’m concerned about the shortened select committee process is that we know that there will be a substantial amount of people with complex caregiving responsibilities. Now, in the advice presented to us on this bill, we know that a significant proportion of the people impacted by the removal of support when they’re homeowners and they need the accommodation supplement are people on sole parent support. We’re talking about how people who may be the sole caregivers may be working while also having caregiving responsibilities. When you put people with strenuous caregiving responsibilities and work responsibilities with a tightened schedule and reduced hours to submit, you again end up more likely to exclude those very same people on sole parent support.

The other group that I’m particularly concerned about that may be left with less accommodating time slots as a result of this referral motion are the sick and disabled people captured in the jobseeker medical that they would have been able to access—this is for the 18- and 19-year-olds. We know that around one in five, if I recall correctly, of the people impacted by the bill who are 18-, 19-year-olds are people who would have been in jobseeker medical. Now, that’s a big proportion of people who have health conditions, who, I think, deserve an adequate select committee process so that we can accommodate those health conditions for them to give their views. Leaving people who are facing ill health or are disabled with less abilities to participate, I think, does a disservice.

These are some of the reasons why I just wanted to add my objections to the referral motion. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to speak to this motion. The Minister simply said this is urgent, which I must say is barely an excuse. It’s usual for a Minister to give somewhat more substantive reasons, so I think it’s entirely appropriate that we do kind of interrogate exactly what those reasons are. It may be that someone on the other side of the House can take a call on this and give us some further detail.

One of the concerns is that, really, when you think about what a select committee does, there’s a lot of steps to it. I’m sure some of my colleagues will speak to the stakeholders who want to have a say in this process, but even if we just think about the period of time that submissions are going to be open for, it’s likely, because this is basically a halving of the normal process—so if we were to half that, it would be a three-week period, which is actually a very short time. The bill may not be a large bill but it’s a complicated bill because of what it’s doing and because the benefits framework and the accommodation supplement framework is a network. That three-week period in and of itself is a very short period of time.

As the member Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out, we’ve got Budget urgency coming up, we’ve got extended sittings, so when you think of the next step, which is that initial briefing—now, first of all, the first thing to note is that officials now have less time to prepare that initial briefing. So whereas previously, once the bill was introduced, they could look at what the bill does and how best to communicate that to members, they’ve got a truncated period for that and they have to squeeze it into a period where you’ve got Budget urgency next week, you’ve got recess, and, given the Government’s busy agenda, who knows when they will be able to put that in.

Then, of course, once you get that out of the way, which, if you think about what’s going on—you’ve got a three-week submission period, you’ve got recesses, and you might be a month in already—then you’re going to have to try and get hearings in. Now, hearings are the centrepiece of the select committee process, and my concern is that this is going to be a rushed process, and so the select committee, which of course is dominated by Government members who will say, “We won’t listen to everyone. We haven’t really got enough time. Let’s give a few people five minutes here or 10 minutes there, and let’s cherry-pick the submissions that we hear from.” That’s not good enough, because this is everybody’s Parliament, and we want to make sure that the time for hearing submissions isn’t rushed. Certainly, in the Justice Committee, we’ve seen people who have wanted to be heard not be heard, because this Government is rushing.

This is yet another thing where they’re making some substantial changes to our benefit system, and even if we supported them—which we don’t—we’d want to have a really good look at them and listen properly to the people who want to be heard. Then, of course, and this is the critical bit, there may be some real wrinkles. Even if we accepted the objectives of what the Government wants to do, there may be some real wrinkles about how it’s going to be implemented, and that’s the great benefit of the select committee process. That is when officials stand back and say, “What have we heard? What issues have been raised by members, and does this legislation properly implement the policy it intends to implement?” That’s when we see the departmental report, when those officials come back and provide a report to the select committee.

That is the process, and when officials are told we want something in two weeks or three weeks, I see the sorrow in their eyes as you say that, because they want to do a good job. They actually want to come back and serve the Government. These are the public servants that are under the hammer, of course, but they’re public servants that want to do a good job and want to help the Government implement their policies, but they’re being stopped by the Government because they’re not being given enough time to do a good job. This halving the select committee process is really problematic there.

Of course, the other thing that I haven’t talked about yet is what members do, because it’s important for us to read all those submissions, to listen carefully, and to think about it, because we’re doing a job not dissimilar to officials. We’re standing back, absorbing all that information, and then going forward and trying to work through how to do the best job we can. That’s when we come back together and nut it around in the select committee—the bit the public doesn’t really see, where members of the Government listen to members of the Opposition when we make good points—and sometimes we do, believe it or not—and actually engage in some meaningful interchange.

Hon Mark Patterson: Jury’s out on that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And you know what—come on, the Hon Mark Patterson. You were in this Government once. The fact of the matter is that that interchange is important. That interchange is important, and it can’t be rushed, but this Government is rushing that interchange. Then, of course, if there are changes to be made, Parliamentary Counsel is instructed to make those changes, and it’s not a matter of just throwing a few extra words in. Parliamentary Counsel does a very good job, but it is a very technical job indeed, and it’s one which, again, there may be some simple changing of “seven days” to “14 days”—simple changes—but if you’re going to pull one bit of the string in a web, it’s going to have impacts over there, and that’s what legislation is like, and that’s what Parliamentary Counsel are experts at.

Again, to truncate that period—usually, they will say any changes of anything other than minor will take at least two weeks, and sometimes they look for more. If you go back and say, “Well, it’s just a week.”, they’re not going to be able to go through their quality control, and we know what happens when legislation doesn’t have quality control and people rush back to this House saying, “Oops, I need to do an amendment bill because I forgot this bit.”, or, “We forgot about that other piece of legislation over there.” Of course, that then feeds into the final product when we see the committee reports. An important part of that report is any differing view, and I suspect there will be a differing view or two in this report, but the committee needs to be able to work through that report in detail.

If you think about all of those steps, including a committee report that is a meaningful report to this House, the amount of time that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is proposing—three months and a couple of days, or one day, I think—is simply not enough. The final deliberation, when the committee comes together and says, “Do we support this? Do we support the amendments? Do we support the report?”, is also an important part of the process.

I’m not going to talk about the substance of this bill, but I want to point out that the good work that select committees do here is being fundamentally undermined and that there is a reason why six months is the default period and why many times there’s a request for extensions of time on that six months. That’s because it’s an important deliberative part of our democracy that this Government is time and again ignoring, which means we’re having lower quality legislation, less trust in our Government, and less trust in this democracy, and that is a real worry. We clearly will be voting against this motion, and select committees should be respected and given the time that they need to make a good job.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:06): I also want to speak to this referral motion. I want to touch on something that both of my colleagues—Ricardo Menéndez March and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—haven’t quite touched on, and I think this is one of those instances where we have seen a referral motion of this nature in the House previously. Usually, it’s for something that is one or two months long, and they’re not great, but considering the standard is, as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, six months, we often do see that the referral motion is not needed if the report back date is in four months and a day. Often we do see that the referral motion of this nature is something that has to be done within a month or two. Again, I’m not saying it’s great, but the drastic shortening or truncation of the period makes sense for a referral motion.

However, I don’t think, at least not in my recollection, that, this term, we’ve had a bill—maybe except for, I think, the climate emissions forestry one, which was three months and which, to be honest, we could have just had for four months as opposed to three months. There are potentially a couple of reasons, and I’ve been listening to the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s first reading speech as well as what she said in her referral motion, but none of them really touched on the practical and procedural chronology when we’re looking at the remainder of sitting days of the House and also in connection to this referral motion.

I also just want to seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. What I meant to say, sorry, at the beginning of my speech, and it might be too late—I was maybe seeking some advice from the Clerk—is: I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “20 August 2026” with “20 September 2026”.

I’ll speak to my amendment shortly. But on to the date of 20 August. Now, presumably the reason we have that date is because of the dissolution of Parliament, which is on 1 October. Potentially, what we’re seeing is that, between 20 August and 1 October, there are only four sitting weeks. In some ways, I guess that makes sense, but there are two catches with that, I guess—the first one being that the commencement date of this bill is 1 April 2027. The Regulatory Impact Statement date is, I believe, 10 September 2025. Now, my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March briefly touched on the fact that this was something that has been signalled to the Government earlier and the Government could have put it on their legislative agenda a lot earlier. That allows for the proper democratic process of having the full select committee stage, but that’s not what we’re seeing here.

If the commencement date is 1 April 2027—and presumably the Government want this bill to be passed by the end of this term before the dissolution of Parliament—the question that then remains is that if the Government have any confidence in being re-elected, they could have done it in December or January or February and still made it in time for their 1 April commencement date. So I think that’s an interesting observation. I’m not presuming anything from the Government’s side in terms of what they consider to be their outlook in any sort of election—but that is interesting.

Now on to my Amendment Paper. The reason I proposed 20 September 2026 is it allows for that minimum four-month select committee period. Again—not great; understandable. As we heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the standard period is six months, but it allows for that minimum four, which means we can open the submissions and, normally, proportionally the submissions will be open for four weeks, as opposed to what we’re seeing currently with three weeks. But that also meant that we are left with one week for which the bill can be heard, and presumably there will be some form of urgency on that final week before the dissolution of Parliament that we can actually do a lot of these then. There might be other things happening that week. Again, I think these are the questions that the Minister, in her referral motion, could actually elucidate for this House and therefore we don’t have to take a call to actually try and get the response to some of the questions we have.

Now, on to the select committee part. In terms of the timing when we’re looking at the select committee—you know, if we’re looking at a proportional three-week submission and then going into hearing, considering we now have a report-back date of three months, that then goes into 9 June 2026, which is a non-sitting week and that is standard. But the week after that we’re heading into scrutiny week. It is important to note that the committee that this is going to—the Social Services and Community Committee—although it may not have all that many bills going through it, it has the most number of agencies when you are looking at scrutiny week. So when you’re looking at a combination of scrutiny week as well as all of the follow-ups, it actually does put, as the previous speaker said, a lot of pressure not just simply on the select committee in terms of the hearing of the bill but also in terms of the indicative plan of the select committee as well. So, that is something that I think, if any Government makes a decision to have such a referral motion or to shorten a select committee, these are the things that should also be in consideration. For one thing, it is a sign of good faith and understanding the needs and also the workload and work that Parliament and select committees are doing.

What’s also really important is that the last time this House has not had either an extended sitting or an urgency on a sitting week, either on Wednesday or Thursday—or both—was the week starting 16 February. And I have been counting. This is also important because often we see, like what we’re seeing this very week where we have an extended sitting going from Tuesday into Wednesday morning, meaning that the normal operations and agenda of the select committee will not be able to take place during that time. Of course, we do have the exemption from Standing Orders 196 as part of that, which I will mention, but it also means that it places those select committees and those members, depending on what bill is also going through the extended sitting or urgency at the time, in the awkward position of having to potentially be in two places at once. I know this is something that we’ve discussed in the Standing Orders Committee, but even then the discussion is always going to be around the fact that we are going to do our best to avoid a member who is in charge of a bill—either they are in the Government or in Opposition—with a particular select committee that’s happening at the same time.

Even if, let’s say, we have the exemption around Standing Order 196, I think it’s possibly important maybe for the Government, for the Minister, and for the Business Committee etc., to consider that, during those periods, Standing Order 196 will need to be waived and the select committee is able to sit on a Wednesday morning during an extended sitting or urgency, and we at least we don’t have a bill going through the House at the same time and the legislative agenda is done in a way that we’re not overlapping or duplicating a bill that’s going through the House with a hearing of the select committee at the same time.

Finally, I just want to talk about the three particular Standing Orders that are being waived, and that’s Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Again, in the context of Standing Orders 193 and 196, it makes sense to be meeting on Fridays and meeting within the Wellington area on sitting days, but I’m always surprised at why Standing Order 195 needs to actually be waived, because Standing Order 195 is about meeting outside of the Wellington area during a sitting, whether it is during the sitting day or even on a Monday or Friday of the sitting week. By waiving that, there must be some form of indication by the Government that that is a possibility. In which case, I think other people who are on the select committee may want to tease that out a little bit more. What are some of the considerations when we’re looking at sitting during a sitting outside of Wellington? Is that something that is on the cards for this Government, for that particular Standing Order to be exempted?

So, overall, I think there are three areas that we would like some clarification on around the practical and procedural aspects of the chronology of this bill, but, at this stage, I will be keen to hear from others regarding my amendment.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:16): Thank you. Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this motion. I agree with the comments that were made by the member, Lawrence Xu-Nan, about the—while not ideal—reduction from the default six months down to his proposed amendment four months. If we can’t convince the Government to go with the default six months, then we would support the member’s amendment to at least extend it out to four months for all the reasons that he gave.

I would also like to add additional reasons to support why we believe it should be six months, or even four months. That’s because it’s clear from the regulatory impact statement and from the information we had that there was very limited consultation that was done in the development of this legislation. When we know that this is going to impact over 4,300 young people in terms of the proposed changes to the 18 and 19-year-olds, and that even less consultation was done: no stakeholders; only with Government departments in terms of the accommodation supplement changes due to Budget sensitivity. I believe that the comments that I’m making now apply to both.

When I turned to the parental assistance test—and like I said, it’s going to affect more than 4,300 young people who, along with their families, are already struggling and this is going to make it worse—I think it’s very important that we hear from organisations like Ara Taiohi—and I want to recognise them, it being Youth Week this week, and I know that they are busy doing that this week so they are probably missing that this is even happening in the House as they are celebrating Youth Week. They kicked it off in Tai Tokerau and Waitangi, and here we are discussing something that is going to affect our rangatahi.

We’ve also got, for example, Social Service Providers Aotearoa, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, and a number of community services that work at the coalface with our young people, supporting them and their families, who I know, speaking to a number of those organisations, are struggling with the limited funding that they have to be able to support and deliver those supports to our young people. We heard, for example, from Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, who have had changes to their funding and where the expectation is that they focus on the older jobseekers versus those other younger people that they provided for and who are, unfortunately, moving towards the age group that would be captured by this legislation.

Organisations like Youthline and organisations like Kick Back, who we have heard from, who do phenomenal advocacy work—they are busy advocating for things like their concerns around the Government’s move-on orders around youth homelessness and work that they’ve been doing in that space. Now they have to turn to writing submissions and presenting in front of our select committee on the impact that these policies will have. Having visited Kick Back, I met with young people who desperately want work, who have been applying for jobs—numerous job applications submitted—with not even a response back to their job applications. They are struggling not only with their homelessness but without being able to find employment either. So we are asking organisations who are struggling to meet the increasing demand in their communities with limited funding, increased need, to take time out from that work to write submissions and present to our Social Services and Community Committee on issues that are really, really important to our young people and to those organisations.

I also note the limited or non-existent consultation with Māori. We know that Māori, sadly, are disproportionately impacted and affected by these benefits and low socio-economic circumstances. In my contribution earlier I spoke about the challenge facing a community like Kaikohe, where there are thousands on jobseeker benefits and only 15 advertised jobs at that time.

I think about the fact that we would like to hear from organisations like the Iwi Chairs Forum, who do a lot of work in their Pou Tangata grouping, but they are busy in front of the Waitangi Tribunal, in looking at the changes that are being made to the Conservation Act, in looking at the recent decision from the Government to now make changes to 19 Treaty provisions within various statutes. These organisations are, due to other Government decisions, having to spread themselves across so many different things that this Government is doing, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment didn’t really give us any real justification as to why there’s such a truncated process on a change that is going to impact on our tamariki, our taitamariki, our rangatahi, and their whānau. So, the Iwi Chairs Forum, who I’m sure would appreciate more time to be able to advocate for their rangatahi, but, unfortunately, due to other Government actions, are so busy doing those other things.

I think about the city missions, who we would like to hear from in this—again, meeting that increasing demand that we are seeing. More New Zealanders are experiencing food insecurity, and they are coming through places like city missions and food banks. So they are all busy doing that front-line work, and we are asking them to divert some of their important time and attention and resources to writing submissions and making themselves available to our select committee so that our select committee can have the benefit of good information about what the impact of this Government policy will be on those people, in a truncated period of time. Others have said: there was more time available to the Government; they chose not to do it and now come to the House and ask for three months instead of the standard six months.

What about the employment services that we need to hear from? These are the people who, actually, the officials’ advice said—more money should be put in; this money, and the options that the Minister should be going for are actually those around more support in training, more support in education, and more support in employment. Now, we need to hear from these employment services—once again, a very truncated amount of time for them to be able to divert their attention and their resources from working with those young people and families who are struggling with high levels of unemployment: as we heard today in the House, the fewer jobs that we have since this Government came into office—you know, many leaving their regions and leaving for Australia. So we need to hear from those employment services as well.

As I have outlined, this is just a short list of stakeholders who I believe we need to hear from. There will be many more who can speak to the changes that the accommodation supplement, which, again, I noted from the—it wasn’t a regulatory impact statement; it was some other kind of—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Supplementary advice.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, supplementary advice. In that supplementary advice, it points out that due to its budget sensitivity, there was only consultation within Government departments—and I think they only mentioned about three Government departments; it might’ve been the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, I think there was the Ministry of Education, and one other. So with that particular proposal, which, again, is going to impact 9,300 households from 1 April 2027, targeted consultation was only done within the—basically, the Government talking to itself; not talking to any external stakeholders about how it will impact on those people. These are families who are low and middle income who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis, who are going to be impacted by the increase in the percentage to receive the subsidy. As we said, the numbers are 9,300, and the Government only talked to itself and claims that because of budget sensitivity it couldn’t talk to any external stakeholders, then turns around and says, “Sorry, truncated process—we can only have three months.”, not your typical six-month process that we would have for a select committee process. That is not fair on such important issues that are going to impact thousands and thousands of low to middle income households and over 4,300 young people and their families. They deserve a full and proper select committee process to ensure that we understand what this law is going to do, that we explore all options and any possibilities of improving the legislation.

So we do not support the Government’s proposal. If we had to compromise, I would be happy to support that of Lawrence Xu-Nan, who said maybe we could look at the four months instead of the six months. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just clarify—I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March, but to clarify that you’re speaking to the amendment.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:26): That is correct.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so I really appreciate having a second call to speak on the amendment that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan moved in this referral motion debate, as per the rules. There is a reason I wanted to speak and advocate for my colleague’s amendment, and one of them is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan adequately talked about the timing of when Parliament rises and the election date as a potential reasoning—it may not have been given by the Minister for Social Development and Employment but kind of does stack up as to why they did a three-month referral motion.

The other reason why I think a four-month referral motion would be preferable is that, you know, I put the challenge to the Government members that if they’re so confident that they are going to win the election and come back to power, then I don’t think that actually affects their ability to keep progressing with this bill.

I think the other component of it is that because of the commencement date of the bill, which is in April next year, if the Government are so confident that they’ll be winning the election, I don’t see a reason why we can’t just come back, finish the select committee process, and actually go through the motions of the second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading debate. I think this amendment by my colleague allows for the Government to say, well, let’s give it a bit more scrutiny. Perhaps maybe they don’t feel so confident that they’ll win the election. They’ll still get to do the second and third reading debates before the House fully rises, but I guess I do have the question as to whether, you know, if they’re not confident about winning it, they would get behind supporting my colleague’s amendment.

The reason why I think four months as well would be preferable to three months is because—we talked a little about whether people would be able to have an opportunity to submit altogether because of their busy lives. Four months: what it also gives us is an additional time for people to prepare their oral submissions. Sometimes, people in organisations, for the written submission deadline, may only be able to, for example, provide a very short written submission. If we extend it by another month, what we get to do is also give a bit more grace for people to prepare supplementary evidence, as is often the case in select committee submissions. That additional month that would be granted by my colleague’s amendment would allow people who may not have a lot of time to prepare their written submission to present additional supplementary evidence, and I think this extra month would allow people to engage more constructively with the debate.

I have noted that in other debates where the referral motions are quite short, some of the feedback that we get from stakeholders, from members of the community, is that they just didn’t have enough time to prepare contributions on, for example, potential amendments to mitigate perceived harms or to enhance the legislation. That additional month gives people additional time to be able to prepare proposed amendments.

We know that, often, Ministers or Opposition members may propose amendments themselves that may be inspired by amendments proposed by submitters. The additional month that is put forward in the amendment of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in my view, would give submitters the ability to be able to more constructively think of amendments. I would hope that is something the Government can get behind. Especially in the type of legislation that we’re speaking to, one of the issues that I have with the current timeline is that the organisations at the front line who would be submitting are often organisations who themselves have little resources. They may have one policy staffer or no policy staffer. Perhaps the person in charge of submitting is also the person in charge of receiving the community at the door. That additional month, as proposed by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in my view, is critical to it.

Now, I may just ask my colleague to go to the Business Committee while I finish my contribution, if he wouldn’t mind filling in, if he’s got the chance.

Just to finish that off, what I would add to this call would be that the additional month would, as I said, also allow, for example, parties to have more caucus meetings—for example, to engage on proposed amendments by the Opposition or by submitters themselves. One of the challenges that we often have with engaging in a cross-partisan matter when the referral motions are quite short—three months as opposed to four months—is, for example, that there are very limited caucus meetings, particularly for the Government side, to constructively engage on amendments that are proposed by the Opposition or by stakeholders themselves. I think adding that additional month adds additional caucus meetings, where we can, in a cross-party way, engage with amendments. For example, if, in the select committee stage, we realise there are going to be unintended consequences, it gives us additional time to actually mitigate those.

If I think of one of the bills that I engaged in recently in that select committee, around the interactions of ACC and MSD and payments, etc., well, for example, we did end up voting for amendments that would have included an additional group of people who had procedures under the Social Security Appeal Authority, right? I would have assumed, for the Government members, that would have required a caucus conversation to potentially go through those. My colleague’s amendment, in my view, also enables that cross-party work to happen in a more constructive manner. That is a point that hasn’t been raised by previous speakers. I think that’s particularly important because, as has been noted, the demographics most impacted by this bill are people on low incomes, people who are trying to survive, households that may be earning just around $65,000 a year. As a household, that’s a pretty low income when it comes to the 18- and 19-year-olds who would be affected by the changes to the tightening of the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries. That is one of the key reasons why I think four months is preferable.

Again, I want to go back to the point that this still gives the Government enough time to do the second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading should they wish to, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be comfortable just deferring that until after the election if they’re confident of winning. Rest assured, though, the Greens will be fighting to repeal it, so I do think it kind of just raises the question of what the point of the timing is here.

The other reason why I think four months would be better is so that we can have that constructive engagement between hearings, between Opposition members or just interested Government members and officials. For example, after hearings, there will often be questions that we’ll want to be putting to officials. Perhaps a submitter raised a really important point that maybe no one had thought of, or an unintended consequence of this bill that no one had thought of. That’s why we lean on expert submitters for them to contribute on this. When you have three months as opposed to, say, four or the ideal six, you also end up not being able to engage between MPs and officials, to get answers from officials on those questions that get raised in between sessions. There is often that rush, by the process of “Well, we’ve just got to get the report out. There’s just no time to actually scrutinise this bill, etc.” I mean, that’s part of the reason, in my view, and if you look at the minutes from the committee that’s in charge of scrutinising this bill, I would put the case that there’s a reason why we’re having hearings on ACC after the scrutiny of the bill, which, in my view, should have happened as part of the scrutiny of the bill, because we just did not have enough time. That’s the other rationale as to why I think we should get behind Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments.

With that, I will finish this contribution, but I am sure, as I can tell, other Labour members will have more to say. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take off where Ricardo Menéndez March left off, with an experience that we had of a rushed process in our select committee and what harm it can do. That was a process over a bill that was about ACC, and it was really obvious that we absolutely had it wrong in terms of what we thought that the bill was to do. The truncation of the process impacted on the quality of the work that we were able to do. It didn’t mean that we didn’t go through that process sincerely and make a different decision—we had to go back to our caucus over that—but it was a very real example of the problem with urgently going through pieces of legislation. For the life of me, I actually don’t see why this one is so urgent.

This is a piece of legislation that affects a lot of people and a lot of different portfolio holders. Part of my job, because I lead on this committee, will be to make sure I’m contacting all those different people holding portfolios where this is relevant, as the material comes forth. That’s a really important job. I take it seriously, and what I will have is a chair who’s under pressure not to hear from people and to truncate that process as much as possible. Before we say that never happens, it absolutely has been happening more this term than I have known. It is often the case of submissions being limited to “Oh, we’ll just hear from a few people here.” or “We’ll hear from the stakeholders.”, and it is truncated to the point where we lose a lot of the quality of what we would hear. For me, I’ve got that sexual and family violence prevention portfolio, so I’m having to do my job in a very different way if we truncate this process. I know that young people, who are affected by this legislation and are expecting their parents to now support them, are often subjected to violence in the home. I’m told by places like Kick Back that it is often a reason why they end up on the street.

It’s really important that I get to do my job and talk to those groups and those people affected in that way. And that’s just one portfolio. This is young people. This is young people in crisis and unemployment. It is incredibly important that we go wide in this situation. Now, I just want to talk about that issue, about youth being involved in the very process of submitting and how much less likely it was with a shorter time frame. I have one school in my area where I’ve encouraged those students to make submissions, and I have told them there’s a process. I’ve said, hand on heart, this is a process where you can make a difference. You can bring something into the process that will change the minds of people. Well, that becomes a lot less likely when things are rushed. This is a piece of legislation that I want schools in my area to consider whether they make a submission on and, if they do, they’re engaged in the process in a very, very healthy way. If they see it rushed through, they’re not.

I just want to give you one example, not of somebody young but of somebody on the bill I just mentioned, about ACC. We got an example of somebody who’d been rushed through, told they had to come in and give us submission in this very short time frame, because we were only available in the recess. We were trying to do the right thing, but they came in and I’ll never forget how disconnected and distrustful they were, because they had been told “This is your one time.” This was on something that was critical to them. This was something where they had already lost trust. They didn’t need to lose more trust. I’ll never forget that.

These things are not academic; they are real. They affect the very people who should be making submissions. I would expect some damned good reasons before we didn’t have straight playing of our timetable on this matter. We’re talking youth, and guess who is becoming more and more disaffected with Parliament? Guess who is not going to vote? This group—this very same group—and if you add that this is the group that are facing high unemployment, we are talking about people we need to engage with and need to be engaged in this particular piece of legislation, because it is impacting on them more than any other.

Now, I also want to talk about some of the groups that I’ve seen recently where I would like to see submissions, and I’m afraid they’ll get cut out. One was, we had budget services in the other day who are absolutely under pressure, and guess what! They get very little, almost no Government funding, those budget services. And people in crisis—I want to hear from them about this, because it won’t necessarily just be the students or the young people, it will be their parents. Their parents are the ones who are going to be in there at budget services saying, “I want to take money out of my KiwiSaver and I have to go and I have to go and see you. That’s part of the requirements.” It’s going to be that group of people, and we need to hear from them. Sometimes, the best people that we talk to are people like Teresa White at Auckland budget services. They keep me grounded and I really, really want to hear from people like that. But if we cut the list, it’ll be those kinds of organisations that their time is cut—and we get so much good information out of them. Also, we just—look, they deserve our respect. They’re the ones actually mopping up the mess when Government doesn’t do a good job at looking after people. They’re the ones who will get those applications. We need the power of what they’ve got to say.

I’d also like to put a shout-out for people like the Law Society, who we definitely do need to hear from on this piece of legislation. They’re under the pump. This is going to happen before the election, in a truncated fashion. It will actually mean we just don’t get the kinds of quality information that we rely upon from those specific groups. People like the Children’s Commissioner, I’m sure we’ll hear from them because they’re set up and they’re just totally focused. But groups like the Law Society, they’re doing a wide range of work and they’re volunteers. By the way, it’s volunteer month next month. These are volunteers that make a big difference around here. So a shout-out for them. But I want to be able to hear from those people, and I’m afraid that if we truncate this process beyond six months, we won’t be able to hear from them. It won’t happen.

I wanted to talk finally in this—and I’m specifically not talking about the amendment; I’d like to do a call on the amendment, but I’m not doing that in this one. But I’d just like to talk about the reasons for urgency for a minute. Because I took the point that—Duncan Webb stood up and said he hadn’t heard the Minister give good reasons, or give reasons at all. The Minister said that she has given reasons. Well, those reasons must have been so softly spoken and so general that I just didn’t pick them up. I genuinely don’t know why this piece of legislation deserves this truncated process.

I am concerned about that kind of use of the process. Why are we truncating things like this? It should be for a very good reason. We have a lot of legislation coming through here that deserves our attention. There are things that are being mentioned in the media constantly that are supposed to be absolutely urgent, and yet they don’t get this process. So why this one? Why this one, in comparison to all the other pieces of legislation where there actually might be some cross-party support? Imagine that! It’s what the public says to me every day when I go out on the doorstep, is they’d like to see a bit more of that. But no, we’re not doing it for those pieces of work that we could find some commonality in or that seem to me desperately urgent. We’re not doing it for those. We’re doing it for this, this piece of legislation which looks like it’s got a fiscal cost associated to the Government at the present time.

So it’s not putting children in work, it’s not putting students in work, it’s not putting youth in work. It’s none of those things that, actually, I could see there being, if it was some sort of scheme that meant that they were actually into work, I’d be thrilled to see something like that because I know it’s desperate for these people, but it’s not. What we’re talking about here is cutting the financial support to that group. That is not something that is urgent unless you’re a Government that’s spent it all on tax cuts for the landlords—then maybe it is urgent, because you just don’t have the money to do anything that’s not free or isn’t a stunt. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to replace the words “20 August 2026” with “20 September 2026”.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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.

Appointments

Electoral Commission

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:47): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, under section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Susan Elizabeth Elliott ONZM, Murray David Jack, and David Brian O’Connor as members of the Electoral Commission, each for a term of three years commencing on the date of appointment.

The Electoral Commission is an independent Crown entity established by section 4B of the Electoral Act 1993. The Commission is responsible for the administration of parliamentary elections and referenda; the allocation of time and money for the broadcast of election programmes; the conduct of the Māori electoral option; servicing the work of the Representation Commission; the provision of advice, reports and public education on electoral matters; and electoral enrolment services for both parliamentary and local elections. Appointments to the Commissioner are made by the Governor-General on recommendation of the House of Representatives. The Act currently provides that the Commission has a board of three members comprising: a part-time chair, a part-time deputy chair, and a full-time electoral officer who is the chief executive. The Electoral Amendment Act passed at the end of last year increases the membership of the Electoral Commission, allowing for the appointment of up to seven members. This is in order to strengthen the board’s resilience and capability.

Increasing the board of the Commission provides the opportunity to introduce a wider range of skills onto the board and enhance the Commission’s capacity to manage the various challenges to election delivery. In anticipation of this legislative change, the Commission’s chair, with my approval, appointed Ms Elliott, Mr Jack, and Mr O’Connor in July 2025 to act as special advisers to the Commission. As advisers, they have not had a formal decision-making role but have contributed to the expertise in risk and assurance, innovation and change, and strategic communications in support of change.

I am now proposing to formalise the appointment of these individuals and thereby strengthen the commission’s strategic decision-making capability.

Ms Elliott has been the managing director of Communications Chambers since 2005 and is a founding director of Public Art Heritage Aotearoa New Zealand. She has worked in both the public and private sectors and provides wide-ranging expertise in communications.

Mr *Jack is an independent director and advisor. He is currently a director of Aurecon Group Ltd and an independent member of the New Zealand Defence Force Advisory Board. He is a previous chair of the FMA, the Financial Markets Authority, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, and the Education Payroll Ltd. He was formerly chief executive and then chair of Deloitte New Zealand. Mr Jack has proven expertise in modernisation and systems roll-out, and has also led a number of sensitive reviews into systems failure.

Mr O’Connor is an audit and assurance partner and former chair chairperson of the Auckland chartered accountant firm BDO. He has 31 years experience in assurance and corporate finance, and also has expert witness and mediation experience. He currently acts as a director for a number of entities, adding significant commercial experience and a solid focus on corporate governance.

The Crown Entities Act 2004 provides that appointments to independent Crown entities be made for a period of up to five years. I am proposing three-year terms as this will allow for review of these appointments prior to the 2029 election.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as Labour’s justice spokesperson to support this Government’s motion to appoint three new members to the Electoral Commission. I appreciate the Minister’s outline of the role of the commission and additionally the qualifications of the three who are nominated to be appointed, Susan Elliott OMZM, Murray David Jack, and David Brian O’Connor.

The Electoral Commission serves an incredibly important role within New Zealand. As the Minister stated, they are an independent Crown entity and their primary role that most New Zealanders would be aware of is the running of our general elections. Their role, in fact, goes wider than that and they do have a role in maintaining confidence in our electoral system and therefore confidence in our democracy. That is why it was appropriate and appreciated that prior to this motion coming before the House, there was consultation, certainly with our party and I understand with parties across the House through the Business Committee around the appointment of these three individuals, like the chair of the Electoral Commission and also the deputy chair as well have been appointed in a bipartisan manner.

The three individuals are not new—as the Minister has stated—to the Electoral Commission. They are existing, at this stage, in advisory roles that have been, as has been stipulated, valued by the Electoral Commission. So they’ve kind of been testing out the new commissioners, so to speak, and apparently have found them very well suited for this role.

I’m not going to use the full ten minutes to support this motion as this is a bipartisan motion and it’s not an appropriate time to make political points. As the Minister has stated, the Electoral Commission has an important role and the main aspect that we were looking for in new appointees to the Electoral Commission was their ability to act in a way which is neutral and to uphold the very important role that the Electoral Commission has within New Zealand. I hope that with almost doubling, or more than doubling the size of the existing electoral commissioners that the Electoral Commission can move from strength to strength. I think it is everyone’s interest in New Zealand and certainly in this House that they continue to act in a manner of the highest integrity independently in the important role that they have in maintaining our elections.

So very happy to support the nomination of these three individuals. I look forward to the Electoral Commission continuing to do a good job. They do hold us here, once we are elected in this House, to account and also those standing for election to account. I hope they do that without fear or favour for the democracy that we are so honoured to be a part of.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (16:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a really important contribution that I’m wanting to make today because the Greens absolutely do not support this Government notice of motion No. 3, which relates to the appointments of people, members, to the Electoral Commission.

Right now, more than ever before, I think, the Electoral Commission’s role and its integrity requires the utmost political neutrality and independence of political view from the work that it does. No more so than with its functions of helping people participate in democracy, so in voting, promoting understanding of our electoral system, and maintaining public confidence in the system. And right at this very moment, unfortunately, there are swathes of public opinion and public thought that shows us that their trust and respect in democracy is really failing. We saw, in local body elections, the last local body elections, some of the most dismal turnouts for democracy, for voting that the country has ever seen. We are seeing, and I’m getting some of our members in South Auckland Greens who are pulling up registration numbers in Māngere and across South Auckland communities and we are seeing some of the lowest registration voting that we have ever seen in this country.

My points were to highlight exactly how important it is right now for the trust and the integrity of the Electoral Commission to be absolutely upheld. Now, under this motion, some changes to the Electoral Commission are happening, which I will get on to shortly. This particular change, the change of increasing the size of the Electoral Commission Board from three members to a maximum of seven, where I understand one of the recommendations in the Independent Electoral Review, and the word “independent” is really important here. So that is one of the recommendations, one of the very few, unfortunately from the Independent Electoral Review that have been followed up on, and only then, partially. So these appointments matter so much right now and I want to, if I can, quote from that very review which says, “The Electoral Commission board should be expanded from three to five members. The Minister of Justice should be required to ensure that the board collectively has skills, experience and expertise in te Tiriti / the Treaty, te ao Māori, and tikanga Māori.” I once again stress that this is from the Independent Electoral Review and that comes to the central reason of why the Green Party will not be supporting these appointments.

Now, on our dissension from this motion, we asked the Parliamentary Library to have a dig to understand when in recent times has there ever been contention to the appointments of members to the Electoral Commission board. None in the past decade, can I just be really clear about that. So we are moving away from well-established traditions here to ensure and do the work, in fact, that there is consensus and agreement across Parliament for such vital appointments to the electoral board.

Now, the Greens wrote to the Minister when we were notified—as soon as we were notified—about the three appointments, the three nominations, and laid out very, very clearly why we had concerns particularly about—and I’ve got the letter right here—David O’Connor, we support. Based on the available information, David O’Connor appears to be neutral, competent, and an appropriate choice.

Sue Elliott: we asked for more information, actually, because we said that the only information publicly available was quite limited and that her prior parliamentary work and later career in Government relations are somewhat opaque. We requested clarification from the Minister on whether she’d previously worked in any political role at Parliament or whether it was solely for Parliamentary Service. And if it was the former, we would not support her appointment because that is a political role.

Then with Murray Jack, we do not support his appointment. We do not support his appointment due to his previous role as a board member of The New Zealand Initiative, a politically active and arguably partisan advocacy organisation.

Given the commission’s need for clear independence, this association raises concerns. We recommend another candidate with similar skills but without political affiliations to be put forward, and, in actual fact, whether or not his personal views, we are unsure, but what we know is from the New Zealand Initiative is that they have consistently sought to undermine Te Tiriti—the Treaty—and any work around upholding Te Tiriti as a foundation document of Aotearoa. Again, I pull us back to the independent electoral review which highlighted that board appointments need to ensure that those skills have been considered. We did a scan, and there are none of those necessary skills to be considered.

We are not—absolutely not—and, actually, over the past 10 years, I go back to, once again, that there has never been anything other than full support of these appointments. In those 10 years, you have had different Governments—you have had different Governments who have been able to appoint to the Electoral Commission board members who are fully supported by the entirety of Parliament. It’s not impossible, clearly. It’s a tradition that we have upheld, clearly.

On this appointment, we make our views very, very clear that especially now, as we have had legislation changes which absolutely, in fact, are making it more difficult, are putting up more barriers for people to be able to vote, not the least being able to register and vote on the same day, we see it as even more important that we ensure that we have, at the very least, that Tiriti expertise, an understanding of the lived experience of our communities across New Zealand who, for many valid reasons, have little trust and faith in the democratic process. We do not see those skills and experiences and understandings in these appointments.

By the way, when we wrote to Minister Goldsmith and highlighted our concerns and our rationales and our very clear reasons why, we did not get any response back, not even an acknowledgment of our letter. We find ourselves now here, having to debate this in the House, and, I will add, having to debate in the House names of people, of citizens who actually deserve to know that they had the full support of the parliamentary floor before their names had to be thrown across it. That needs to go back to the responsible Minister who did not come back to us for conversation. If there is any repercussion from having individuals’ names highlighted, it needs to be worn by the Minister, who did not come back and talk to us about our concerns. Quite simply, even a conversation may have been able to allay our concerns, but we were not even granted that. I make it very clear that one of the key purpose roles of the Electoral Commission is to maintain confidence and integrity into the voting system, and, again, that is why these appointments are so crucial.

I talked before about the example of the Government making it harder for people to participate, by getting rid of same-day enrolment and voting, but we also had removing the right of prisoners to vote—so, once again, an extra lens on the communities most impacted with the most barriers to participate in democracy requires that the board is understanding, representative, or at least skilled in some level of understanding the very people who are not engaging, and why.

I’m proud of getting up for the Green Party today and opposing this motion, opposing these appointments to the Electoral Commission.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (17:04): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT, as ACT’s justice spokesperson, to support this Government motion, appointing three new people to the board of the Electoral Commission.

I actually think that Marama Davidson’s speech was somewhat unfortunate, because I think it conflated a number of things. Firstly, she seemed to be arguing about our electoral law settings, which is not the purpose of this motion today. There’s plenty of time to debate those, and we actually have debated those in the past. Secondly, she actually used this House to call into question some of the qualifications and background of the three appointees, which I think is most unfortunate. I’m sure that if she had taken some more personal responsibility, she could have met with the Minister, who is often in this building and in this House, and found ways to address, maybe, some of the issues she had raised.

Let me, first, thank that three New Zealanders actually putting forward their names, being prepared to serve on the Electoral Commission. They have, as both the Minister and Camilla Belich outlined, actually been involved in the Electoral Commission. They are currently special advisers, which is a role they have been playing. I actually want to thank Sue Elliott, Murray Jack, and David O’Connor for agreeing to actually go on to the Electoral Commission and undertake this role. The Electoral Commission is actually one of the great institutions in our democracy. It actually protects our democracy. It actually makes sure that elections are fairly held. They have already been advising the Electoral Commission on some of the modernisation of the commission, how it can actually effectively deliver the next election, ensuring that quality measures are in place, assurance measures are in place, and they actually are ensuring that there is innovation, strategic direction at the Electoral Commission. I want to really thank them for doing that, and now they’ll be able to do that in their role as board members.

I was actually lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee when it conducted a review into the last election—a review by the Justice Committee; it threw up some issues. The Electoral Commission fully partook in that place. Again, I know that these board members, and the other three members already serving on the board, will be looking at all of the reviews that have been done. We did see some issues around particular polling places in the last election; I know others have raised issues around the integrity of the rolls and enrolment. I think it’s great that these New Zealanders are willing to step up, be on the board, and actually provide that oversight and advice, because, again, as, I think, has already been reflected by most members speaking in this debate, the Electoral Commission plays a very important role in ensuring that we have the free elections that we expect in New Zealand and, as one of the oldest democracies in the world, we should be very proud of how our elections are run, but there’s always the need to be vigilant, make sure the commission is actually tooled for the 21^st century and beyond, new ways of ensuring that people are enrolled, that elections are held fairly, and that the rules that this place has passed will be upheld.

I want to thank again these members for putting themselves forward. ACT will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (17:08): I just want to echo the thoughts and contributions of the member from Labour and the member for ACT in supporting this motion, as we do. The new members—David O’Connor, Sue Elliott ONZM, and Murray Jack—all, to us, seem very, very good at their jobs; they’ve already proven it by being members and advisers of the Electoral Commission, so we are completely in favour of supporting them.

This is a very important role that they conduct on behalf of us all to try and support democracy in the best way they possibly can. It’s fundamental to our society and it’s fundamental to building trust in our electoral system, so we support that.

But I would be a little remiss if I did not mention a small thing, and that is that there is one other role that the commission has that many have not brought up, and that is in the allocation of funding to parties for the election. We are, just maybe, a little disappointed that, while we have been rising in the polls and serving faithfully in this latest session, prior to that we actually earnt more from the Electoral Commission, and we’re kind of wondering why we’ve gone down a little—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well, you may have to wonder elsewhere, because this is not what this part of the motion is about—wonder away outside the House.

Dr DAVID WILSON: That we will, but I would have been remiss. That said, we support the appointment of these advisers. These are august and experienced people, and we support the motion. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (17:10): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to take a call on this notice of motion for the Electoral Commission appointees. What we understand is that this motion will appoint three new members to the Electoral Commission board, who will overlook the up-and-coming election and who will be forced to implement the Government’s many unjust and undemocratic electoral policies. Why I say that—and I think it’s important there is context as to why we will be voting against this particular motion—is that they will oversee the disenfranchisement of up to a hundred thousand people, as enrolments will now be banned in the two weeks leading up to the election. A hundred thousand people: that’s the population of Rotorua and Taupō combined. You’ve got to let that sink in—you’ve got to let that sink in.

The former Attorney-General and National MP Judith Collins stated that these changes will violate the constitutional rights of all New Zealanders. This is what these new appointees will be charged with, in regards to their responsibilities as Electoral Commission appointees, and this is why Te Pāti Māori cannot support this motion. We know that our rangatahi, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian communities will be hit harder by these types of changes. What is the commission doing to rectify these particular changes? I heard the Hon Marama Davidson’s speech, in regards to their obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te ao Māori. Under the Public Service Act 2020, the Crown’s responsibility and relationship with Māori is in developing capability in tikanga and te ao Māori. There are no Māori commissioners on this board. None. Zilch. Nothing. Kore. How can we get public confidence in this commission when there are no Māori sitting at the table?

You have a Māori electoral roll and thousands of Māori—not hundreds, but thousands of Māori—are finding themselves being removed from the Māori roll and on to the general, and we are expected to support an Electoral Commission to have no Māori on it, to be able to build public confidence? One of your appointees, Murray David Jack, I know, has been a part of the New Zealand Initiative, which is part of the Atlas Network. These are some of the things if you dig deeper. You will find that there will be no political independence here—there will be no political independence on this commission—and there will be no voice for Māori on the commission, as Māori face some of the harshest and most blatant voter suppression that we’ve seen in a long time. When our people are going to check to see what roll they’re on, thinking they’ve been on the Māori roll for ever, and they’re now finding themselves on the general roll, what is going on? Who is responsible for that?

These new appointees will be responsible to ensure that there is no voter suppression of Māori and that their obligation, under the Public Service Act 2020, is to develop capability in tikanga and te ao Māori, engage meaningfully with Māori, and improve outcomes for Māori, which we see is not happening. In He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report, the Waitangi Tribunal found that disqualifying prisoners from registering to vote breached the Treaty principles of partnership. This is exactly what the former Attorney-General was talking about when she said that this particular notice of motion violates the constitutional rights of all New Zealanders. We have an issue around the vote breaching “the Treaty principles of partnership, kāwanatanga, tino rangatiratanga, active protection, and equity”. The report recommended that the legislation is amended urgently to remove the disqualification of all prisoners from voting, irrespective of their sentence. He Arotake Pōtitanga Motuhake Independent Electoral Review also recommended that all prisoners should have the right to vote. And every court in this country has ruled that any ban on prisoner voting is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Now, I hope that these new appointees are listening, and I hope the Minister is listening, because to have an absence of a Māori voice sitting around that table to ensure that public confidence in this particular commission is at a suitable level—our people do not have confidence currently in this commission. Absolutely not.

We also cannot forget that this Government have decided to lock the numbers of Māori seats to seven until 2032. There is an eighth seat there right now—there is an eighth seat there right now. There are more Māori on the Māori roll than there are Māori on the general roll, and that’s a fact. That’s a fact, and that number has grown in the last four to six years. This is what this Electoral Commission must be responsible for, to ensure that there is no voter suppression, and when there’s an increase in the electoral roll of Māori, that should be rewarded, for those who want to participate in this country’s “oldest, greatest democracy”, as I’ve heard in some of the other speeches before me. Now, the question to this Government is: where are your Māori representatives on this commission? Where? Who are they? When will Māori have a voice sitting around that table? OK, you might have some advisers, but advisers can be ignored. Advisers and their advice can be considered, but they are not there ensuring that the Māori electoral option is protected and that the Māori electoral option has a voice sitting around that table.

My challenge to this Government and my challenge to the Minister is that he reconsider and have a look at the many professionals and able Māori who are able to sit around that particular table and ensure the protection of the Māori electoral option and the Māori roll. That will give confidence to our people. We’ve been sidelined as advisers, who, like I said, can be overruled, and have been overruled for far too long. We cannot afford to be a bystander, not in this election. We cannot afford to be a bystander. Like I said, the Māori electoral option and the Māori on the Māori roll now outpopulate Māori on the general roll. That should be celebrated and should be rewarded. The Electoral Commission has a big job ahead of them to start building the confidence of Māori here in this country’s democracy.

The Government wants to reduce in effect Te Tiriti o Waitangi across all legislation, so that they only need to “take into account”. We’ve gone past that—“take into account”. It is now time to put a Māori on the Electoral Commission. If not, Te Pāti Māori are calling for a Māori Electoral Commission, to be able to look after the Māori electoral option and to take care of those who want to participate in this country’s democracy. Te Pāti Māori are concerned that the decision not to appoint a single Māori voice to the Electoral Commission board was a deliberate decision to sideline our people, our rights, and our concerns once again. Te Pāti Māori has always been clear: a strong democracy includes everyone, especially those the system has harmed and suppressed for far too long.

We ask the Minister to appoint a representative to the Electoral Commission board who has whakapapa Māori, who is able to engage with our people, developing capability in tikanga and te ao Māori, engaging meaningfully with Māori, and improving outcomes for Māori and the protection of the Māori electoral option. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That, under section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Susan Elizabeth Elliott ONZM, Murray David Jack, and David Brian O’Connor as members of the Electoral Commission, each for a term of three years commencing on the date of appointment.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; 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.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill and the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed from 13 May.

Part 2 Redress system for abuse in care (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill and for consideration of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. We start with the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. When we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 25, including proposed new clause 26: “Redress system for abuse in care”. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:22): Thank you, and hello, Minister. I’d like to ask some questions about the possibility of an amendment which has been put up by Willow-Jean Prime about clauses 9 and 10, which is about changing the structure so that there would be a panel rather than a single officer. The amendment proposes that the Minister would appoint a redress panel and it would involve three to five people who were there to represent survivors, advocates, and experts. They could well come from people who were survivors and they would still have the benefit of a retired judge, a King’s Counsel, or a lawyer of no less than seven years’ experience.

The issue here is really the nature of the problem we have and the need for people who have been involved at that level of actual experience being involved in the process of making these decisions. It is something we heard over and over again from the royal commission—that an extremely important feature of any proper redress was that those people who were most affected would have a part to play in the system itself. There have been lots of discussions about how there has been concern that they have been left out of the loop more than they would have liked—and that is criticism that’s come back on us all—but a panel in this situation would mean that we would be able to look at that. So I would love the Minister to address that issue.

Then, I’d also like to talk about clause 10. This is the part of clause 10 that is about the understanding that people have. It’s related to the other question, but rather than putting up a proposal for a panel, this is an alternative proposal which builds in a knowledge and understanding of the relationship between childhood trauma and criminal behaviour. Given what we’re discussing here, this is an amendment that was put on 13 May by Willow-Jean Prime. What we’re discussing here is that need to understand that, for people who have seriously offended, it hasn’t come out of the blue. We’ve had some discussion about this in other ways, but this is an amendment that’s been put about making sure that we are well aware and across the issue of childhood trauma. That issue is not a kind of cute issue; it’s actually a highly scientific one, so we will need a knowledge that will be changing. It would need to be up-to-date knowledge in that situation, and that would require the panel to have somebody on it who has that kind of understanding. Those are my clause 10 questions. I have questions on other clauses. 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) (17:26): In relation to the first paper that the member was discussing, we did consider this as part of our policy development—whether or not we would have a panel or a single officer—but the decision was made to have a single officer. It was with the appropriate skills and experience, and we consider that to be most efficient, so we won’t be supporting that Amendment Paper.

On the second Amendment Paper that the member asked about, what she is asking has already captured in clause 10(1)(b)(i). This requires a redress officer to have knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice system, the royal commission’s findings, and the impact of abuse in care survivors. This clause was already strengthened by the select committee to make explicit reference to the impact of abuse in care on survivors. The concern behind the amendment has already been addressed and we won’t be supporting it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:27): Thank you. Mr Chair. OK, I’m going to start with a really basic question for you, Minister. Unfortunately, this is something that was probably covered in Part 1, but I just want to check who the redress agency is; that’s fine if you wouldn’t mind answering that. I do have specific questions.

Mr Chair, just for your understanding—sorry, just to recap in terms of what was discussed previously, the last time we read this bill at committee stage, I asked the Minister regarding some of the additional considerations or criteria that we see in clause 10B. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for her response on that in terms of the people that she has worked with in the past that are potentially suitable for this particular role.

I do want to just support the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment in terms of a panel. The reason for that is actually, potentially, something that’s touched on in clause 10B when it comes to the vacation of office. Now, in clause 10B, when we look at vacation of office, I understand the additional thing that’s been put in there is in terms of being removed or resigning at any time. In terms of clauses 10A and 10B, what is not clear in these two clauses is whether any subsequent appointment, if the redress officer resigns or is removed, is going to follow on immediately from the previous person—as in, is there going to be a gap that we’re going to be seeing where there’s no redress officer? I think this is where I want to come back to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment because when you have a panel, if one person is removed or resigns, you still have the baseline of the panel, whereas, potentially, there is a good reason and good explanation for that, but I do want to check with the Minister: in the event of clause 10B, what is the time frame between the previous redress officer resigning or being removed and a new officer commencing?

My final question at this stage is around clause 11, which is “Function of duty of redress officer”. Now, understanding that when we are asking all of these questions, what we are considering is from the perspective of the victim, and understanding that the survivor and victim have trauma and there is a risk of re-traumatising that maybe many of us have never experienced. I think, as a House, we need to acknowledge that not that many of us, if any, have experienced the kind of trauma and abuse that these survivors have experienced.

When we do ask these questions, it’s mainly also from a perspective to reassure, if need be, the survivors that if they are going through this part of the process in Part 2, which details the operational aspect of the redress officer, redress agency, and the whole redress process, it is for them to know that things will be done in an appropriate way. The question then, for clause 11, is this. In clause 11(2), it says that “The redress officer must act independently”, but I note that “independently” doesn’t necessarily equate to “fairly”. I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister has considered that the redress officer must act independently and fairly when making a determination as to what a serious violent or sexual offender should be entitled to.

That’s my final question. So the first question is just very quickly—if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding—who the redress agency is, and I apologise if this has been addressed previously. I do want to address the issue in terms of when there can be a gap between a previous officer and a new officer commencing, and, finally, could she just reassure us that—even if the Minister does not intend to add the new word “fairly”—in the Minister’s interpretation of “independently”, it implies “fairly”. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of fairly simple questions, but they do come off the back of the previous speaker—quite a different question—on clause 10B. When I look at the vacation of office, there are things there like bankruptcy, which are kind of bright lines. They’re very easy to understand. It’s totally appropriate for the trust of that office to not have somebody who is bankrupt in it, and I can understand that. The “inability to perform the functions,” one is a little bit blurred, but probably still justifiable.

What concerns me, really, are the two provisions clause 10B(1)(c), which is “neglect of duty:”, and clause 10B(1)(d), which is “misconduct.” The reason I ask about that is to get a sense from the Minister if that is a broad discretion. When I look there, it says that it’s “to the satisfaction of the Minister:”. What advice has she received and what are the parameters of that discretion that she has, because “neglect of duty:” could be interpreted in quite a political way, potentially, and “misconduct.”, equally, could be interpreted quite broadly. Is there a definition of “misconduct” which is much more narrow, and which we would expect would be about upholding the office of that redress officer, or is there a much broader discretion? If it is narrow, can she please provide the paperwork or advice that shows the parameters of that?

I turn also to the previous things around the qualification of the redress officer in clause 10(1)(b). It’s got a whole bunch of things, including “the ability to work effectively with people from a range of cultures and backgrounds;”, and there’s an “and” afterwards—which is good—and there were a whole lot of “ands” previously. So this is a whole series of qualifications that this person must need.

It is interesting to me, and I know that the Minister probably does have an issue with the explicit mention of Te Tiriti, but we’re talking about an area here where Māori have been significantly overrepresented for decades in the abuse and care system, and many of their socio-economic circumstances have been—and there is evidence of this—a direct result of colonisation and the kinds of pressures Māori communities were under. So while I think it’s a good thing to see a range of cultures and backgrounds, I’d like to understand what officials gave as advice regarding Māori, particularly, and Te Tiriti obligations, and whether she considered to put that in as a safeguard. I know that the Minister doesn’t like it in a lot of other legislation, but with this particular legislation, it would seem highly appropriate. Could she let us know her thinking and logic on that? 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) (17:34): The member shouldn’t presuppose what I do and don’t think about different clauses in other Acts. In relation to clause 10B, the Minister—this is about the neglect of duty and misconduct—the Minister, or me, whoever it is, will be required to act reasonably when making decisions about the removal. This is a really standard removal provision in legislation, and of course those decisions are always subject to judicial review. So that clears that one up.

I want to just go back to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s points and take them one by one. The first one we’ve already discussed, last time, and he’ll be aware of that. It’s just repetition. We’ve already said that the Minister may at any time appoint a redress officer and alternative redress officer. We can have one waiting in the wings, and so if the redress officer for any reason is unable to do his duties or her duties, then that person can take over. We already discussed that.

In relation to the member was asking who the redress agencies are, the redress agencies, of course, are Oranga Tamariki, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Department of Corrections, and Te Puni Kōkiri. It depends which one of those redress agencies is the one that the survivor is bringing their claim through, in relation to this part of the bill. That’s relatively self-evident, I would have thought.

There was one more part around the redress officer having to act fairly. The redress officer of course is going to have to be—well, they’ll have to comply with natural justice requirements. The bill also specifies that the survivor can make submissions to support their application. But I guess, overall—as the member knows—they’ll be a King’s Counsel. You would expect, of course, that along with all those other things I’ve already said, a King’s Counsel will act fairly, and so I think that that is probably just nitpicking at this point.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to comment on the issue over misconduct, because it wasn’t something that I had considered until my friend stood up and talked about it. Of course, there’s a very big difference between misconduct and serious misconduct. Misconduct is actually a range that goes from something very trivial right through. Would the Minister consider what would be more normal would be serious misconduct, because that is a fundamental breach of the employment relationship and that’s the common language. You wouldn’t usually see the word “misconduct” used in that way.

I also want to ask about the independence, but in a very different way. Because I can see that, under clause 10A—and this was discussed by the select committee—there was a decision to make about a five-year term; and there’s also a redress officer being eligible for reappointment. Now, the realities are they if somebody is coming up for reappointment, that that is a carrot that is being dangled. If you have a five-year term and the possibility of reappointment, do you think that that could influence the decision maker and actually erode the independence that’s intended under clause 11(2), because I would be concerned about that.

Those are my questions on clause 11, but if I could go to clause 12 now and ask another question. This is about the agency publishing eligibility criteria, and this has quite different concerns in it, because when I look at those eligibility criteria I don’t see them as consistent with other parts of the bill. If you have a look at clause 20(4), you will a list of things that the redress officer must consider. Those, to me, seem to be relevant as to whether you’re eligible or not, and so they seem additional criteria.

Then, the second part of clause 12(2)(b) is that “a statement that serious violent or sexual offenders are not eligible to receive financial”—a statement must be made, but they are. If you look at—well, there is a presumption that there is ineligibility. The whole point is to look at it again. So it’s not as simple as saying they’re not eligible.

What I’m concerned about is really practical. If you tell people they’re not eligible, they’ll think they’re not eligible. If you don’t tell people the criteria that are listed in clause 24, then they don’t know. Those things should be part of the publication, surely, in this case. The right to reapply in clause 21 and the list in clause 24 seem relevant and contradictory to clause 12; one seems to mislead in terms of what is being told, because, in fact, those people are eligible in certain circumstances. It doesn’t say there is a presumption, it says they are not eligible. Well, are they or aren’t they? Because I understood that the position of the Minister, and she can answer this, was that they are eligible. There’s just a presumption and they should be making those things. Does she agree with me that those criteria should be going in plainly so that people who are looking at this know exactly what those criteria are?

Those are just the two questions. I do have questions about other sections, but I would love an answer to those at this point. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your response. Unfortunately, I wasn’t here for part of Part 1, but I really appreciate the Minister for responding to the question around redress agency. But just want to pick up on something that the Minister’s said, that I think, in some ways, didn’t sit as well with me because the Minister made a comment on my colleague Ingrid Leary’s remark about Treaty clauses. But also want to caution the Minister around using terms like “nitpicking”, because on one hand, it is the role of Parliament when we are scrutinising bills such as this, and ministerial intent is incredibly important, including in each subtle change to the legislation, but I also want to caution the Minister on the assumption of the intention of the House when we are scrutinising the bill.

But with that, I do want to move on to clause 12 and 13—so we are moving through the bill systematically. In terms of clause 12, when we’re looking at “must publish eligibility criteria”, I think the addition by the select committee, “is available free of charge on an internet site maintained by or on behalf of the redress agency”, is an important inclusion to be made. But I also want to ask the Minister that, in instances, particularly when we’re looking at survivors of abuse in care, particularly when we’re looking at, you know, people who are in prison, who are remanded, etc., that we know for the fact that the literacy rate is lower, and we do know the fact that there’s a high level of dyslexia and neurodivergency within that. I do want to check that even including clause 12(1), when we are looking at “that agency is available free of charge,” what I’m not seeing, potentially, is that it is accessible, because, again, that is really important. So if that’s the assumption, again, if that is something that is implied, I would like the Minister to just state that ministerial intent that when we are looking at the criteria that they will be in an accessible format for survivors, especially, I think, you know, previous people have mentioned a large number of survivors are also from the disabled communities. So that’s my first question in terms of clause 12.

Under clause 13, and, in some ways, clause 14—this is the part where I think it’s really important for the Minister to elucidate to the House on her Amendment Papers—Amendment Paper 581. I’m looking at the changes that she has made to clause 13 and clause 14. Now, this is not in the explanatory note on why those changes are being made. So I do want to question the Minister on why has there been a change from “an applicant” to “a person who applies” and “applicant” with “person” in both of those clauses? What is the difference between the terminology when we’re looking at that?

Final question on this particular point is: in clause 14, we’re seeing in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 581, “replace “an applicant” (page 8, line 31) with “a person who applies”, and “replace the “applicant” (page 8, line 33) with “the person.” What he doesn’t state is replace the term “applicant” in the subheading with a “person who applies”—this is page 8, line 30. So what then would then be the implication if the substance of the clause had the terminology changed but not the heading?

So those are my, I guess, three questions regarding clause 12 and 13.

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) (17:45): Thank you. I just wanted respond to Helen White’s question around the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria in clause 20—there’s a simple difference here—are factors to be considered by the redress officer when they’re making their determinations about overturning the presumptions. They are not the eligibility criteria for redress. A serious offender may well be eligible for other forms of redress other than financial, so making sure the eligibility criteria is published is important. Those two things are very separate.

In relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s further nitpicking—it was a technical change made by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to make sure there was consistency in the bill. Thank you for your question, though.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:46): Thank you. I’m just picking up on the many hoops that these presumptions are requiring people who may, ultimately, prove eligible to go through, and Helen White has already raised the issue of what they know about their eligibility, but it appears to me that there are some other hurdles as well. If we look at the grounds on which the redress can be determined, one of them says that they can get redressed provided they don’t “adversely affect public confidence in the redress scheme.” And I’m just curious—that’s in clause 19(2). It’s such a broad iteration of what that could involve. I mean, in whose determination—for example, if there was a lobby group that heard that somebody was going to be applying for this and put public pressure on, is that in itself enough to bring the system into disrepute? And I’m wondering how that kind of coincides with the rules of natural justice. So if the Minister could explain who and how the public confidence in the redress scheme would be addressed.

Then, when we look at what is required to happen, the person who might be eligible is required, before a determination is made under new section 20C, the redress officer must give them the opportunity to put forward information or make submissions. Again, it’s quite silent on how that’s done. How proactive is that duty on the redress officer? Is it an email? Is it just a period of time? Is there a minimum requirement? How is it assessed that the redress officer has given adequate diligence to the duties that they have under new section 20C?

And then, I note, that they can only apply again if the circumstances change once, unless subclause (5) applies. And I’m curious to know that if there was a case such as we have seen in recent history of people who have been locked away for very serious offences like murder for 10-20 years, and have suddenly been found not guilty, and yet they have applied previously, is that caught by clause 21(5) or is there a kind of limitation period? How will that apply if somebody has been found not guilty, but they have already used up the allotment—which is one—of trying to claim redress? What is the guidance around that? Good sense would tell us that that person should be able to get redress. Is the Minister confident that that is possible under subclause (5) even after a long period of 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) (17:49): Just in relation to the questions around the eligibility criteria and whether or not people would be able to understand those, many survivors are legally represented, and that is one of the things that we will provide through the redress scheme, so they have help to understand how the eligibility criteria applies to them. In a similar vein, redress agency staff are trained as part of their job to work with survivors and can help them to understand that criteria.

In relation to this question around bringing the scheme into disrepute, this is a judgment call for the redress officer, considering all of the criteria set out in clause 20. They must provide their reasoning, but in the end it is their judgment call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:50): Thank you, Mr Chair, and, again, thank you, Minister Stanford, for your response. I do acknowledge the fact that that time, particularly with clause 13 and 14, that was nitpicking. I do want to move on to clauses 15 and 16. In terms of the application process that we see here, where the applicants must disclose, in clause 14 etc., when a person then goes through that criminal check, I guess the question kind of remains: what consideration has the Minister had, or in her conversation with the suite of redress agencies, of how to work with the survivors, particularly when all of them need to be police checked, etc., and that again may trigger certain trauma, etc. So how do we mitigate when everyone’s being checked in that case, when we’re looking at clause 14—sorry, actually, clause 13(b) specifies that; clause 15 simply talks about the agency conducting that criminal check.

What’s also not clear when it comes to clause 15, when it comes to the agency conducting the check: is there a standard time frame we’re looking at for when the criminal check should be conducted and when a survivor is expected to get some sort of response from the redress agency on whether their criminal check has been passed or not. When they first apply, for example: is there even an automated response saying, “Please expect to hear back from us within four weeks.”? Is that something that has been considered or discussed with the redress agency?

I think, finally, I want to touch on just the beginning of this, because I think there’s more to unpack when it comes to “Process if a person is serious violent or sexual offender” under clause 16. That is to do with the notification aspect. If the criminal check for the person considers the person to be, essentially, ineligible, how—it says “must notify the person”, I understand. What would that notification also look like? Would that be expected to be in writing in a physical format or in writing in an email format, etc.? Again, I think these are some of the questions that we heard from the survivors, to know what to expect as they go through this process. 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) (17:53): That’s the same question that Ingrid Leary asked before, which I’ll answer now. The procedure will be determined by the redress officer and will have to comply with natural justice. Survivors, of course, would be given a fair opportunity to put forward their submissions, and the redress officer will publish the process that they undertake.

Just clearing up with the member, as already discussed a number of times through this committee of the whole House process: not every single person will be checked with the criminal check—we’ve already discussed this—only those who declare a conviction, and staff are trained to work very sensitively with survivors throughout the process.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:54): Thank you. I’d like to talk about clause 20 and Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment to this clause, which was tabled on 13 May, where she proposes to add a clause to that which allows the consideration of the nature and severity of the person’s history of abuse.

Hon Erica Stanford: What’s the Amendment Paper number?

HELEN WHITE: Oh, sorry, it just says 7.30.09.

Hon Erica Stanford: Yep, got it—thank you.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you very much. So this is quite a substantive argument around this amendment, because the issue is, really, where is that line? The history of abuse and the severity of it is something that the Minister in the chair, Erica Stanford, has already made a line call about, with regard to torture. So where’s that line, and should it be something that an intelligent person takes into account rather than it’s either in or it’s completely out? So I would really like to know about that, particularly with regard to the decision that was made that there is a point where it becomes untenable. Where is the tenable line, and shouldn’t we have a criteria in there that allows discretion that creates fair and reasonable decision-making by doing that? That is clause 20.

I’d also like to talk about another amendment by Willow-Jean Prime, which is around inserting new clause 21A, and that is the potential for—and, so sorry; I appreciate that the Minister’s getting some advice, and this is a totally new point, but shall I just go on? On 21A, there’s a proposal that we put in a right of appeal, that any survivor dissatisfied with the redress officer determination may appeal to the District Court, and that the appeal may be lodged by the survivor or the representatives or estate if the survivor is incapacitated or deceased.

Now, this is a very interesting idea, I think. I have asked the question a while ago—I never got an answer to it—about why anyone would choose this pathway if in fact they were in the category that means there’s going to be a presumption against them given that they could go to the court. I am concerned that this is going to backfire completely and that for the more serious criminal cases, those people will have no real redress. I appreciate that the Minister says that they get something under this and that’s why I’m not right about the eligibility criteria, but, actually, it’s upfront information they need, because they’re choosing pathways—because my understanding is they can choose another pathway. Now, if they choose the other pathway, they’re very likely to become the cases that we hear about where large awards are made because there is no causal connection between their behaviour later in terms of that and the liability of the State for what is abuse. So it’s a serious issue.

This clause seems to me to be quite relevant in terms of allowing an appeal. It allows people a pathway through in this situation, and so it may actually help not create that problem of all the cases where people have been imprisoned for serious offences afterwards going through a different pathway and those people actually being a lot better off financially than ones in the system.

So can I have an answer to whether the Minister is prepared to accept that amendment by the Hon Willow-Jean Prime? I can see you’re ready to answer. 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) (17:58): Right, one by one. I forget who asked this, but it came up earlier about criminal record checks—it might’ve been Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Criminal record checks will be done as soon as practicable and when, also, they are appropriate to be done. So you might find that some agencies that have a backlog of claims will do the criminal check closer to the time when the claim is assessed, as you can imagine.

On the first amendment that Helen White spoke about, the matter has already been considered during policy development and also by the Social Services and Community Committee.

The decision-making framework in clause 20 puts the focus on rehabilitation and offending and steps then taken to avoid further offending. It’s because of the nature of the offending and its impact on victims that it is likely to bring the redress system into disrepute. The risk is mitigated where a serious offender has avoided further offending and/or taken significant steps towards that rehabilitation. Including a factor of the kind proposed may well create a perception that the harm caused to a person in care is to be weighted against the harm caused to the victim of a serious crime, which risks revictimising the victim. Adding experiences of abuse as a consideration would also raise complexities as it would require the redress officer to test the evidence and make a finding of fact about experiences in care. This would be inconsistent with the out of court redress schemes, which do not make findings of fact about a person’s time in care.

Now, that is relevant to the next amendment, as well, that the member spoke of. Again, this was already taken into consideration by the select committee. The nature of the redress officer’s decision means that a judicial review is a more appropriate form of challenge than an appeal. Again, coming back to this matter of fact, an appeal is suitable when the decision involves making a finding of fact and that in the application of the law to the facts as found on appeal, a decision can be found to be right or wrong in fact or law. A judicial review is more appropriate for evaluating decisions such as those that are to be made by a redress officer where the issue is about the reasonableness of the decision rather than the weight that it is right or wrong. So survivors can bring judicial review proceedings if they consider that a decision made by the redress officer is unfair or unreasonable, and the right to seek a judicial review is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed, and we are in committee for further consideration of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill and for consideration of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. We start with the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 2—the debate on clauses 9 to 25, including proposed new clause 26—“Redress system for abuse in care”. The question is, again, that Part 2 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been to the Table and picked up a new amendment, as I understand it, from the Minister. It relates to clause 12, so I appreciate it’s backtracking, but it’s through no fault of my own. It’s an entirely new point. I would like the Minister to explain the amendment. What we seem to have here is an amendment that replaces the “and” with a “with” in clause 12(2)(a)(ii)(C). It’s “counselling or other well-being support; with”, I think. Then we’ve got, after that clause, a subsubparagraph (D) added. It’s going to say, “assistance with accessing care records”. This is about what will published in terms of criteria, so I’d love an explanation for this clause, and I do have a question that’s more where we were going, but I thought it would be good just to open this.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Let’s just clarify that one.

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) (19:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a tabled amendment put forward by Willow-Jean Prime that the majority of parties or members agreed to. When the officials went back through it to make sure that it was consistently applied through the bill, they realised it would be required in clause 12 as well. It’s very straight forward. It’s just to make sure there’s consistency with the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment, which we agreed with and accepted. This is just to make sure that it’s consistently applied.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:32): Thank you very much. That makes a lot of sense. Basically, that was an amendment that was made to Part 1 that has already been voted upon, and so it just makes Part 2 consistent with that, as I understand it.

The next question that I have relates to proposed new clause 25A. That is, again, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment that I’m talking to. Her proposal there is that an apology must be developed in partnership, and she’s talking about developing an apology in partnership with the survivor, and that’s about responding to the particular needs of that particular survivor—so not having a cookie cutter approach but developing that apology with that survivor to make it make sense to them and be meaningful to them. That seems to me an extremely sensible proposal.

One of the things that I did when I was preparing for this was I looked at the people who were the commissioners, basically, on the royal commission. They were extremely esteemed people. Coral Shaw, who I think is one of the most wonderful people in terms of a background in family law. Having done many jobs, she ended up in this one, and her suggestion was that this really needed to be about survivor-led responses and survivor-designed responses. This is absolutely in line with that in terms of what an apology means. I did talk about my concern about what was lacking in what we were doing in terms of the need for an apology in the first part. My question is whether we will look at amending this so that the apology is something that is actually worked out with the survivor. That seems to me something that is of extreme validity and is very much in the spirit of what those commissioners talked about. I would like a response on that. 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) (19:34): The Government is still to formally respond to the specific recommendation from He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu, so it would be premature to codify in this legislation prior to that happening. A response to the royal commission’s recommendations on personal apologies will be formalised after redress Ministers agree a common apologies policy, so we won’t be supporting the amendment.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (19:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to take a question on a clause that we haven’t looked at yet, which is “Reporting obligations of redress officer”. There’s quite a lot of stuff that has been crossed out, and then there’s been a shorter iteration of what’s required. I’m trying to understand, because they’re a little bit different from each other, what the purpose of the reporting obligations are. It appears to me—and the Minister may be able to tell me if this is correct—that initially it looked like this was about collecting information and providing some kind of logical rationale so that legal counsel or others could make a predetermination to assess the merits of a claim, but then it looks like, perhaps, the specificity of that was dangerous from a kind of privacy and sensitivity basis—also for victims—and, therefore, it has been crunched down into something more like a summary. In that case, then, I’m not quite sure what the purpose is, because there are publication requirements. I think the language has been extended so that it’s not just anonymised to the person but to all those involved in the case, but if there isn’t enough detail to provide precedent and principles, then I’m just curious to know what the reporting requirements are, apart from maybe showing that the redress officer is getting through a certain number of cases. I really don’t know. That would be quite useful, and it would be really helpful if the Minister could explain the change in the language and what the liberties involved with that and that required that change are.

The second question is: given the seriousness of what could happen either to those applicants who have their details accidentally revealed—but particularly families or victims of—the bill is silent on whether there is any liability of duty of care on what is published, so what are the safeguards to ensure that that reporting requirement is carried out diligently and that there is recourse if, somehow, there is a breach of the sensitive material that should be kept anonymised according to that clause?

Then, finally, my question is about—sorry, I’ll just put my glasses back on—the “recovery of financial redress” under 24A. Basically, it says that if somebody doesn’t disclose that they’ve got a serious criminal conviction according to clause 13, they could be “liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.”, and it’s the same with a serious violent or sexual offence. But the Minister herself has said that this whole system is predicated on legal advice and legal counsel. I’m curious, when you think of the disparity between the knowledge of the system and the requirements of those who are seeking redress versus that of whoever’s guiding them, why is this a personal liability from that person? Yes, they could go to the Law Society or Law Commission or whatever and try and then make a lawyer or a legal advocate responsible for the failure to disclose, but it seems to me that the burden here is on the wrong person and there should at least be some shared accountability if those seeking to get redress have somehow been misled about the nature and status of their conviction. Of course, if they had an honest belief in that, they could argue it, but it just seems very onerous that all of this falls on them when the Minister, in her own words, has said in relation to previous questions that we don’t have to worry about a lot of things, because legal counsel will be there guiding these people all the way through.

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) (19:39): There are a number of things in there. The very first point that the member made about privacy, essentially, answered her own question, so I don’t need to go there, because she was exactly right. The purpose of the reporting is openness and transparency. There is a privacy part built into this where they’re not allowed to identify any person or report in such a way that identifies a person. That clarifies that.

The report will talk about the number of claims—as you can see in here—that are accepted and that are not, or overturned or not. The decisions are not published. They’re the actual decisions, and not identifying the person is a safeguard.

In relation to her part about point 24, it’s relatively obvious that lawyers are able to advise their clients but they can’t advise their clients on something they don’t know about. It’s very important that we are relying on the honesty of survivors to tell us whether or not they fall within the presumption. They can have all the legal advice in the world, but if they don’t disclose it, to either their lawyer or anyone else, then that is a problem. We are relying on their honesty, and this is a backstop for that.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (19:41): Just to pick up on the Minister’s very helpful answers, my understanding is that if there is a conviction, there is a public record of it, and so the lawyer would be best placed to actually do the due diligence to understand the nature of the crime, and also to warn the client of their duties. Again, it seems to me that there is an ability for the legal counsel and, in fact, a duty for the legal counsel to get that information accurately or at least advise people. That is a disproportionate level of knowledge that they have, versus the person who is seeking it. Especially if you’re signing all sorts of forms while you’re engaging lawyers to do this work, there must be a way that the lawyers can actually do due diligence; not just say “Well, I was misadvised by my clients.”

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:41): Just to take up the issues of the difference—so we’ve got, basically, parallel clauses here under clause 23 and 24, which relate to clauses 13 and 14. One is about the offence that has already happened, and one is about an offence—well, there might be a conviction that happens during the process, so the application’s already made.

I would like to know from the Minister: that second one is that somebody has declared and that has been correct at the time, and it’s their proactive duty to declare after that point, or to tell people that there’s been that kind of conviction since. That’s quite a different duty. I appreciate that the Minister keeps on saying that the lawyers will just know this stuff, but why haven’t we built into the system as a kind of almost administrative point that they would be put on notice over that? We’ve put them on notice about other things, but we haven’t put them on notice about that. That seems to be a bit hit and miss when you’ve got someone who’s halfway through the process. It’s quite different.

I also wanted to know from the Minister: what’s the story with $5,000? How did we arrive at $5,000 as the liability in this case? Is there some sort of scale this was measured against? Is it a pragmatic decision, and, if so, why? How did we arrive at that figure? Thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (19:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am wanting to talk around—actually, is it OK if I start talking around the Amendment Papers from the Minister, or is that in another part?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s in a different part, actually. Sorry—can I just—just one moment. Ah, the amendment to clause 12 is in this part.

KAHURANGI CARTER: The amendment to clause 12. Thank you very much for talking that through.

I’m looking here at Part 2, and wanting to talk, again, about that clause 22 and the reporting that we’re talking about here. Now, the Minister has stated that there’s to be transparency, and, in the redress system for abuse in care departmental report, under clause 22, there are some recommendations here that go further than just the transparency. It’s talking about, here on page 44, departmental comment 307, “Reporting obligations are intended to support open justice.” The transparency is one part of that, so I’d really like to understand how this reiteration of clause 22, Part 2, is achieving that comment there on page 44. The Minister has clearly said that the new reporting clause is around transparency.

In here, it also talks about that public confidence in the redress officer. It would be great to know what, in this clause—what advice was given, why it was decided that these two rewritten clauses were going to build public confidence other than transparency. Transparency is one part of public confidence, but there’s a whole raft of other things. I really wanted to needle into why this, rather than the section that has been crossed out, is actually going to increase public confidence, and where that advice came from. The rest of that comment says that “We consider this important, given the redress officer is a statutory officer that acts independently and is publicly funded in making significant decisions about a person’s right to redress.”

The reporting is talking about the number of applicants, and the number of applicants declined, but that doesn’t really dig into the actual significant decision and the background into the decision about why somebody who has reapplied for redress has been denied. I understand the need for privacy and that aggregated data—sometimes, it’s very obvious who the person that they’re talking about is, so that there is that right of the survivor who is asking for that redress.

But apart from transparency and the applications approved and not approved and the summary, what advice has been given around the public confidence? How is this reporting going to increase public confidence, or at least have that public confidence in this redress system? It’s something that the Minister has talked about a lot: making sure that this doesn’t come into disrepute. So what has been done to make sure that this reporting is actually adequate for public confidence, as stated in the departmental report, and doesn’t bring the system into disrepute, which I know is very important to the Minister?

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) (19:48): At risk of repeating myself, we’ve already been over this part and explained the fact that these changes were made in the Social Services and Community Committee. Because of the feedback that was given, the select committee made these changes in order to protect the individual—the privacy of the people who are going through the system. As I’ve already said, there will only be a very, very, very small number of people who will go through this process, and if you start talking about the reasons for your decisions, they are potentially going to be identifiable. The select committee already went over this. I’ve already said that this is why we’ve removed much of this: to protect their privacy but to strike the balance to provide information to the public about the decisions without identifying those people. We’re traversing old ground.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (19:49): Thank you. Just a very quick question, and it’s really for the Hansard, if that’s all right, under the “Procedure for making determination”, clause 20C(1)(b), it talks about making submissions, and then in subclause (2), it says “the redress officer may determine their own procedures for making a determination.” This is a particularly important clause, in my view.

I’m sure the Minister will appreciate the need for flexibility around whether submissions are written or sometimes could be oral submissions. I’m keen to understand her expectation of how that will be delivered and the duty of care on the redress officer to ensure that the format of the submissions are the most appropriate to determine a fair—to achieve justice, really. Because it could be that they determine a process that they just apply blanket to all individuals, but if that’s not the Minister’s expectation, it would be really good to have that on the Hansard so we can get a sense of the type of flexibility that seems to be indicated in subsection (2) of clause 20C.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clause 12 and amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Papers 569 and 581 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to Part 2, replacing the phrases “serious violent or sexual offenders” and “serious violent or sexual offender”, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 10, 10A, and 10B 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 clauses 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 10(1)(b), inserting new subparagraph (iia) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 12(2), inserting new paragraph (c), 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 20, replacing subclause (2), 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 20(4), inserting new paragraph (ca) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 20, replacing subclause (4A), 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 inserting new clause 21A 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 22(2), inserting new paragraph (c), 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 23 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 24 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 inserting new clause 25A 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 1—no debate. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1 replacing the phrases “serious violent and sexual offenders” and “serious violent and sexual offender” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clauses 1 and 2, which is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have quite a simple question for the Minister regarding the commencement date. This is something that, unfortunately, the explanatory note was not very helpful on, and this is to do with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 582. In the Minister’s Amendment Paper 582, it does specify that clauses 8 to 24A are coming into effect on 1 August 2026, and so I just want to check with the Minister on why that particular change.

Like I said, the explanatory note is, essentially, a repetition of the clause itself, but, more importantly, if it comes into effect on 1 August 2026, what happens in the meantime? I think that that’s a question that I think others would also be interested in knowing and asking.

I’m just also checking that, let’s say, for example, those clauses that come before that, which are clauses 3 to 7—you know, we don’t have a system, yet we do have the rest of the Act coming into force, including the purpose clause, and also the rest in terms of definitions, as well. So I just wanted to check: what was the incentive for that and what are the broader implications? I think that other people may have questions for her, too.

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) (20:07): We have delayed part of the commencement to ensure that we have a redress officer in place to be able to undertake their duties, and so that is the reason for that part being delayed. I believe that was actually something that came out of the select committee. It was a reasonable challenge, and so we’ve just delayed that part so that we can get the redress officer in place.

We already have in place an interim process for new claims since 9 May 2025. That will just continue.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (20:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning to the title, at the moment it reads “Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill”. I think it’s really important that anybody who looks at this bill knows it does what it says on the tin, and yet what’s very clear is that this does not address all areas of abuse in care. If we look at torture, torture is carved out for Lake Alice—in fact, any torture is—and in the commentary to the bill it talks about the fact that the Lake Alice example of torture is the only one that the State has ever formally acknowledged. But there are also provisions where the redress system can be wound up, and so the likelihood is that for all the other types of horrendous abuse that were in those many volumes that we ploughed through—which the Labour members read between us—none of those will ever meet that threshold of torture. So already we can see it as not a redress system for abuse in care. It’s for most examples of abuse in care, but not for that.

The other carve-out is around deceased people. There is no acknowledgment of the fact that many of the survivors of abuse in care died early from physical and mental health issues related to their abuse, and, in fact, there are ongoing severe impacts for family members. Now, those are matters of policy and we cannot adjudicate those here today—that horse has bolted—but I do think there’s an opportunity to actually reflect more accurately what this bill does. Although I don’t have an amendment on the Table, I’d like the Minister to consider whether she could change the title to, say, “Redress System for (Most) Abuse in Care Bill”.

That would be a far more accurate description of what this bill actually does, given that much of it is dedicated to making many—well, a group of survivors, jump through many, many hoops to overcome changes to the presumptions and the burdens that they are required to do, and that is not reflected. Anyone picking up this bill would think that this is going to sort out all the abuse in care—remembering it takes away their rights to other forms of litigation.

So if the Minister could do that. Clearly, Labour disagrees with the bill but that would give us some sense that the bill is more accurate in what it is portraying to do.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:10): Thank you. My suggested amendment is along similar lines, but it’s not identical. One of the things that I would consider necessary in this title for it to be straightforward for the public is that we reflect the conditional nature of what is happening here. That was something that I spoke quite passionately about in terms of the impact of this bill.

My suggestion of a much more realistic title is that the bill is the “Redress System for Some Victims of Abuse in Care Conditional Upon Their Criminal Acts Later Bill.” Now, that’s not me playing cutesy; it actually does tell us what we’re doing here. We are making a redress system that’s conditional upon those things. I, for one, think that that’s a real mistake because we are not actually addressing our own evil as a State. We are not saying that we have done harm to these people in the same way as we are saying it to people who have not engaged in criminal acts of a certain type. Yet we’ve done harm to both. In fact, that harm has rippled through our society because the victims of those perpetrators who were victims themselves, it’s not an accident; it’s a really growing up moment for New Zealanders.

I think it’s really important that we acknowledge that in the title if that’s what we’re doing, that we’re straight-up about it, because otherwise it’s crazy making to tell people this is a redress system in an entirety, for those who have suffered abuse; it’s just simply not accurate. So I would like the Minister to consider a more straightforward, straight-up title which actually carves out those people who are not going to be able to get redress despite the fact that they have been abused in State care.

I would like a title, I’m easy on what it looks like, but I’ve given an indication of what it could be. I think the nature, the conditional nature of our apologies, the “but” that comes after this, “redress, but not for these people”, “sorry, but not for these people”. That’s a really important part of this bill. That’s a decision that was made by the Minister and it was a majority decision by the select committee, and the Labour Party does not believe that is an accurate title in this case. So I would like her comments on that.

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) (20:13): My comments are that if the members have suggestions for title changes, they should put Amendment Papers in.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (20:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the title of this bill, and though I don’t have an amendment in, we know that this title does not represent what this bill is. We have talked throughout this committee of the whole House around reapplication, being able to have a review process for when a survivor is denied redress. We’ve talked about the fact that there needs to be disclosure of a criminal offence that would exclude them from accessing redress, dependent on the officer in charge. We’ve also talked about the random police checks that survivors, even those who have not committed any offence, could be subject to.

The Green Party completely disagrees with this title because it doesn’t explain what this bill actually does. I asked the Minister if they would consider a changing the title of this bill to something that would be more appropriate, something like, “Redress System for Survivors who the Crown Deems Worthy of Redress Bill”, because that is essentially what this bill is doing. I really want the Minister to consider this because we have talked about what the apology that the Minister in charge here gave and that actually now there are conditions on that.

If the Minister didn’t like the title I’ve suggested, “Redress System for Survivors of Abuse in Care who the Crown Deems Worthy Bill”, maybe the Minister could consider another title for this bill, which summarises the debate that we’ve had here and we know that it is completely in line with the Speakers’ rulings to talk about the title and the summary of this debate within this call.

I wonder if the Minister would consider a title that would be, “Redress System for Abuse in Care for a Chosen few Survivors (an Apology is not an Apology) Bill”. That would represent the fact that apologies given don’t hold weight once this bill is actually passed. That is a real shame for all of us because we know how much survivors had to fight to get to where they are.

I have a few more titles that I want the Minister to consider, but I would like to hear her thoughts on the Green Party’s position on the fact that this title does not represent the bill that the Minister has proposed in terms of redress for some survivors of abuse in care, not those who are deemed unworthy by this bill. The fact that those random police checks are going to be imposed on survivors, even those survivors who have not gone on to offend since their abuse in State care. I’d love to hear from the Minister. Thank you.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (20:18): 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 582 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 56—“Amendments to principal Act”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:22): Good evening, Madam Chair. Just before we begin the committee’s discussion, I wanted to, once again, thank the members of the public who took time to provide feedback on the bill, and I also acknowledge the members of this committee who are sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee. The feedback we received has been extremely helpful for better understanding the range of viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed decision.

As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill sets out an important system level reform to clarify roles and responsibilities across our education system and to ensure it can effectively support schools, teachers, and learners. Alongside the bill, I also welcome discussion on the Amendment Paper that was introduced. I believe these are changes that are required now. They look to address recent reports which made concerning findings about the Teaching Council’s performance, ongoing concerns about the lack of visibility and assurance of the progress and wellbeing of home-educated learners, as well as recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care.

I previously expressed my concern that current workforce settings, including those for initial teacher education, are not getting the best outcomes for the delivery of high-quality teaching. The bill shifts responsibility for the professional standard setting from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. This will support better alignment of policy and standard setting and is consistent with other jurisdictions, such as England and Singapore, where standard setting and regulatory functions are separate.

Since the bill’s introduction, two reports have been published with concerning findings about the Teaching Council. The Debbie Francis report and the Public Service Commission’s review have highlighted serious shortcomings in the Teaching Council’s leadership, culture, purpose, and priorities. I’m particularly concerned about the finding that the council has inadequate focus on child protection and safety. This should be its top priority. These reports make it clear that meaningful performance improvements are required, in addition to the changes in the bill, to ensure the council can deliver on its core responsibilities of student safety and quality teaching. That is why the Amendment Paper proposes five further changes to the Teaching Council, focused on elevating the role of child safety in the council’s statutory purpose; strengthening reporting and monitoring arrangements for the council; requiring the council to give effect to Government policy directions, while also confirming the independence of the council’s decision making on individual cases; changing council membership from seven to nine members appointed by the Minister and changing the threshold for removal of appointed council members to be at the Minister’s discretion; and setting appointment term limits for the council’s chief executive. While these changes will strengthen oversight and accountability, I want to be clear that the Teaching Council remains statutorily independent. The council will retain its responsibility for teacher registration and certification, as well as confidence and conduct processes. I consider these changes are necessary to focus the council on its core responsibilities to restore confidence and ensure the council fulfils its role in the public interest.

The Amendment Paper also proposes strengthening the oversight of home education. Those seeking to home educate will be required to meet certain requirements, prescribed in regulations, to maintain an exemption from enrolment in a registered school. I’m progressing this change in response to ongoing concerns about the lack of visibility and assurance around the quality of home education and educational progress and wellbeing of some home-educated learners. The number of home-educated learners has increased, but we lack adequate tools to assess the quality of their learning or to intervene where needed. The proposed changes include a new power to make regulations that will set out what needs to be done to maintain an exemption from enrolling in a registered school. The regulations will provide specific requirements around the regulatory and content of reporting and may also include other requirements, such as assessment. The changes draw on public feedback and testing with the Education Review Office and Ministry of Education regional staff who work closely with home-educated families. The ministry will also consult with the home-education seeker on the development of the regulations before these are finalised to ensure the new requirements are workable.

Another important change in the Amendment Paper is the proposal to make school hostels subject to the same legal requirements for physical restraints that currently apply to schools. Regulation of physical restraint in hostels has been less stringent than it is for schools. Hostels are currently left to set their own policies for the use of physical restraint. The royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care recommended ensuring that there are adequate frameworks to govern restrictive practices for children and young people in care to minimise their use, limit them to last-resort situations, and ensure appropriate safeguards and checks. The proposed changes align hostels with the tighter safeguards in schools by only allowing the use of physical restraint to prevent imminent harm by trained staff with clear reporting and protections for boarders. In practice, I know that most hostels are already applying the same physical-restraint guidelines that apply to schools. This change brings the law up to date with existing practice. The ministry will consult the hostels before the rules are updated to ensure they are appropriate for the hostel context.

In closing, the measures in this bill strengthen the foundations of our education system and improve the support that it provides across the sector. I welcome questions members may have.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that brief introduction, Minister. I wanted to first just check with you, Madam Chair. We are intending to go through the bill because Part 1 is the substantial part, and we’re intending on doing it clause by clause. But we are also noting that, just this morning, the Minister, as the Minister has expressed, released a new amendment book that also has quite a few changes as well, which we want to explore as well, noting that the amendment, despite the Minister’s introduction, has had no public consultation or feedback at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s correct.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: With that in mind, I’m going to start with clause 4, “Section 9 amended (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”, which mention that the “School Property Agency must support the Crown in its responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi;”. Minister, as you can see, I’ve got a couple of amendments. We, understandably, would want the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yet we don’t see that as an agency that’s named in section 6 of the Education and Training Act, which is around “Statement of expectations”. Essentially, section 6 is where the Minister of Education and also the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti may provide joint statements which affect a particular agency’s operations around anything that affects Te Tiriti o Waitangi or touches on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. All of the other Crown entities are named in that list in section 6 but not NZSPA. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is. The Tertiary Education Commission is. Education New Zealand even is. I wondered what the rationale was behind not including that in section 6 of the bill. That is my first question.

Now, moving on to clause 5, “Section 10 amended (Interpretation)”—again, there are quite a few bits, Madam Chair, and so I think that in order for me to work our way through and in a really logical and sensible way, we are doing it clause by clause, which means there are some potentially out-of-alignment themes, because, for example, the Teaching Council touches on multiple clauses and the School Properties Agency touches on multiple clauses. But in the interests of going steadily, I will be intending on doing it clause by clause.

When we are looking at clause 5, “Section 10 amended (Interpretation)”, my first question is this. It is often also common practice when we have specific dates that are relevant to a section only to be part of a definition for that section, as opposed to being a broader interpretation. I’m referring to the whole package of dates that are only pertaining to section 212 of the Act, around charter schools. I’ve got a couple of amendments, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering this, which move those same definitions into the charter school section of the bill, as opposed to keeping it in the broader scope, because then, potentially, you are touching on every aspect—all 669 sections and 26 schedules—of the Education and Training Act.

Moving along, in terms of the next part, it is my amendment around education property. This is Amendment Paper 604, and it has been released. I wanted to check this with the Minister. As the Minister would of course know, section 212R of the Education and Training Act suggests that charter schools can also sit on Crown land, and so I’m curious to know why there is no part of anything to do with the School Property Agency—the NZSPA. We’re going to just abbreviate that for the time being. The NZSPA has no relevance to do with charter schools, and so in this case, which is education property, after new paragraph (a), Amendment Paper 604 introduces new paragraph (aa), which says, “occupied or used by a charter school in accordance with section 212R”. I ask whether that’s something that the Minister would consider.

Finally, just for the time being—because, again, there are a lot of sections to clause 5, as well—the last thing I wanted to touch on the fact that I have an amendment on school property portfolios. The definition says, “means land, buildings, or associated infrastructure”, and I wanted to check whether “land” explicitly includes “fixture”, as well. If the ministerial intent includes fixture, then ignore the amendment. Otherwise, I would ask the Minister to consider the amendment.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:33): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In a minute, I’ll speak to my first amendment, which was time-stamped at 4:30:38. I’ve just checked my email inbox and I’ve had a number of emails from people who are now aware that the Minister of Education’s Amendment Paper 583 contains quite a few changes that have not had the ability for people to submit on—the changes, for example, to remove all of the democratically elected positions on the Teaching Council. That change came subsequent to the select committee, and there is also the ability for the Minister herself to determine not only what is in the curriculum—what she’s teaching our children—but also how they will be taught. That is determined by the Minister.

There were several emails from families where they have children who are home-schooled and who have multiple, different issues, including some families who have neurodiverse children. They are really concerned that they’ve failed to have the democratic right of actually submitting on this legislation, and so I look forward to hearing from the Minister: are we able to read out some of these submissions, or what is the process for New Zealanders impacted by this bill who haven’t had that opportunity to provide any comment or any feedback on these changes before they’re legislated for?

I’d like to speak to my amendment that is in relation to clause 5 in Part 1. This amendment proposes to amend the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, clause 5(3). It proposes to repeal the definition of “initial teacher education programme” in the Education and Training Act, which currently states that “initial teacher education programme means a training programme recognised by the Teaching Council as suitable for people who want to teach”.

Now, when the Minister stood up and spoke, she referred to a couple of different reports on the Teaching Council. She referred to the Debbie Francis report, and she also referred to the Public Service Commission (PSC) report, which was pretty explicit in and around conflicts of interest. I actually have the section here that is in the PSC report. It says, at paragraph 31, that “Conflicts of interest involving public functions and money rightly attract a high degree of scrutiny. The public should be confident that those exercising public functions, and using public money, do so for the right reasons and are not influenced by favouritism or personal benefit. Effective management of contracts and conflicts of interest is critical to maintain trust in public organisations. It is therefore fundamental that organisations in the public sector get this right.”

The Minister is well aware that this amendment that I’m proposing shows that the current chair of the Teaching Council also has their own teacher-training institute, which received $5 million of funding through advocacy—whether it’s through her or through the Tertiary Education Commission Minister. My question is: if this is the paragraph from the report that she’s referred to about the Teaching Council, about conflicts of interest and public functions, how can she reconcile the fact that the current chair of the Teaching Council appears to be conflicted by the very standard she has set in the reports from the Public Service Commission and from Debbie Francis?

We’d be really interested to hear how someone who is responsible for regulating the teaching profession is also able to profit at the same time through their own private teacher-training institute, which received $5 million of Government funding. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:37): None of that has anything to do with the bill, and I won’t be discussing it.

Can I just start by saying just in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about land, about whether it covers fixtures. The answer is that land does cover fixtures, and so I’m glad to clear that up.

Can I also answer the question on clause 6 about the listed entities. The reason that this won’t be listed is because it is not a general direction on all of its business around the Treaty; it is just in relation to Treaty settlements. If we look at the relevant clause in the bill, it is very clear that the School Property Agency has duties, and those duties arise around the fact that school property can be on land that is owned by iwi that has been part of a settlement process or land that may be part of a settlement process. That’s why it relates only to that and it is not on all of its business.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up where the Minister of Education left off. I understand that particular interpretation, but if you are looking at a section of the bill—and I apologise, Madam Chair, because we happen to be discussing this, and I’m jumping ahead just slightly.

If you’re looking at clause 42, new Subpart 5A—and this is around the New Zealand School Property Agency. New section 517F(1)(h) says, “support the Crown in its responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by—”. The definition does not mean just that. The words “including by” doesn’t necessarily imply, from a statutory interpretation perspective, new subparagraph (i) and (ii); it does consider more broadly in terms of giving effect to Te Tiriti. I just wanted to make sure that in that case, the ministerial intent will be different from how the bill has been drafted, and so I wanted to check on that.

The other thing I want to address is what my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has suggested. I want to just pick up on one particular part—and I will discuss this more fully in terms of the bill itself—but when it comes to the changes that we’re making to home-schooling, I’ve noticed in the regulatory impact statement there’s been no consultation. Can I check with the Minister? Has the Minister consulted with the National Council of Home Educators NZ? That’s another question for the Minister to consider.

Now, staying with clause 5, “Section 10 amended”, I want to check with the Minister in terms of my new amendment, which should be arriving—or has arrived—at some stage; apologies to all in the committee because, again, we only saw the Amendment Paper this morning, so there was limited time for us to draft amendments on the amendment. Minister, in there, you have suggested additional, I guess, broadening of scope in terms of child safety, particularly when it comes to restraining, etc. That expands to school hostels, which I think is an important thing to consider. I wondered, Minister, if you have at any point considered also homestays, because, again, as the Minister would know, when it comes to homestays, particularly in regards to international students—and particularly in regards to international students under the age of 18—in the Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021, they are also able to stay in homestays, but we don’t see this similar requirement when it comes to homestays. My new amendment that should be here is also just inserting what the Minister has done in regards to licensed hostels, to also include homestays. If that’s something that the Minister could consider, that will be great.

Now, that is where we are at in terms of clause 5(1). I want to now move on to clause 5—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before you do, Mr Xu-Nan, could you clarify the number of that amendment?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The new amendment doesn’t have a number yet because I literally gave it to the committee about 25 minutes ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah, that’s OK. Thank you. It’s just we have lots of them, so I need to keep track. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It’s one of the three currently unnumbered ones that I’m aware of.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Great, thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Just in terms of clause 5(1A)—and I’m going to ask this as a broad question for the time being, because we can then go down to the specifics of the individual sections and wording—but just the broad aspects of the changes and the moving of the Director of Regulation from currently sitting under the Ministry of Education to the Education Review Office (ERO), as well as absorbing and incorporating additional functions to do with early childhood education, private schools, as well as hostels, that bill just passed at the end of last year. I know there’s an Acting Director of Regulation, but that role hasn’t really had time to truly embed, or knowing of any sort of evaluation of that particular position. What was the rationale of actually moving all of that, and including incorporating all of that—not just the early childhood section but also private schools and hospitals in that?

I think it’s prudent at this stage, while things are settling, if the Minister wanted to just move the Director of Regulation into ERO as an initial period without additional powers and a scope of powers. I would understand that, but having all of those, including additional powers, seems premature at this stage. I just want to check with the Minister regarding the rationale for that, and I’m going to leave it at that. Just to signal to you, Madam Chair, that’s the end of clauses 4 and 5 for me. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:43): Thank you. Look, regarding the home-schooling, we are going to be doing full consultation with the sector on the regulations when they are set. Can I also just make a point that I should have said in my opening address, and that is that Minister Seymour will be here at 9.30 p.m. for the bits of the bill that relate to his part. I’m happy to try and answer them where I can, but he will be here and can give you fulsome answers.

Regarding homestays, they are covered by a code of practice on international student wellbeing. We can’t regulate behaviour in private homes, but it has its own separate code of practice and isn’t part of this bill, and we won’t be including it by your amendment.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:44): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to my tabled amendment 4.30.39, which relates to clause 6. This tabled amendment amends the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. It repeals section 44 of the Education and Training Act 2020. This particular area outlines under which conditions the Secretary for Education may grant a certificate to exempt a student from attendance. To repeal section 44 without acting to address the root causes as to why such an exemption may be needed is to misunderstand the issue of non-attendance entirely. This was one of the parts of the bill that did get to have submissions on it. Some of the submissions received—particularly from principals, actually—made the point that that power should sit with school principals because there is a clearer understanding of some of the underpinning issues of not attending school. That’s, really, the underpinning idea of this amendment.

The problem we have is that, while the Minister will well be aware that attendance has slightly improved in some of higher socio-economic areas, in parts of South Auckland, for example, we have one in four Pasifika students who is not attending school. We’ve actually seen a drop-off at the other end: lower socio-economic areas are having lower attendance in the past year. The view is—and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s words—that surely those school communities would be best placed to understand some of those underpinning reasons why students may not be attending school. From speaking with some of those principals, they would say that every individual case can be quite different, that there might be mental health issues for a parent in one family; there may be family violence issues; there may be issues around affording petrol or the cost of living. Each individual family has its own reasons as to why their child may not be attending school regularly. A more bespoke understanding of those issues actually is the best way of increasing attendance and making it work properly, so I would like her views on my tabled amendment 4.30.39.

I’d just also like to pick up that I appreciate the Minister has stated that the conflicts of interest in and around the Teaching Council were, she said, nothing to do with this bill, but, in fact, the Minister did stand up at the beginning of this debate and highlight and refer to the two different reports on the Teaching Council that were specifically in and around conflicts of interest. My understanding was that part of the reason for the reforms to the Teaching Council that we’re debating tonight was to prevent those conflicts of interests occurring again in the future. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that was part of the reason for this legislation. If we have a current chair of the Teaching Council who clearly has a conflict of interest, is it that the Minister simply doesn’t want to acknowledge that conflict of interest, or maybe she thinks that profiting and regulating the teaching profession simultaneously is acceptable?

There are many people in New Zealand who do not think that is acceptable, so I think the Minister might want to reconsider her view that it has nothing to do with this bill, because I think it’s actually right at the heart of what this bill does. If we’re not prepared to talk about the elephant in the room, which is the current conflict of interest that sits with the existing chair of the Teaching Council, it seems to be double standards. If there have been two reports that have identified a conflict and someone has been removed in the past from the Teaching Council, why do those same standards not apply with the case of the current chair of the Teaching Council? Given this very bill, at the last minute, is removing all of the democratically elected positions on that Teaching Council, you could even argue that he has more power than he did before. I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:49): In relation to exemptions by principals, exemptions will still be granted by principals, but the Secretary for Education will set the rules and criteria and the evidence required for the principals to grant an exemption from attendance. It also removes the five-day rule as well, to allow a little bit more flexibility, but, essentially, the changes in this bill are focused on bringing clarity and consistency, ensuring that principals and schools are clear about what is expected of them. I know that principals are concerned that the changes over attendance exemptions will not adequately reflect student circumstances and needs, but I want to assure those principals that when the ministry develops the rules, they will do this in consultation with the sector but they will set out when exemptions can be used, the grounds for the exemption, the type of evidence a principal must receive, and the duration of the exemption.

Regarding the member’s other claims, I’m not going to be commenting on baseless allegations that are not part of this bill. I will not be speaking to them.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, as I suggested before, I do apologise. There is one thing that I want to address, I think in clause—oh, no; I’m good. I have said to the previous Chair that I am through with my questions for clause 4 and clause 5. However, I would like to draw the Minister of Education’s attention—I appreciate the Minister’s response in terms of the fact that that will get—actually, I’m going to stop that conversation right there because it potentially touches on a particular part of Standing Orders, but I appreciate the Minister’s previous response.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to my amendment which is 19 May, 5.10.07, and also 5.10.08. This is with regards to my new clause 4AAA, section 7 and section 8 amended, on “Tertiary education strategy” and “International education strategy”. Now, I want to check with the Minister, in terms of the tertiary education strategy, whether there’s any particular reason, as we see in other areas, why universities, vocational education and training institutions, and relevant PTEs—private training establishments—are not considered as a part of the group that needs to be explicitly mentioned as bodies that the Minister responsible must consult with before making any significant amendment to the strategy. My amendment simply specifies additional groups or bodies that should be consulted as a part of the tertiary education strategy in a broader education system reform bill.

On top of that, I also think that while it’s important we look at the economic, social, and environmental goals, we should also consider the cultural goals as part of the tertiary education strategy as well. So I want to check with the Minister if she would be open to that.

Now, on to my amendment 5.10.08 on section 8 amended, “International education strategy”. Again, we’re seeing in other areas where, for example, the Tertiary Education Commission, for the tertiary education strategy, is explicitly mentioned as a group that should be consulted as a part of the tertiary education strategy, yet we don’t see the same Crown entity that is in charge of international—indeed, the Crown agency that is actually responsible for implementing the international education strategy, i.e. Education New Zealand, being explicitly mentioned as a body that should be consulted with. So my amendment in 5.10.08 simply just adds Education New Zealand as also an explicit group that should be consulted.

Now, on to clause 6 of the bill. The previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has already mentioned in terms of the broader implications of repealing section 44. I do have an Amendment Paper on that that suggests that we don’t repeal it yet—again, simply because we don’t know the scope of impact that potentially would have.

I guess, on that, particularly when it comes to the impact it will have for rural communities and rural parents, I want to check with the Minister if the repealing of section 44 has—has the Minister consulted with rural communities such as Federated Farmers, etc., and other organisations that potentially would like to weigh in on that section?

Now, moving on to clause 8, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 613. We see that the secretary is now able to make rules on exemption from attendance as opposed to principals having the discretion to make some of those exemptions, but what I’m not seeing in terms of clause 8 of this bill is around specific criteria that is required for the secretary to make those kinds of rules around exemptions. So my Amendment Paper 613 simply lists some potentially broader rules that should be considered—I think some of them have already been touched on by the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen. We’re looking at specific needs of the school; specific needs of a community; the equity index of a school; the impact on certain communities such as disabled communities, Māori communities, and Pasifika communities—whether that is something the Minister would be open to. So I’m going to leave that there, but just signalling to you, Chair, that, with that, I’m ready to move on to between clause 8 and 9 and whatever happens in between.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (20:55): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just have another point in relation to another amendment, 4.30.40, to clause 8. In clause 8, inserting new section 46(1), my amendment proposes to delete the part which reads “which must be consistent with this Act”. Now, this tabled amendment amends the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. Clause 8 outlines that the Secretary for Education—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, what number was that again?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: 4.30.40. I think it’s the time—each of them has been labelled with the time that they were lodged. So, 4 hours 30, and 40 seconds—that’s the way it’s written on my paper. Clause 8 outlines that the Secretary for Education may in fact make rules that must be met for a principal to exempt a student. Removing the part that requires that these rules must be consistent with this Act would allow the Secretary for Education to create rules that take into account specific circumstances. The amendment bill currently under consideration does not take into account any of the root causes of non-attendance, so this making of rules consistent with the Act could therefore be counter-productive.

I’m really interested to understand the Minister of Education’s perspective, because this provision here in clause 8 is emblematic of a bill that’s actually removing local control of anything to do with children’s education. I would’ve thought the Minister, who wants to see an improvement to children’s performance, to children’s educational achievement—that enabling a full understanding of some of the factors in their own areas that are impacting on their ability to learn, and one of those, no doubt, is the school community, the school principal, and teachers having a clear understanding and some say over what those factors are around attendance.

This legislation is just one part where what we’re seeing is a top-down approach where the ability for decision making, the ability to understand children and respond, is being removed and taken up to a higher level, to a ministerial or Secretary for Education level. My concern is that clause 8 is just one more example of our education system being compartmentalised in a way that prevents young people from actually getting the good education so that they’ll be able to succeed well in life. If their own teachers, if their own local communities aren’t able to respond to some of the circumstances that young people are going through, then that potentially removes the ability for teachers, for parents, for those local communities to have a positive impact.

So I’m really interested to hear why the Minister thinks a top-down approach is better in education and why removing decision making, local autonomy, and local communities being able to have a say over what’s happening in their schools—why that is a better pathway for New Zealand to go down.

We know that there are examples overseas where some of these reforms have been implemented and over time we have seen a widening of existing inequalities, a widening and a further entrenching of inequalities, and my fear—and my amendment is for that reason—is that by removing the ability of teachers and principals to have an input around non-attendance and have a local response, having it taken out of their hands and having it overseen by Wellington, that actually removes the ability for those schools to take ownership and respond accordingly to make sure that kids are getting the best education they can. I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s rationale for removing that local autonomy.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:00): My fear and my concern is that kids aren’t turning up to school, and if they don’t turn up to school, their performance will suffer. It is this Government’s intention to make sure that young people are turning up to school so that they can learn and be at Curriculum and live the life that they deserve.

Now, it’s important to this Government that we tighten the criteria around exemptions from attendance. As I’ve already explained, the Secretary for Education will set the guidance around those exemptions and the evidence that’s required. For example, it may be the fact that, if a child is sick for an elongated period of time, some form of evidence may be required. That will be set by the Secretary for Education. I wouldn’t presuppose the types of things that she will require or the criteria that she will put in place, but this is designed to set clear expectations that the number one priority is that we get our kids to school. That may not have been the top priority for the previous Government, but it’s certainly ours.

In terms of the tabled amendment, we won’t be supporting it. All statutory powers have to be consistent with the purpose of the Act, so there is no need to add this amendment.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. I did notice that I’m still waiting for the responses to some of my questions and also my amendments from the Minister. I do want to move on to my next amendment. I’m actually really glad to hear what the Minister has just said in terms of looking at students’ ability to participate, whether it is in class or out of the classroom, and also in terms of work experience and visiting outside of the premises, as far as we’re looking at students being at school, so I’m glad to hear what the Minister said.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two of my tabled amendments—19 May for both; 5.10.17 and 5.10.18. They are inserting clause 8A, “Section 53 amended”, and inserting clause 8A, “Section 82 amended”. The first one in terms of clause 8A, “Section 53 amended”, is around courses, work experience, and visiting outside the school. I want to check with the Minister—and potentially the Minister has a good response for this—why does section 53(5)(a) specify that a student who is currently on work experience, particularly, or an apprenticeship is demonstratively ineligible for, or is not entitled to, payment? I want to check with the Minister why that particular phrasing of section 53(5)(a) is. My recommendation, my amendment, which would replace the word “entitle” with “require”—which also we would see in that particular section around section 53(5)—would allow the ability for our students to, potentially, be paid as part of their work experience. I want to know the overall rationale for why, if a student is getting work experience, they cannot be paid.

My next amendment is “Section 82 amended”. This is the one on “Secretary’s powers when excluded students aged under 16 years”. Now, the Minister just mentioned before in terms of the ideas to get students to school, which I agree with. I completely agree, but when we’re looking at this section, basically, only the secretary is able to allow for the exclusion of a student under the age of 16, under section 82, but there is nothing in section 82 that specifies that the secretary must first be satisfied that the board of a State school or a sponsor has excluded a student aged under 16 years after all possible intervention under section 81 has been exhausted. There seems to be no requirement for the secretary when approving the exclusion of a student under the age of 16 to say, “Oh, we’ve seen that the school has tried everything else, all other forms of interventions, all facilitations, etc., before making a decision.” It could just simply be that it’s implied within section 82. If that is the case, I hope the Minister wouldn’t mind specifying that so we can have it on record.

Now, let us move on to clause 9 of the bill when it comes to “Curriculum statements and national performance measures”. I want to start by saying that one of the things that we did have in the bill—and this is something, again, we’ve heard from the submitters as well during the select committee stage—is the ability for schools and communities to have curriculum statements from local curriculum that reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori. Now, if the Minister says, “Well, that is still implied”, that’s not so much what we’re seeing here, because, again, like the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has stated, the way that things have been changed is that everything is at a national level, and there is no room, as far as I can see, within “Section 90 amended”, that allows the space for local curriculum to develop. That was something that came through quite clearly as part of the select committee stage as well.

I think, with that, I’m done with my questions up until clause 9, and I’m happy to move on to clause 10.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:06): In relation to the question about work experience and the member’s tabled amendment, this is a longstanding section of the Act. It’s not something we’ve looked at. It gets into employment law, so we’re not accepting the amendment.

In relation to the Curriculum, the intention of this part is to take the two existing curriculum statements that set out the what and the how and to combine them into one. That is the change. Now, I’m not entirely sure what the member’s question is getting at, but I don’t think that it’s relevant to this bill. All this is doing is taking two existing curriculum statements and putting them into one.

The member’s question around what goes in the Curriculum is not a part of this bill, but I would make the point that there has always been in the Education Act—for a very long time; since 1989, I think—the ability of the Minister to issue curriculum statements. That’s not changing. It’s just that we’re combining those two into one

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:07): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m on to clause 9. I actually have four separate amendments in relation to clause 9 of the bill, and they are 4.30.41, 4.30.42, 4.30.43, and 4.30.44. As Lawrence Xu-Nan has already stated, this part of the bill allows the Minister herself to determine what students are to be taught and how they are to be assessed. That goes quite far beyond the current Act and, essentially, allows the Minister to give directions. It’s the view of many people, not just inside this Chamber, that that’s outrageous overreach and gives the Minister far too much power over what our children learn and how they learn it, so there are some proposals to amend this overreach in terms of deleting clause 9 or deleting clause 9(1), and even my third paper, 4.30.43, gives some helpful hints as to where the right direction might be.

One for the Minister to consider is that the Minister could consider winding that back slightly in providing foundational curriculum policy statements, which are statements of policy concerning teaching, learning, and assessment that are made for the purposes of underpinning and giving direction to the way in which the Curriculum and assessment responsibilities are to be managed in schools. That’s explicitly provided for in 4.30.43. Another is that national curriculum statements are locally developed curricula. They are statements in areas of knowledge and understanding to be covered by students during the years of schooling. My tabled amendment provides the skills to be developed by students during the years of schooling and desirable levels of knowledge and understanding and skill to be received by students during the years of schooling; and national performance measures, which are targets against which the performance of boards can then be measured if required. This tabled amendment takes away that the Minister is determining exactly what students are to be taught and how they are to be assessed, and it restores a level of local autonomy not just for schools but for the profession as well to enable that level of professional expertise to be utilised.

I’d be really interested to know whether the Minister thinks she herself is an expert; if this bill gives her a power to determine what our children are being taught, and exactly how that teaching is being delivered. Is it her view that she knows better than someone who is a trained professional? I’d be interested to know what experience or background she’s gained in order that she’s somehow got this knowledge-rich ability to determine, greater than anyone who’s professionally trained, exactly what our children should be taught and how they are going to be taught.

I wonder whether it was when she was putting together some episodes of Piha Rescue that she picked up some of the skills that enabled her to then determine what our children should be taught and how they were going to be taught—because we’re all at a loss to understand how the Minister can appoint herself to be the sole determiner of what is in the Curriculum of our kids and how it’s going to be delivered, when it appears the only advice she’s got is from a very small select group of Auckland principals that have her ear. That leaves the rest of New Zealand wondering how we’ve ended up with this bill.

I’m interested to hear, out of my four amendments—4.30.41, 4.30.42, 4.30.43, and 4.30.44—if the Minister would like to wind back some of her autonomy on determining what exactly our children learn and how they should learn it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:11): Firstly, the member is 100 percent, entirely wrong. It has always been, since 1989, the ability of the Minister to set and revoke and amend curriculum statements. Nothing is changing, and it was exactly the same, in fact, when the previous Minister of Education, Minister Chris Hipkins, gazetted the new history curriculum in exactly the same manner. I’d point out that his qualifications and education are probably much the same as mine.

I just would maybe say to the member: it’s just not nice or polite to make nasty comments around my background, because I certainly wouldn’t do that about them.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to clause 10, Minister. This is around the “Review of national curriculum statements by Secretary”.

Now, a couple of things I want to check. “In conducting a review, the Secretary must have regard to”—this is clause new section 90A, subsection (3), inserted by clause 10. I want to check a few things with subsections (a), (b), and (c). The first point is that there is nothing in here—and I’m now looking at my Amendment Paper 617, which inserts a new subsection (3)(d). I think, as part of the review process, what’s really missing—like the previous speaker Hon Ginny Andersen has said—is when the secretary reviews the national Curriculum, nothing in here states that they actually need to consult with the sector or take the experience of the sector on board.

My Amendment Paper 617 simply says that the secretary must have regard to—which also, let’s make it very clear, does not say “give effect to”; “must have regard to”, so then you consider but it doesn’t need to be taken on board, which is fine—but, in that case, my Amendment Paper just says “relevant school sector experience, for example, from educators, principals, and teachers.”

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was the number of your Amendment Paper?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Amendment Paper 617. I also want to note that all three are defined terms under section 10 of the Education and Training Act, and I had to go through all of the definitions to make sure that I made the relevant definitions that are actually in order. So, yes, I want to check whether the Minister would consider my amendment for that, just so that there is reassurance from the sector that they’re also going to be consulted by the secretary, or that the secretary will have regard for their experience.

Also, at the same time, I just want to note as well that I have asked the Minister a number of questions around my amendments for other parts of a particular section and I haven’t really received a lot of responses for some of the other sections. I do want to point out something the Minister said, which is that it’s not in the bill, but as we have seen in terms of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583, new sections actually could just be added or changed as required—since this is, after all, a system reform, which means that everything in the Education and Training Act could be considered as part of the scope of that potential system reform. I do want to hear from the Minister regarding my other amendments, as well, which are in scope.

The other two areas I want to touch on in terms of new section 90A(3) is subsection (3)(b): “relevant evidence, for example, from new developments in educational research”. Now, I am looking at my Amendment Paper 615; there’s nothing in there that says those new developments need to be peer reviewed. That is important, because as an academic, anything that is not peer reviewed by credible sources is not credible, so by just saying “new developments in education research”, there is no confidence in the quality and the robustness of that particular research that could be used by the secretary for Curriculum changes or any sort of Curriculum review. That is concerning from an academic perspective, so my Amendment Paper simply just suggests to the Minister that we should, for both specificity and also clarity, include the word “peer reviewed” as a part of that.

Finally, in a similar vein, when we’re looking at new subsection (3)(c), “international practice relating to the setting of curricula”, I think, in this case, it’s best that particular section is removed from this bill. Now, the reason I say that is there is nothing limiting the secretary from consulting beyond what is (a), (b), and (c)—potentially; the Minister can tell me that. But, by drawing specifically on and mentioning in the legislation “international practice relating to the setting of curricula”, potentially, we lose out on what makes Aotearoa unique and our unique history and culture, because international practice may not be appropriate in the context of Aotearoa. I think it’s actually important for us to not have that there.

Of course, the secretary can always refer to international best practice, to international evidence. Nothing is stopping the secretary from doing that, but explicitly mentioning it seems out of step with what we should really be doing here, which is looking at what works for our students and our kids. This is something we have mentioned before, that students—and you have seen, again, I’m drawing on developments in educational research, as well—learn better when they can relate to the material better. International practice may simply not be relevant or relatable for our students, which then would affect and impair their learning.

I want to check those three amendments with the Minister. Again, just to specify, those are Amendment Papers 615, 616, and 617.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:18): We won’t be supporting any of those amendments. Can I just start by saying, in terms of the standard of evidence required, that there are operational guidelines in place for the ministry, which ensures that the standard of evidence and research they are using meets the member’s expectations. Can I also say that this is already standard practice; it’s just that we’re putting it into legislation to make sure that, in the future, it continues. It’s something that the ministry has long done, and it has those standards of evidence in place.

I want to be clear about this, because the member talked about engagement of young people in the classroom. That is up to the professional judgment of the teacher in the classroom, and that is what they do best: engaging those young people in front of them. The Curriculum is clear about what is taught, but the way that they bring that to life and engage the students in different ways, by bringing all types of context to what they are teaching, is up to the professionalism of the teacher in the class, and so that’s why we won’t be supporting his amendments.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:20): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s comments and questions around clause 10, it probably doesn’t need to be said, but, I think, it’s obvious, I hope, that the Labour Party supports regular curriculum reviews. The objective of constant improvement is one that we all share. But our view, which is shared, really, with the overwhelming majority of submitters, is that the provisions in clause 10 increase ministerial influence at the expense of institutionalised input from educators and independent experts.

I would note that 570 submitters commented on this provision, and not a single one supported it at the select committee. Not a single one said this was a good idea. The departmental report says, “the majority of submitters were concerned the bill extends the Minister’s ability to make and amend the curriculum, shifting authority away from educators, and increasing the risk of political influence.” That pretty much nails it. That was the overwhelming sentiment at select committee.

My questions for the Minister of Education are as follows. What safeguards exist to ensure that the curriculum reviews remain evidence-led, rather than politically directed?

Second, who determines the priorities? I know the subclause says that the secretary must take into account “this and that”, but, other than that, who determines what the priorities are for a particular review? Those things that the secretary must take into account are wide open to interpretation. Any number of things could come into that. Who’s the person or who’s the part of the organisation or the ministry who determines what the specific priorities are for a given review?

Does the Minister accept that one of the strengths of the New Zealand Curriculum to this point has been that it’s largely insulated from short-term political cycles and the ideology of whoever happens to be sitting in the seat she occupies right now?

This might seem a bit basic, but why is it necessary to replace the kind of stewardship and responsibility of educators and experts with explicit power in the hands of the Minister and her secretary?

Does the Minister accept what the New Zealand Principals’ Federation told us at committee, that this clause represents “a fundamental shift from professional sector-led curriculum development to direct ministerial control.”? Does it? Is there any statutory body at all that has any role in checking, giving feedback, or providing any kind of oversight or input into curriculum reviews in the system that she’s putting in place?

In new section 90C, are there any consultation obligations that will apply before curriculum review directions are issued?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:24): I am repeating myself, I think, now for the third time. There is nothing in this bill that shifts any new, extra powers to the Minister; they already existed. There is no change at all. They keep saying that, but it is very clear in the bill that there are no additional ministerial powers. The only thing we are doing, actually, is putting somewhat of a limit on that, which is in practice but not in legislation, about ensuring that these are evidence-led, which was the question by the previous member about ensuring that it’s evidence-led, that is now baked into legislation. Since 1989, there has been the ability of the Minister to set curriculum statements, to revoke them, and to make changes to them. That has not changed. There are no additional powers. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Hopefully, that is the last.

So, no, I don’t agree with those submitters, because there is nothing in this bill that is making those changes. There is wide consultation, as the member may know, going on at the moment, in fact, with the senior secondary curriculum out for a whole consultation. I’d also make the point that it has also been written by the sector. It feels like the members believe that somehow the Minister holds the pen on the curriculum; it is written by experts, by the sector, and, in fact, there are hundreds of writers out there at the moment, writing the senior secondary curriculum, and it is being consulted on at the moment.

But I’ll make the point one final time: there is no additional shift or increase or changes, at all, to the Minister’s power to set curriculum statements. I would also make the point if the previous couple of speakers were so intent on removing the Minister’s power to be able to do that, they had the opportunity to do that in 2020 when they created this Act and made all these changes, but they left the power in there since 1989 of the Minister to set curriculum statements, which is exactly what they did when they introduced the history curriculum. That power has not changed.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:26): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tautokotia ana e au ngā kōrero āpiti o āku hoa i tēnei taha a te Pāti Reipa me te Pāti Kākāriki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I support the additional statements of my colleagues on this side of the Labour Party and the Green Party.]

Ko ētehi o aku nā pātai i te pō nei [some of my questions this evening]—some of my questions and some of my concerns within the Education and Training (Systems Reform) Amendment Bill in the committee stage, coming to Part 1, clause 9, the change from, simply “curriculum statements” to “national curriculum statements” does signal a stronger centralised national approach. Our main concerns are: will hapū, iwi, kura ā iwis—specifically coming from a kura ā iwi school, that there’s a specific dialect, there’s specific curriculums that are taught within our kura that we have concerns about that shape localised communities.

Clause 9, replacement section 90(1)(a)(i) gives the Minister power to decide what students are to be taught, and 90(1)(a)(ii) allows direction over “how the curriculum is to be taught and learnt”. Some of our concerns around that area are that, obviously, that could affect some kaupapa Māori, and that’s what I’m seeking from the Minister of Education, is to clarify that. That could affect kaupapa Māori teaching methods, wānanga style, learning in collective environments, learning practices.

One of those areas specifically in the curriculum is Te Ao Haka. Te Ao Haka is a specific area within education, within the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, where the way that that’s assessed, where they way that that has been performed, the way that is engaged for students is very specific. So making sure that kura Māori, Māori education, the teachers of that specific curriculum still have that self-autonomy to execute that mahi within their students and kura.

Another concern is the five-year cycle. The five-year review cycle gives the secretary ongoing power to remove learning areas and subjects. The concerns that I have—or the questions within that are: who sits at the decision-making tables of those five-year reviews? Will Māori knowledge continue to be reviewed through a Crown lens? Will there be iwi and Māori education experts on that panel that can consistently give advice and expertise kōrero within that panel, or within that five-year review cycle, what does that look like for Māori education?

Also, some of our concerns are around making sure that hapū, iwi, local kura still have the power to make decisions for their tamaiti, that’s the whole standard approach and structure that we’ve had as a kura ā iwi, also as Aho Matua, as kura kaupapa Māori, and there are huge concerns around having this centralised curriculum national approach. Tēnā rā koe.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:30): I think an answer that will incorporate all of the member Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s questions is that the bill clearly allows for different rules for different groups of schools, including kura, Ngā Kura ā Iwi, and Te Rūnanga Nui o Nga Kura Kaupapa Māori. That answers all of her questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. One comment, I think, in response to what the Minister of Education said, before I move on to what’s before clause 11A—new clauses 11AAA and clause 11AAB, inserted by Amendment Paper 583.

Just in terms of one final comment with regards to clause 10: I think, when we are looking at the development of a national curriculum statement, I acknowledge what the Minister is saying in terms of, look, this is something that’s always been there; we’re just now, basically, codifying it, as in putting it in legislation—something that is a standard practice. But, at the same time, what the Minister could have done, which is why we’ve proposed such amendments, is that we actually have the ability to put in more checks and balances and more ability for transparency and accountability around the curriculum. I think that’s kind of where I’m getting at in terms of my amendments. I’m not saying “either or,” but I’m saying that the system could always be improved.

With that, I want to move on to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583, and this is clause 11AAA and clause 11AAB. This is on page 14, “Section 99 amended” and “Section 100 amended”. This is the first part of some of the changes the Minister has made with regards to things like physical restraint at registered school and also in terms of licensed hostels. At registered schools, we have those sort of checks and balances in terms of those requirements, and the thing that was detailed—I cannot remember the specific section number in the Education and Training Act, but, from memory, preceding section 99, there is a whole list of sections that specify the kind of qualifications and training that the person must go through in order to potentially bypass some of those limits.

Can I just check that all of those little things are all captured in clause 11AAA and clause 11AAB? I do see that 11AAA(3) clarifies around the “authorised staff member”, who is trained and authorised to use physical restraint in accordance—but also, you know, only when things are necessary. How is that going to work in a hostel environment as opposed to a school environment? Because, again, that’s quite different. So I just want to check if there’s any additional thinking that’s gone into that.

The next thing I want to check with the Minister is my amendment dated 5.11.20 p.m. 19 May 2026—for the benefit of the Minister at this stage, this is also in the pack that says, “66 tabled amendments”—section 103 amended. I have genuine questions about this section, which are about the title of this section, when it says “guidance and counselling”. “Charter schools must receive guidance and counselling and their parents must be told about certain things”. There is nothing in this bill, nor this section, that actually says what “certain things” are, or that even give a definition of “certain things”. So I want to check with the Minister if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating the committee on what certain things are. So this is section 103 of the Education and Training Act. But, in there, in terms of the ability to tell “certain things”—ambiguously and also disconcertingly—it should—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Excuse me—could you repeat the amendment?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The amendment is 5.10.20 p.m. 19 May 2026.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 5.10.20? All right.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes. It specifies that telling of certain things should only apply to a parent, whereas the preceding section, from memory, also includes things like whānau members or caregiver. I note that sometimes it’s not simply a parent who might be in charge of a child’s wellbeing or care for a child on a day-to-day basis. I’m curious to know why this section doesn’t include whānau members or caregivers. So my amendment simply states that after “parent”, you should also insert “whānau member or a caregiver”.

Now, just on to section 11, and this is my last bit for the current contribution. I’m looking at my Amendment Paper 623. Essentially, for this particular amendment, one of the things that has changed with section 91 is now that rather than the State school “must consult”—the Minister previously also said that State school now “informs”. Sorry, I just need a tiny bit more time, Mr Chair, I do apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yep—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Just one final thing: my amendment is just to ensure that there is some sort of framing or framework around when a school then does decide on a health curriculum. Because now what’s not in section 91 anymore is how and who decides that new curriculum. Is it a school? Is it the ministry and then do it? Like, is it being done on the school; what’s happening in there? But I just want to make sure that my Amendment Paper 623—“after section 91(2) … insert: [new] (2A) In making the content of the health curriculum, the board of a State school”—I’m assuming is the board—“must have regard (without limitation) for: (a) prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993;” and also have regards for consent. Because I think it is important for us to know, when it comes to children’s wellbeing and safety, that any relationship and sexual education contains information on consent and is prohibited from perpetuating harms such as harmful transphobia, homophobia, interphobia, and biphobia that affect people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sexual characteristics. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind addressing that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:36): I’m getting some advice on the first questions that the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raised, because I just need some advice. But on that last part, I would suggest that the member goes and reads the draft health and PE curriculum. It has “consent” in there for the first time; in fact, I did a press release about it. It’s quite a big deal, and it’s really important that consent is taught. It is in the new curriculum, and I suggest that the member goes and has a look at that.

The health curriculum has been written—it has always been a ministry-led curriculum. There’s never been, as far as I’m aware, a health curriculum that has been developed by schools and that doesn’t relate to a national curriculum. So this is us setting the national—or updating and refreshing the existing national curriculum. The changes in this bill are around ensuring that schools aren’t in the middle of quite a difficult situation where they are having to go and consult with their communities. What we’re changing this to is that they just need to say to parents what is in the curriculum. We’re going to be very open about that as well; that’s going to be on the Parent Portal. So we’re setting out in great detail every year what is being—[Interruption] If the member wants to listen, I suggest she just quietens down for a moment, otherwise I’ll sit down and you can ask questions and I won’t answer them. So your choice.

Back to Lawrence Xu-Nan. So this curriculum is set and will be gazetted. It’ll be up to schools to then share details of that curriculum with their parent community, but not to have to consult on it. The reason that we have not required this is because it has put schools in a very difficult position because it is very polarising and there are very strongly held views on either side around this. Now, there was a report done by the Education Review Office that talked about this. In fact, I’ve heard from a lot of schools who said, “Thank you very much for not putting us in the middle of a very divisive issue.” So, instead, it’s being very clearly laid out, every single year, what must be taught, and that will be shared. It is out for consultation at the moment. The member who’s been speaking up during my answer—I suggest that if she’s interested in having a say on what’s in it, that, firstly, she reads it and, secondly, she puts in some of her own comments about what she might like to see in it. I’m not sure that that’s happened. I know that consultation has already closed, and I’m not sure whether or not her or her party have put any recommendations in, but if they haven’t, that would be a great shame, given that they have many opinions.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:40): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I‘d just like to speak to the amendments I have under clause 10. I think there’s six of them, and I can give you the numbers if you would like: 4.30.45, 4.30.46, 4.30.47, 4.30.48, 4.30.49, and 4.30.50—oh, there’s another one—and 4.30.51. All of those pertain to clause 10, and I’d really like to pick up on the Minister of Education’s comment that she doesn’t think that this bill gives her the power to change the curriculum, that that’s already been around. Because from my reading—and please correct me if I’m wrong— the amendment to section 90 and the insertions of new sections 90A and 90B do represent a fundamental shift from professional, sector-led curriculum development to direct ministerial control. That’s the way I read it.

The bill replaces national curriculum statements with curriculum statements, transforming them from frameworks describing what students should learn into prescriptive directives specifying what must be taught and how it is taught. In fact, new section 90A establishes regular reviews, but new section 90B—that’s the important one, 90B, that the Minister could read that part of the bill and explain to me that that doesn’t give her extra powers—allows the Minister to issue or amend a curriculum at any time without any sector input, effectively bypassing any review process. The core issue is not whether the curriculum should provide direction and coherence—it should. The question is whether that direction should come from the collective wisdom of education and some of the people who are in the sector and the communities that it serves, and not from a single political office subject to changing electoral cycles.

Underneath that, and my specific amendments relate to that, it’s really undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi and obligations to mātauranga Māori, because any curriculum framework must protect schools’ obligations to the Treaty and this requires maintaining schools’ ability to localise their curriculum, to engage if they want to with local hapu or iwi, and ensuring that mātauranga Māori is not subject to a veto by her under new section 90B.

The problem is the shift that she says doesn’t exist, the shift from national curriculum statements providing direction while enabling local adaptation to curriculum statements, which are prescriptive and centrally controlled, fundamentally changes the relationship between national direction and local implementation, and that’s the same issue as we were raising under the issue around absenteeism and school attendance. You’re taking the power away from our local communities and you’re installing it in the top in the offices in Wellington, and you need to be accountable back to our communities, and by doing this, it’s removing that accountability.

Centralising the curriculum and reducing local flexibility will significantly limit schools’ ability to do things that they want to like have tikanga and mātauranga Māori relevant to local teaching programmes, and it will limit those abilities for local communities to do it. New section 90B’s override power makes this concrete and it specifies in here—and I can read it—that the Minister must have regard to the Secretary of Education’s recommendation; that they can impose changes whether or not the Secretary has reviewed that curriculum statement, or even reported on it for that matter. Educators contributing their expertise through a formal review process could see that input completely dismissed. The proposed changes in this have that problem with the Treaty.

The other amendments I provided also, I want to highlight, create barriers to inclusive and equitable learning. It’s important to note that equity requires flexibility, and changes like this remove that flexibility from the system. If teachers can’t retain professional discretion to adapt both the curriculum and also their methodology to meet the needs of individual learners, whether that’s neurodiversity or other issues there, that they have the ability to meet those learners’ needs. Any differentiation by school type must be rigorously examined for equity impacts before implementation. Having this prescriptive approach that she will preside over means that it takes away any ability to adapt practice to what each individual leaner may need, and that’s the real risk of this system change. Mr Chair, I still would like to wind up, I’ve got a whole range of ones. I’ll do one more call if that’s OK.

Hon Erica Stanford: Why don’t you just let me answer that one and then—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll let the Minister respond and then we’ll come back to you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:45): At the risk of repeating myself—I think now for the fourth time—there is nothing in this bill that makes any changes to the way that the curriculum statements are made, that they are changed, or that they are revoked. Now, the member is making it sound like there was something existing in the previous Act that said that it had to be sector-led, or there had to be an independent statutory body, or some other type of arrangement that limited the Minister’s power. If the member believes that, I think she should point to the Act where it says that—because it doesn’t. There is nothing in the existing legislation that requires any of those things. It has always been at the Minister’s discretion to issue, revoke, or amend curriculum statements, and nothing is changed. In fact, I’m looking at the existing Act, the Education and Training Act 2020, in front of me at the moment. “The Minister may make the following: foundation curriculum policy [documents]”; “The Minister may make national curriculum statements”. The only thing that this bill is doing is merging those two things together and calling them curriculum statements. There is nothing that is being removed or changed around anything else

I already stated this as well in an answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan—so I’m repeating myself again—teachers in the classroom adapt their teaching practice to meet the needs of the students in front of them in order to engage them and ensure that their learning needs are being met. All we are prescribing, as every Minister has done, including the previous Minister of Education under the previous Government, is setting out what must be taught and the skills that must be gained. The way that the teacher engages the students and brings that to life in the classroom and the things that they bring in to their learning, like mātauranga Māori, is up to the professionalism of the teacher on the ground to engage those students. That has not changed. I’ve already covered this ground a number of times. If the members are still confused, I suggest they read the existing legislation, and then this legislation, and they will see that there is nothing that has changed in terms of the Minister’s ability.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:47): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, I’m pleased the Minister of Education made that reference because my amendment that I was meant to speak to—4.30.48—explicitly relates to new section 90B, inserted by clause 10, which is what we read as the ministerial override power. If the Minister could take time to read 90B and explain how that is not a ministerial override power, then you’re doing better than me because it reads to me that that is exactly what it does.

The problem with new section 90B, and what my amendment seeks to remedy, is that the curriculum—actually, to finish the last point I was making, which was having a prescriptive curriculum that doesn’t allow the room to move is a real concern to inclusive and equitable learning. That was the point I was going to make. Allowing curriculum statements to differ according to school classrooms, year groups, and levels creates a tiered education system that research consistently shows institutional streaming disproportionately disadvantages Māori and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We are worried that the ministerial override power in new section 90B will follow the same outcomes as the United Kingdom when they introduced these measures, and they will further entrench existing inequalities, particularly from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

The point I would like to make next, Mr Chair, in relation to new section 90B, is that the view is that curriculum changes should only occur through a sector-led review process with adequate implementation timeframes, and that’s the difference. We’re having a curriculum that is coming from the top and being implemented.

The combination of sections 90A, regular reviews, and 90B, ministerial changes at will, creates maximum instability in the sector. My proposal is to make an amendment, and it’s important to note that every Curriculum change required substantial work—training teachers, developing resources, redesigning programmes, recalibrating assessments; doing all that work. When the Curriculum can be changed at ministerial discretion, schools face continuous disruption and unstable and unsustainable implementation, and that is exactly what’s been happening, and I suspect that is why she’s paused the Curriculum roll-out—because it’s got to the point where it’s breaking point and there are schools and teachers out there that are just unable to do it. The pause is, I think, a result from that.

The last point I’d like to make in terms of sections 90A and 90B is the removing of community voice from that ability. We have those amendments—I think there were six or seven amendments—to really enable, if education in New Zealand is going to work in a way we’re engaged with our communities, if we really do care about parents getting good, accurate information about their children and their achievements, and that it can’t be just done from Wellington, to people, you need to be engaging with communities and understanding the different needs. A rural high school is going to be very different from an urban primary school or a kura kaupapa Māori*. They are different communities with different needs, and having one single approach from the top to the bottom fails to understand the individual circumstances of not only communities but those students as well. As I’ve highlighted, the risks are we’re able to disown any obligations under the Treaty and we seriously risk further entrenching inequalities within New Zealand and creating barriers to inclusive and equitable learning.

I’m at a loss as to how sections 90A and 90B actually help our young people learn and achieve and succeed when what this appears to do is just create barriers to young people who might learn in a different way, and it fails to understand that not all children learn the same way. I know that the Minister thinks that all brains learn the same, but there is other evidence that shows that different children learn in different ways, and this implementation of sections 90A and 90B completely ignores that evidence.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:52): Firstly, the point of this section is to stop what’s happening at the moment. We’ve been in a situation where we are having to refresh the entire Curriculum at once. We did it back in 2007, and we’re doing it again. It is extraordinarily disruptive, and it was a process that was begun by the previous Government in, I think, 2019. They managed to get one strand of one curriculum out in that six-year period, but the point is that we cannot keep doing this to the sector, where we do it all at once. It is disruptive and it is difficult, and the point of this section is to say, “Actually, let’s look at what other countries do, where they don’t completely change the Curriculum every 20 years, but instead they have small, rolling reviews, ongoing, small tweaks to make sure that the Curriculum up to date all the time.”

Again—I think this is the sixth time I’ve said the same thing—the current section 91 said the Minister can make a curriculum statement. That means the Minister can replace at any time existing—it is at the moment an unfettered ability. That is in the existing legislation. What section 90B does means the Minister can’t do that without the Secretary’s advice, evidence, and research, and all those things. We are actually putting in place a constraint on the Minister’s powers.

The final point is a point I’ve already made, again, around the engagement of the young people in the classroom and the way that the teacher adapts the teaching practice to meet the needs of those children. That, as I’ve already said, now for the third time, will remain at the professional judgment of the teacher in the classroom, for them to be able to make those calls. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. The member may not understand, but that’s not my problem.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:54): I’m standing on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to proposed Amendment Paper 624, and this is in relation to clause 11A. It’s a bit emotional this one, because we’ve been to the Waitangi Tribunal on it, and it is in relation to how our schools give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This clause is seeking the return, the retention, of the way schools can give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, so the amendment states, “(3) After section 127(2)(b): insert (ba) to ensure that the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi:”.

I want to pay tribute to Ngāti Hine and Te Kapotai and our education leaders who took the urgent claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 3553, and successfully argued cases on behalf of the thousands of voices of support, the hundreds of schools, and the 70 percent of the education sector that stood up and shared through Te Rārangi Rangatira that they support and will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi locally, in community, as allies and supporters, and that their students, tamariki, and mokopuna would learn these key fundamental tenets of our Aotearoa New Zealand of today.

What the Waitangi Tribunal shared with us in their recommendations and findings is that there has been a neglect of the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown, and that the decision to pursue these significant amendments in the removal of Te Tiriti obligations and giving effect to Te Tiriti locally degrades the relationship between te Kāwanatanga and tangata whenua. We’ve heard in the media that the Minister is doing this because the Tiriti relationship sits with her on behalf of the Kāwanatanga rather than at a school level or a board level, so my question to the Minister is: how has the Minister, as the mana holder, taken on board this huge relationship of being the relationship holder with tangata whenua and uri of the signatories of Te Tiriti, in taking these changes to them? How have tangata whenua worked alongside the Minister in reaching this stage whereby the proposal is to remove this part of the legislation that provided the space for giving effect to Te Tiriti? If the mana sits with the Minister, how does it come into effect? What is the actual embodiment of it?

We’ve seen clearly in the reporting from Crown officials that there’s been no consultation. I must be living under a rock somewhere in Whangārei, where education leaders have said, “We haven’t been asked, either. We haven’t been asked at all. We value the way in which, through legislation, we are required to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, through that, then go and build those relationships with local hapū, iwi, and kāinga, to work together on curriculum development, adopting Mātauranga Māori and working in the way that they can deliver and strengthen those relationships.”

My pātai is to the Minister: will she consider following the recommendations and findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, backed by some 70 percent of our schools across the motu, re-establish and uphold the fact that schools must give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if not, how does the Minister, as the mana holder, demonstrate that she will value the iwi Māori relationship and that she has done that through this process, and how will the breach and the undermining and the degrading of the Māori-Crown relationship be healed through this process? The Waitangi Tribunal has been very clear in its direction. The claimants and education sector support the recommendations and findings. The pātai is: ka pēhea [how]? How are we going to repair what has been damaged thus far?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (21:59): I’ve said publicly on a number of occasions—and the member referred to it—that the Treaty duty sits between the Crown and iwi Māori, and I take that duty very seriously. The Crown entities that are school boards are legally separate from the Crown, and to delegate a Treaty duty to a Crown entity that is legally separate from the Crown is, in Cabinet’s view, not something that we want to do. It has been a Cabinet decision.

The member asks how we uphold that Treaty obligation, and I point her to article 3, which is around ensuring that the outcomes for tamariki Māori are raised and are the same as every other student. Through our work programme, the member will have seen that we established a Māori ministerial advisory group, and I was very pleased to announce today that the Hon Kelvin Davis is now a part of it. They are ensuring that our entire work programme is around raising Māori achievement. That is how we are giving effect to the Treaty, to make sure that all tamariki Māori have the ability to succeed at school and then in life, in further education or in employment.

It is well documented, although the media tend not to cover it, all of the efforts we’re putting into not only resourcing, curriculum assessments, supporting the workforce to make sure that Māori, regardless of whether they are learning in Māori-medium, kura kaupapa, or in mainstream, have that ability to succeed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 10.01 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Extended Sitting

Wednesday, 20 May 2026

Bills

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, members. The committee is resumed on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. When we suspended last night, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to see the Government parties being so enthusiastic about taking a call this early in the morning, considering we still have quite a bit of this bill to go, as well as the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583—without consultation, without select committee—to discuss as well. On top of that, I think it is important to remind the committee again that this is a system reform bill; it reforms the entirety of the education system, from early childhood education all the way up to tertiary level, which we have seen in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, which also touches on tertiary. There are quite a few things to discuss, and no doubt my colleagues will have more to say regarding clause 11A, around section 127.

I actually want to move on to a clause a little bit further along, noting that I don’t actually have any questions for clauses 13 to 16. I actually think that they do spell it out quite clearly, so I’m actually going to move on to clause 17. Now, new sections 170A and 170C are new sections. This is around the State schools of serious concern. Again, we’ve heard from submitters around that. This partly ties into—just signalling to you, Mr Chair—one of my further questions around clause 25. The first question is: when we are looking at State schools of serious concern, what is unclear in here is whether this is something that the Minister would then use to convert schools to charter schools, in terms of forced conversion?

If the Minister could also recall back to when we did the debate for the education and training bill (No 1) back in 2024, the Minister was very clear that the delegated power to convert schools from State schools to charter schools remained with the Minister of Education and did not delegate that to any other Minister. So, for this particular new section, is this something that we’re looking at? Also, in terms of the details, I want to check, because I cannot find a reference point anywhere else in the Education and Training Act on the dates—on the timing or the time frame—that have been used here, in terms of new section 170A(2), “The Chief Review Officer must notify the Secretary and the Minister of their view within 2 working days”. Then, when we get to new section 170B: “The report must be given within 28 working days”, to the Secretary.

I do want to check with you, Minister, where those dates came from, as a starting point. This is more of, I guess, in some ways a procedural element. I do have a couple of amendments to this particular new section. I’ve got a couple of amendments in terms of the date and the timing, but one of the amendments that I want to check with the Minister is: the other thing, when it comes to State schools of serious concern, broadly, is that schools don’t necessarily operate in a silo. When we are looking at a school of serious concern, often there could be internal management and administration concerns, but a lot of the time some of the concerns are also broader and more societal and more based in the community, as opposed to specifically the school that is of concern itself.

In that case, I want to test with the Minister if the Minister would consider an amendment from me to new section 170C(2), after paragraph (c), which is: “The Secretary must give the Chief Review Officer and the Minister a written report that sets out—(d) any relevant information about the school community.” I think that’s really important, to also help contextualise what are some of the broader issues when it comes to State schools of serious concern.

Those are my first questions to the Minister. Just to recap: on clause 17, when we’re looking at State schools of serious concern, we’re looking at where those dates came from—what is a reference point, if there are any other reference points in the Education and Training Act? My amendment is Amendment Paper 629.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:05): Three questions can be dealt with quite quickly. The background to this is that there are schools who have been failing for years and years and years, and the Ministry of Education are not getting on to them quickly enough to make sure that we’re providing the resources, the tools, and the interventions, in terms of limited statutory managers, commissioners, resourcing, or help to make sure that they get what they need to turn around. It is our view, after taking advice, that we need to make sure there is something in the system that requires a report to be made quite quickly so that we can get on to that. The bill is about raising that concern early.

Consideration was given to make sure that the Education Review Office (ERO) has enough time to properly write a report and get feedback from the school and do their investigation, but we want to know immediately. When ERO is in there and if they have a concern—a serious concern—about a school, that needs to be raised almost immediately. That is where those 48 hours comes from, and another 28 days for them to ensure that they are working with the school—understanding, as the member said, all of those issues that a school might be facing—to write a report to the Secretary for Education, and then that Secretary for Education has 30 days after that.

However, I would note that, while context is important, it is important that when young people go to school, they get the very best education despite the circumstances they come from. They may come from a deprived household or a deprived area, but when they turn up to school, they have the very best Curriculum, the very best teachers, the very best resources so that they get an opportunity to turn their lives around. So, while societal concerns are always taken into account, we are interested in what resources the schools need to provide the very best education. ERO will look at those during their report but I will not be supporting the member’s Amendment Paper, because that is the job for ERO to look at when they’re doing their report, not the Secretary for Education.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:07): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do have a point on schools of concern, but I have, I think, four amendments and their numbers are 4.30.53, 4.30.54, 4.30.55 and 4.30.56—actually, also 4.30.57. They’re all in relation to amendments to clause 11, clause 12, clause 13, clause 14, and clause 16.

I’d be really interested to know, particularly the Minister’s views on amendment 4.30.55 that I’ve provided, and this tabled amendment amends clause 13 of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, and moves responsibility from the Secretary for Education to the board of the School Property Agency for allowing school boards to grant leases or licences on land. This amendment deletes that change to ensure split responsibility and, therefore, cooperation between the ministry and the new agency for school property.

We do know that this is a big issue for local schools. I acknowledge that the new property entity is, potentially, going to make life better. Hopefully, principals and schools will spend less time concerning themselves. But there have been real concerns that have been raised, not just from the education sector but from communities themselves, that there will be a slackening of community autonomy in and around decision making around school property with this shift. I’m interested to know the Minister’s views on my amendment 4.30.55.

The other one which I’ve referred to, which is 4.30.53, is in and around also having student involvement and peer involvement over health education and how that works. While we briefly discussed that last night, I didn’t get the opportunity to really ask the Minister whether she’d consider my amendment 4.30.53 to ensure that students also have agency over what health education they get access to, and acknowledging that this is a sensitive area.

It’s great that we’ve got consent coming back into the curriculum, but there are a range of other issues that young people are struggling with at times. It would be really interesting to know whether the Minister would consider having a student voice in some of those determinations about what is consulted on and what they are able to be informed about. That might be a really useful way of understanding, maybe, what young people need, what sorts of skills they want to be able to navigate a very different and changing world, and having a greater element of student voice in and around those areas. I’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s views out of all of those amendments—4.30.53, in and around the health education and how that’s progressing, and, secondly, on 4.30.55, the ability to have split responsibility and cooperation between the ministry and the new agency for school property.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (09:11): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, now, I’m aware that this a late Amendment Paper; however, if members are going to make long speeches, this is the time of the debate—we’ve been going 2½ hours, nearly—where we would expect to be very tight around questions and referring to the parts of the bill that are going to be talked to, and to be making progress. After this, that will be very closely watched.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for your response, Minister, but I think one of the questions that you haven’t responded to, whether—I acknowledge the fact that the idea is working with the State schools of serious concern when it comes to ensuring they have the right resources, but one of the questions that I asked the Minister around forced conversion is something that the Minister hasn’t responded to. That ties in really nicely to the section I’m actually going to be speaking to next. I know that, again, my colleagues might have had additional points to cover previously, but I do want to check, in terms of—and I’m actually going to skip a couple of sections, noting that the questions around charter schools particularly, when we were looking at clauses 20, 21, 22, and 23, the Minister may not be able to answer fully if that’s not her delegation. But I will want to check something with the Minister on clause 25, and this is new sections 212ZEA and 212ZEB.

Noting what I mentioned before about Ministers’ oversight of State schools and conversion to charter schools, I want to check—with the question I had before about forced conversion of schools of serious concern—in this case, in clause 25, is that the Minister as in the Minister in the chair’s responsibility as the Minister of Education or the delegated Minister who is responsible for charter schools? Who is in charge of this particular section—if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying? Particularly when it says in 212ZEB that the “Minister must establish replacement State school”—is that the Minister in the chair? Is that the associate Minister? Is that both? I think that’s an important question to ask.

The other thing that I’ve noticed that is quite peculiar about this particular section—and, again, I want to be on the record to say that this section was something that we had proposed an amendment to back in the Education and Training Amendment Bill 2024, where we addressed the concern that there is no opportunity for charter schools to convert back. I am glad to see that it’s being included in the bill. But what I want to check is that in 212ZEB(3), “the Minister is not required to establish a replacement … school if … 1 or more of the following apply”, and (c) is that “there is insufficient community support for integration of the school”. However, what it doesn’t say is whether the Minister must establish a replacement State integrated school or State school—this is both for, let’s say, 212ZEB(3) and 212ZEB(6)—if there is sufficient community support for such a school. Subsection (3) is if “1 or more of the following apply”, so in a scenario, what you could have is the Crown could decide that there would be significant financial implications, despite there being sufficient community support for a State school or State integrated school.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two of my amendments—this is 19 May 2026, 9.25.10, and 19 May 2026, 9.25.11; this is part of the pack that says 131 amendments—just to say that despite subsection (3) and subsection (6), the Minister must establish a replacement State school or State integrated school if there is sufficient community support for the integration of a school or sufficient community support for the school. I think that is important for the community who wants to have a school back in their community, and the Crown can just say, “Well, we’re not going to do that. Go somewhere else, because we don’t think it’s financially viable.”

I just want to start by asking if the Minister is open to those two amendments and any other questions I have around this section regarding forced conversion and ministerial delegation. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:16): In relation to those questions, the first one about who has a delegation is not a change in this bill. It’s not in scope.

In relation to the question around the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) in cooperation with the ministry, the first point I’d make is this is about separating the ministry from school property so we get better delivery, better communication with schools, better value for money, and ensuring that the ministry are the policy shop and that the NZSPA are doing the job in school property. However, there are still some things that sit with the ministry, like network planning, and that is how they will be involved. They will still need to cooperate, but we do not need to put that in legislation, so we won’t be supporting any amendments around that.

In relation to the proposed amendment from Ginny Andersen about “as long as the student agrees”, we won’t be supporting this. It is very difficult to get informed consent from an 8-year-old. We think that it’s better getting that consent from their parents. That makes much more sense. We will not be supporting that.

In relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around the change of a charter school back to the State, I just want to make the point that in the time that a charter school has been operating, there may be some instances where surrounding State schools have been growing, given more classrooms. A new State school may have popped up. It may not make financial sense or network sense in that regard, because we have ensured that the network is fully prepared for the students. There may also not be sufficient community support. But the starting point is that the Minister will convert back unless those things are in play—there’s no community support, or the fact is that, actually, we just built a new school down the road and there is no longer sufficient need or it’s not justified financially.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:18): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m specifically following up on a response to a question, in the life span of the debate, about 21 minutes ago—the last response that the Minister gave last night to this question around clause 11A on the consequential part of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our education system. It was a question put by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon. The Minister’s response in regards to diminishing the status of the Treaty in the legislative framework around education was that schools and the Government are legally separate entities. I’d invite the Minister to draw out that reflection. My question is: is not the State, in State schools, enabling an agent, which is to say State schools are agents of the State, and they are fulfilling the policy expectations of the State, as manifest in the Government of the day, in terms of the way that they undertake their public education?

Even if you presume a degree of legal separation, there is not constitutional separation between the State and those entities within the State—certainly those who are acting as agents of the educational objectives of the Government. Can you please explain, Minister, or respond to whether there is a way to credibly argue that in the formulation of the curriculum and in the formulation of the expectations placed on a school and our schools the country, they are somehow not acting as agents of the State and therefore the Crown? If the Crown has obligations to our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, how can it possibly be that the agents of the Crown don’t have those same obligations? That is exactly why it needs to be articulated and made plainly clear in the structure of the expectations placed on those schools, and the legislative direction placed on those schools, that the Treaty must be upheld and given effect to.

A matter of clarity: there’s a very practical reason for this. In living memory, people were punished for speaking te reo Māori in our schools. I met a man down Tūwharetoa—a Kawerau kaumātua who was beaten for speaking his language in the 1950s. There’s a very sound reason for why it needs to be made clear to schools about their obligations to uphold the Treaty, our founding agreement. My final question is: in removing Treaty obligations from being placed directly on schools, is that not in and of itself a breach of the Treaty on the part of the Crown?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:22): Right, we dealt with this last night, but I’ll deal with it again. State schools are legally separate from the Crown—section 124 of the Education and Training Act—they are not part of the core Crown. The Treaty duty sits with the Ministers and departments. The Waitangi Tribunal and Crown Law are very clear on this, and it’s the same as the law for other Crown entities as well. I want to make—

Steve Abel: Are they constitutionally separate, though?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I want to draw the member’s attention to the fact that in both section 127, and also around the establishment of NZSPA, the New Zealand School Property Agency, you will note that it says, “the New Zealand School Property Agency must support the Crown in its responsibility to give effect to [the Treaty of Waitangi]”. It’s exactly the same for school boards. In section 127, we are very clear on the duties that school boards—

Hūhana Lyndon: What’s your reply to National Iwi Chairs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If you want to listen rather than yell at me, I suggest you just be quiet. In section 127, it lays out very clearly the duties school boards must undertake to support our responsibility as the Crown and me as the Minister in discharging our duties under the Treaty of Waitangi, because that’s where they sit.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (09:23): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I suggest that members move forward. Going backwards and repeating questions from previously is not advancing.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:23): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Before I get onto my tabled amendments, which I’ll speak to directly from the bill, I just want to point out that the Minister earlier on did say that the Associate Minister, the Hon David Seymour, would be available in the House specifically to answer questions around early childhood education (ECE), which we haven’t been able to question in this bill. He popped down and then he ran away again. I’m just flagging that we have questions around ECE and our spokesperson would like to ask those, so we would like to know, if the Minister herself is unable to answer those, will he be coming back down?

Hon Erica Stanford: He’s here at 9.30 a.m.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: At 9.30 a.m.—that’s wonderful. The other point I would like to make before getting on to my tabled amendments is that in Amendment Paper 583, which was tabled yesterday, there are a number of changes there that did not go through select committee. There are Speaker’s Rulings—I think it’s 125/8—that show that if there has not been a democratic process—I’m just highlighting that we, as members of Parliament, are being directly asked by members of the public who are impacted by this legislation and who have been denied their democratic right to submit at select committee. This is the only process for them to have their views heard, so I think that’s important to note that.

I have tabled a series of amendments, and I’ll put them together in a group so that we’re making good progress. Those amendments were lodged at 4.30.58 p.m., 4.30.59 p.m., 4.31.00 p.m., 4.31.01 p.m., and they all concern the issue—the problem of this bill is that it does not define “serious concern”; it makes that designation entirely subjective. I want to know from the Minister, will attendance issues trigger an intervention? Will it be poor NCEA outcomes that would trigger an intervention? Would it be staffing instability that would trigger an intervention? Or is it financial difficulties for the school, resourcing, that would require that label to be put on schools?

This bill provides no guidance, leaving schools potentially very vulnerable to arbitrary designation. There is a strong view out there, and my amendments try to assist the Minister to fix this up, that it potentially enables a biased application. Research consistently shows that schools serving Māori, Pasifika communities, and low socio-economic students face greater scrutiny and harsher judgment than schools serving more privileged populations, even when performance differences are explained by systemic factors. Without having a clear definition in this bill of what “serious concern” actually means, the label risks being disproportionately applied to schools serving marginalised communities.

That’s out fundamental concern with this entire bill—that it will continue to further entrench existing inequalities in New Zealand. This example here is the prime one of that. It demonstrates clearly that after system was implemented in the United Kingdom, it further entrenched existing inequalities. Our concern is that clause 17 of this bill, by labelling schools of serious concern, not only creates sector-wide uncertainty, but it also disproportionately impacts schools that are already marginalised.

I’d be really interested in whether the Minister would consider my amendments to prohibit forced charter school conversions entirely, and that schools should only become a charter school through community choice, not a Government imposition. We think that you should remove section 212G(1) of the Education and Training Act to ensure that the “schools of serious concern” provision cannot be used to justify privatisation. I’m really interested to hear the Minister’s views on those amendment papers.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:27): Just in relation to the first part of that contribution around schools of serious concern: it is a judgment call by the chief review officer. They are they education expert, and I expect it to be focused on educational quality, and all of the things that the member mentioned in her contribution will be taken into account. I would make the point that the Education Review Office (ERO) already do this. They already label schools with “of serious concern”. The issue here is that they’re not raising it quickly enough with the Ministry, and we are not making sure we’re getting on to it quickly enough. These things already exist.

I would point the member towards ERO’s new reporting, to go and have a look at it, because when you understand the new reporting framework, we were very clear that it was important—and ERO do this, but I wanted it codified in their reporting—to make sure that they’re not just looking at school performance but value-add. What is the progress—where were children at, and what is the progress that they’ve made? What is the value-add and the benefit that those students have gained by attending that school. That is going to be very important, and ERO consulted widely when they were looking at their new reporting.

While, yes, it is important for ERO to look to make sure that if there are schools that are failing seriously, they get on to that really quickly, they are looking across the boards at all different decile schools, or Equity Index schools, to look at that value-add piece. However, I’d make the point that the schools of serious concern are often in our impoverished communities. They are often serving the most disadvantaged students, and we owe it to those families and those communities to make sure that their school has all of the supports that they need to be successful—to turn their lives around. I make no apology for the fact that we are going to be going in, we are going to be looking at what the issues are in the school and making sure that those schools have the supports and the timely supports to turn it around. Because some of those schools have been failing for decades; and families who are unable to move, unable to afford private schooling or after-school tuition, or don’t have the time because they’re working multiple jobs or have complex lives, unable to help their children at home, those kids just keep failing. I’m not prepared to sit by and see what’s been happening for decades in our country where we just ignore the problems. This bill is about getting on to it quickly and making sure we have the tools to support those schools so that when those kids turn up to school, they have the opportunity to experience a world-leading education system to turn their lives around.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to signal to you, Mr Chair, I am now moving on to a new section and this is something that we’ll probably spend a little time discussing because it touches on the Minister of Education’s Amendment Paper 583, so we’re looking at the changes to the Teaching Council from clause 33 to 38B, and we’ll kind of be going through that, because a substantial part of that was introduced in an Amendment Paper that was released yesterday without public consultation for that advice. Just seeking clarity from you, Mr Chair, that we’re able to potentially, with the Amendment Paper from yesterday, discuss more broadly in terms of some of the intent behind it because we haven’t been able to see it or have any select committee process on it. Would that be appropriate? Checking.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, yes, but by questions and by way of elaboration and clarification.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, absolutely. And I will be referring to specific clauses.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Rather than five-minute speeches on alternatives.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: If alternative means Amendment Papers, yes, we do have a number of—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Commentary might be a better word.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Ah, cool. Thank you, Mr Chair, but I also just wanted to note what the Minister said before, and I think it’s also important potentially for the other side of the Chamber to also recognise that there’s still quite a bit of this bill to go as well. I want to start by looking at clause 33. Now, clause 33 is something that has been changed substantially—

Carl Bates: Telling the Chair how to do his job.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Similar to what the Minister said before: please be quiet if you want to listen to the question. When we are looking at clause 33—[Interruption] You know what? We’re not going to create any sort of double standards here. If we have the decency to listen to the Minister and engage with the Minister, please do the same.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There is also a Chair here who can do so—both sides. Both sides.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. For clause 33, I want to know what the rationale was behind removing the remaining independence that the Teaching Council had in terms of elected members, because, again, we are seeing in the original bill as released that being whittled down from six to—seven to three, in fact. But in this new Amendment Paper 475, all of the elected members have been removed including the related rules, so I just want to check with the Minister on that.

In terms of clause 34, I do want to address the issue of what we’re seeing in terms of clause 34(4), after section 476(4) insert this new thing. I want to check with the Minister: how is the Minister going to reassure the public and the teaching sector that this isn’t simply the Minister’s making unilateral decisions on who to appoint without any sort of consultation or be able to appoint who the Minister wants to appoint as opposed to genuinely engaging with the sector?

In this particular part, the wording is peculiar, which is: “The Minister must appoint at least 3 members who each have at least 5 years’ experience in the education sector.” That’s not the same thing as a teacher. You could be an academic; you could be, for example—I know we mentioned this before—you could be Elizabeth Rata and be someone with five years’ experience in the education sector but never being a teacher. I do want to check if the Minister would consider my amendment just to clarify that there should be at least one member in this case who is—sorry, the Minister must appoint at least three members who each have at least five years’ teaching experience as opposed to experience in the education sector. I’m going to start with those, but just signalling to you, Mr Chair, that we have more questions on the Teaching Council.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:35): I made my intentions very clear when I was sitting at select committee after the Debbie Francis review had been delivered. I told the Education and Workforce Committee that I would be taking further advice around the Teaching Council at that point, and I took further advice. The advice that I received was that there needed to be greater oversight, greater monitoring, and greater accountability of the Teaching Council because of the, frankly, quite damning Debbie Francis report.

I just want to make clear that the way to uphold the status of the profession is to have a fit-for-purpose regulator that effectively monitors and responds to the professionalism and the integrity of the teaching workforce. And when that system fails, it undermines trust in the entire profession. I know that the vast majority of teachers do operate with professionalism, integrity, and skill in the classroom, and those teachers deserve to know that they have a regulator that is supporting them through adequate monitoring of standards and enforcement on the small minority who do not act with the same integrity that they do.

I’ll take the Debbie Francis report as read so you know the seriousness of this. I wanted to make sure that the board that was governing the council was fit for purpose, that they have—and you can see in the bill—governance, finance and risk, regulatory compliance, disciplinary processes, and understanding of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you look at the Francis report and you look at what I am wanting to have on the board—the experience that we need—you can marry those two things together. The council did not see themselves as a regulatory body; they did not see themselves as having duties around child protection. We need to have a board that is fit for purpose. I’ve taken that further advice. They need to bring strategic governance and regulatory and disciplinary processes and finance skills to that board.

I do want to make sure, though, that there is a balance of people who have education experience on that board as well as these things. But given the state that the Teaching Council found themselves in, and the fact that they now have to have a KC going back and looking at cases, tells you everything you need to know about how serious this is, and as I said at the committee I think a number of times, it has to be gripped up. We need a board in there that has the requisite skills and knowledge to make sure that child protection is one of the number one focuses of the Teaching Council, but also that they see themselves as a regulatory body. You will see through the bill we are giving them more powers and more mandates to be able to oversee initial teacher education as well.

In terms of engaging around board appointments with the sector, that’s not something that typically happens when making board appointments. I would also make the point that fewer than 10 percent of the sector ever voted for—not in recent memory—the elected members of the Teaching Council, and I think that’s what has got us into this strife. Those elected members who were a majority on the Teaching Council oversaw the decline of the Teaching Council into what we see in the Debbie Francis report. My focus is on child protection and a regulatory agency that properly upholds the professionalism and the standards of the sector, and that is what this bill does.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (09:38): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:39): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge that we’ve ripped ahead head to the Teaching Council, and I have a lot to talk about that, but I want to cover off the amendments I have and just finish up those I haven’t spoken to and I’ll clump them in a big lot—I think there’s 10 in there. I’ll read them out: 4.31.09, 4.31.10, 4.31.11, 4.31.12, 4.31.13, 4.31.14, and I’m going to summarise those so that we can move quickly and decisively.

The main concern in those is in and around school status and the ability for that to rest with school communities, not corporate sponsors or unconstrained ministerial discretion.

There is a real concern—and my amendment underpins that—that when communities voted to convert their schools to charter schools, they exercised democratic choice. The reconversion pathway should provide the same democratic choice to reverse that decision. We believe that education is a public good requiring public governance and democratic accountability. The concerns we have with this change are to enable community-initiated reconversion, allowing school communities to request sponsor contract termination where sufficient community support exists, and to also be able to require community consultation before decisions on replacement sponsors or conversion. There are some deep concerns within New Zealand communities about what this means to take away their democratic right to have a say over their local school.

We really believe, and one of my amendments speaks to this, that there should be constraint on ministerial discretion. We want to define criteria for refusing reconversion and require public documentation of reasons. We would love to see, and I propose this: specify what constitutes “significant” in the bill, financial implications, and require comparison with continued charter school funding. We would love to see established evidence-based assessment of network benefit and create clear processes for measuring community support.

It is incredibly important that there is certainty within our schools, and that means staff employment—to provide employment continuity for qualified teachers. There’s nothing in this bill that stipulates what is there for that. There also is a real gap in this bill in relation to asset transfer transparency. If there’s going to be a chain of charter schools that take over those schools of concern, it should specify in the Act that assets purchased within the public funding return to public ownership at no additional cost—the bill is silent on that, as far as I can understand, so clarity would be good—and ensure public reporting on all of those transfers of school property, if they are being transferred over into private ownership.

Also, if we see multi-school contracts proceed, they should require separate financial reporting and administrative cost disclosure for each school. That is not clear as well—whether this is in place. I would love to know whether the Minister is going to consider if there will be caps on administrative costs. Without these transparency requirements, it is a real concern that we will see an increase of chains of charter schools without any of the required transparency in place. It would be interesting to know: are there regulations to the bill that will stipulate some of these details, or are they not yet—I’ll sit down, Mr Chair, and make my next point in my next call.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I take it you’re answering on behalf of the Minister? The Hon David Seymour.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. As per what I mentioned before, apologies. Just want to also draw the Chair’s attention to Minister Seymour’s lapel. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, I missed that.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Just to draw attention to Minister Seymour’s lapel, regarding rules that we have had previously in the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (09:43): It’s good to see a big man focusing on big issues again. Look, I just wanted to respond, and I apologise to the committee for not being present earlier. Sometimes in education you can be put on detention, as I was, and therefore unable to be here to answer some questions. That seems to apply here too.

Look, the gist of the questions is that there should be a more, I guess, bureaucratic approach to monitoring the performance of charter schools, particularly as you have the possibility of multi-campus charters contemplated in this bill. But I think that misunderstands the purpose and accountability of charters. The purpose is to allow new ways of teaching and learning and administrating schools to show that education can be different. That is making an enormous difference for a lot of students, which I won’t go into now—

Hon Damien O'Connor: At three times the cost.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve heard Damien O’Connor saying that it’s at three times the cost. I just want to put on record that the cost of a student attending a charter school is the same as a State school.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Bullshit.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He’s now used the word “bullshit”, which shows that he doesn’t only have a poor grasp of numbers but a poor grasp of languages, which is requiring him to use swear words.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Absolute bullshit.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: However, to address this question from Ginny Andersen—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr O’Connor, once we get away with; twice is unparliamentary.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s a new standard. You can swear once. It must be a Catholic thing. You get one indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ministers are under the same ruling, I’ll remind you, Mr Seymour.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, Mr Chair.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just trying to kind of analyse the terminology that might be used in this House to try and challenge the lack of accuracy from a senior Minister—in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister—in this House. What other words should I use other than one that is well understood by most New Zealanders?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The English language is fairly broad, so I think you could find a better one. Can we just get back to the topic, please?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Look, I think the purpose is to show that education can be different. The accountability is that the attendance and the achievement need to be as good or better than students with a similar set of challenges would face in a State school. As I say, I get regular reports, and certainly on attendance—it’s a leading indicator for achievement—I am pleased to see they are achieving that. I’m really proud of what charter schools are doing. That’s a great piece of news.

The other thing is they’re the only schools that have a contract they can actually lose if they fail to meet those attendance and achievement targets. I mean, other schools fail to reach the targets; we just say, “OK, how can we help?” With charter schools, we say, “Sorry, your contract is over. We’re shutting you down.” That’s a very big accountability. That, I believe, addresses the questions that Ginny Andersen has asked. She would like to have a lot more sort of bureaucratic controls. The whole purpose of charter schools and their accountability is to get away from that.

I think it should also address a question that I understand she asked earlier, and that was about, for a charter school that converts, should there be an option to vote to go back to State school status? But here’s the thing, right. You already have to exceed the outcomes of a State school to be there. If you’re exceeding the outcomes and people are continuing to attend, then it’s not really clear what you gain by allowing schools to flip-flop back and forth when they already face the loss of contract and, effectively, reversion to State schools anyway.

I hope that addresses the substantive questions and also some of the verbiage coming from a rather bored Labour Party backbench.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. Also just checking with you, Mr Chair, that now the Associate Minister who is responsible for early childhood education and charter schools is here, I’m able to just go back a little bit, because I know I skipped a few sections.

I do have a few questions regarding clauses 20 and 22—this is sections 212I amended and 212M amended—and also a question that I asked the Minister yesterday but it wasn’t addressed by the Minister because, again, it’s not under the Minister’s delegation around schools—the way that the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) works in terms of Crown land for charter schools. Potentially, that has been addressed.

I want to start with clause 20. I understand some of the rationale from the Associate Minister regarding the ability to have multi-school contracts, but what I’m unclear with in this section is what material, then, does the authorisation board need to be able to determine that a particular sponsor is able to operate a multi-school contract in Aotearoa New Zealand, to know that they’re going to be successful, before approving one? Surely, wouldn’t it be better to allow a sponsor to start one school and wait for a little while to make sure it is successful before opening the path to have multiple schools? I just want to check with the Minister on why that has been done in such a way, because I do have some amendments that suggest not just saying no to multi-school contracts but the fact that there is some sort of period where we know that they can operate within, also, the budget.

The understanding is that if some of these sponsors, who may be overseas, etc., have operated multiple ones overseas—but, as we mentioned in the select committee stage, back on the Education and Training Amendment Bill No. 1 in 2024, we do know that the amount that the Government gives to charter schools in Australia, for example, is far higher than what they’re able to get here in New Zealand. The balance is about 3:1 in terms of per-student cost, even with the additional cost here. We do want to know if they’re able to operate one here before opening up that particular can of worms.

Clause 22, “Section 212M amended”: I do have an additional amendment, in terms of “A notice under subsection (1) must specify—”. This is something that we have heard, actually, from parents who send their children to charter schools: the legislation is quite clear around only charging property maintenance fees in the legislation. However, we have heard of things where schools are charging beyond property maintenance fees in a charter school situation. I think that any fees beyond that should also be notified in this section, to give parents full transparency of what they’re looking at. This is my amendment on 19 May 2026, 9.26.06, which is “any additional fees not included in the property maintenance fee”—if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering that.

Back to clause 34, on the Teaching Council and that whole package, I just want to check: the Minister mentioned the Debbie Francis report, and I acknowledge and have read the Debbie Francis report, but what I’m unclear of—because the Minister opened that particular can of worms, as well—is that there were no terms of reference with the Debbie Francis report; there was no methodological approach. Essentially, the report is framed around how the Teaching Council should be regulated. I acknowledge what the Minister is saying—that a child’s safety is absolutely crucial—but I think we are using “independent review” quite broadly here without any form of associate aspects. I want to just check in terms of, I guess, the process of how that report came to be.

Now, when we’re looking at the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583, I’m actually going to leave it to my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen, who’s got a lot of questions probably, for clauses 33 and 35. I’m going to jump just a little bit ahead because this is an area that I want to ask as part of this call—actually, you know what, I’m going to leave it there, Mr Chair. I’ll ask in a subsequent call.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (09:53): Just to answer a couple of questions that were put in relation to Amendment papers and charter schools, the Government has no intention of adopting those two Amendment Papers.

The idea that perhaps an operator of a multi-school charter would first have to operate one school—they are actually different activities. If they’re capable of operating one school, that is something that we test with the usual test: do they have community support, do they have a good educational plan, do they have a financially viable plan, do they have educational knowledge, do they have good people on their team? That’s the criteria for operating a school. There are separate criteria for having a multi-school charter, and if you have passed one test, you still have to pass the other. If you can pass them both at the same time, I don’t see why you wouldn’t. If you can’t pass either of them, you shouldn’t get any school, and if you can only pass one, you just get one school. Regardless, there are two different tests for whether or not you should operate one charter or many. It would seem odd to stagger those decisions, so we reject that Amendment Paper.

As far as the member’s other comments that appear to relate to areas, I’ll let Erica Stanford address if she wishes, but I suspect she already has, as is mostly the case in this discussion now.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (09:54): Just to quickly round out the Debbie Francis report, it was not a report that was commissioned by the Government; it was commissioned by the Teaching Council governance board themselves, in light of protected disclosures and what they saw and the concerns that they had in the operations of the Teaching Council.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (09:55): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You’ve heard the warnings now: commentary versus clarification. We’ve had a lot of commentary. Clarification.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:55): Thank you, and this the first time I’ve been able to ask a question around the transferring of the early childhood education regulatory functions to the Education Review Office (ERO). I appreciate that the Minister the Hon David Seymour is here now. I’ve only got some very quick questions that I want to ask. It was a bit of a messy process because submitters were asked to submit on this part of the bill but they were relying on another bill for this to be enacted. It was a bit of an unfortunate way, really, that that happened and occurred during the select committee process.

One of the aspects that came up through the select committee process—and it has been addressed, but there’s still huge concerns in the departmental report from that—was the conflict between ERO’s review and regulatory functions, because they are two quite different functions. ERO has always been—and that’s always been a strength of ERO, that we’re talking about an independent review process, and submitters have been very concerned and are still concerned that you’re clouding the difference between, in this case, that independence and then the mandatory regulatory oversight.

I really want to ask the Minister very quickly: does ERO still hold that independent function, because that is, as I say, a strength of our system? How does he see the management between the CE of ERO appointing the Director of Regulation and keeping that regulatory function separate from the review when it’s a mandatory function rather than an independent function. If we could invite the Minister to comment.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (09:57): First of all, I understand from the Minister that these issues were addressed during this lengthy debate, actually, yesterday, but I take the member at her word that she may not have been able to hear that. In terms of this perceived conflict, you’ve got to remember that there is already a conflict with the Ministry of Education being the policymaker and the regulator. We’re removing that conflict. The Education Review Office (ERO) will become an entity who is there to assess the performance of the early childhood education (ECE) centres, both by performing periodic reviews—that continues, in answer to the member’s question—and also by carrying out the regulatory role.

I guess where you might perceive a conflict is if the reviewer was also reviewing the performance of the regulator, which is also ERO, and, as you note, the chief executive appoints the Director of Regulation. I understand all of that, but, ultimately, the assessment of the policy and the regulation now sits with the ministry. The assessment of the performance of the regulated parties—in this case, the ECE centres—sits with ERO. I would argue that we have a far less conflicted organisation and arrangement than we previously had.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (09:58): 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 67

New Zealand National 48; 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 Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete Amendment Paper 583 is out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete Part 1 of Amendment Paper 583 is out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

Arena Williams’ two tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete the Amendment Paper and to delete Part 1 of the Amendment Paper are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to replace all words is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 583 amending Part 1 to include references to homestays in clauses 5, 11AAA, and 11AAB be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9(1)(a)(i) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ two tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clauses 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(a)(i) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9(1)(a)(i) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9(1)(a)(ii) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9(1)(a)(iii) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 proposing to delete clause 9(1)(a)(b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 10 to insert text after new section 90A(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 10 to insert text after new section 90A(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 10 to replace “The Minister may” in new section 90B(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 10 to delete subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 2 of new section 90B is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 10 to delete subsections 1(a) and 2 of new section 90B is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting clause 33 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 33 to replace “appointed by the Minister” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 33 to replace “appointed by the Minister” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 33 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting clause 34(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 34 to insert paragraph (i)(a) into new section 476(4)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 34 to insert paragraph (v) into new section 476(4)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 to replace new section 476(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 to replace new section 476(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 34 to replace “at least 3 members” in new section 476(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 34 to replace “who each have at least 5 years’ ” in new section 476(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 34 to replace new section 476(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 35 to insert new section 478(aa) relating to providing direction to teachers be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 35 to insert new section 478(aa) relating to enhancing the status of teachers be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 35 to insert new section 478(aa) relating to identifying and disseminating best practice be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting clause 38A, new section 478(1) and (2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38A(3) to replace new subsection (3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I please just repeat my request for the Green Party member to be on your feet a little quicker. I’m happy for you to stand while the Labour Party is voting in order to get us there more quickly.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Exercise.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, he’s still only standing up once, Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38A, new section 478(3) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting clause 38B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C, new section 482A(1) to replace “3 year period” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C, new section 482A(2) to replace “3 financial years” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C inserting new section 482A(3)(ca) relating to explaining intentions to identify and disseminate best practice be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C inserting new section 482A(3)(ca) relating to explaining intentions to enhance the status of teachers be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to delete new section 482A(4)(b) to (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to replace new section 482B(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to insert new section 482C(2)(aa) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to delete new section 482C(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to delete new section 482C(4)(b) to (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 38C to replace new section 482D(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583, amending clause 38D to replace new section 483(3), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 40A to replace new section 488(1)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583, amending clause 51A to insert new section 640A(2A) relating to consulting national bodies is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583, amending clause 51A to insert new section 640A(2A) relating to reviewing regulations every three years be agreed to.

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

Ayes 21

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

Noes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583, amending clause 56(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 583 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA amending section 4 to insert “sense of belonging” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, amending section 4 to insert “sense of inclusiveness and belonging” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 4(ba) relating to encouraging curiosity 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 4(ba) relating to encouraging pride in their identity 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 4(ba) relating to supporting holistic learning and development be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 4(ba) relating to supporting connection and care 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 4A 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, inserting new section 6(1)(f) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, amending section 7 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, replacing section 8(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments inserting clause 4(1) and clause 11A(1AA) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 602 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 603 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 604 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, amending the new definition of “school property portfolio” in section 10(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 605 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 606 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5(3) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5AA, amending section 14 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5AA, amending section 14A 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled inserting new clause 5AA, titled “New section 26A (Fees)” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s Amendment Papers 607 to 611 would amend Part 1 by deleting provisions relating to the Director of Regulation. They form a single alternative proposition and therefore, under Standing Order 315(3)(b), I will put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 607 to 611 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5D(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5F, amending section 33 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5F, amending section 34 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5F, amending section 37 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re just going to pause for a minute while we do a shift change here.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 612 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 6 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 46(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 613 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 8A amending section 53 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 8A amending section 82 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to replace clause 9(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 9(1), new subsection (1), to insert the word “not” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 614 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90A(3)(a) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s Amendment Papers 615 and 619 would amend Part 1 by requiring peer review of new developments in educational research. They form a single alternative position, and I will put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 615 and 619 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s Amendment Papers 616 and 620 would amend Part 1 to delete references to international practice in setting curricula. They form a single alternative position, and I will put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 616 and 620 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s Amendment Papers 617 and 621 would amend Part 1 to include reference to relevant school sector experience in curricula setting. They form a single alternative position, and I will put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 617 and 621 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90A(3)(c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90A(3) to insert paragraph (d) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part  1 set out on Amendment Paper 618 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90B(1)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90B(1) to insert new paragraph (e) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 622 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10 to delete new section 90B(2) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 90B to insert new subsection (3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 11 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 91(1)(b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 623 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 11AA amending section 92 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 11AA amending section 103 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11A, inserting new subsection (1AA) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11A, inserting new subsection (1A) to amend section 127(2)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11A, inserting new subsection (1A) to amend section 127(2)(c)(iii) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11A, inserting new subsection (1A) to amend section 127(2)(e) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 624 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 625 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11A, inserting new subsection (2A) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 626 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 11B 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 12 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 13 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 14 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 16 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 170A(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 170B(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 627 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 628 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 170B(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 170C(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 629 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 630 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 21

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

Noes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 631 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s five tabled amendments inserting new clause 18A, amending provisions of the Act to include the words “or the sponsor” after references to the board, form a single alternative proposition, and I will put one question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s five tabled amendments inserting new clause 18A, amending provisions of the Act to include the words “or the sponsor” after references to the board 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s three tabled amendments inserting new clause 18A, amending provisions of the Act to include the words “if reasonable” after “pay the fees” form a single alternative proposition, and I will put one question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s three tabled amendments inserting new clause 18A, amending provisions of the Act to include the words “if reasonable” after “pay the fees” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 18A, amending section 174(3) to replace the words “The Secretary may negotiate” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 18A, amending section 174(3) to replace the words “the Secretary may give notice” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 18A, amending section 174(3) to replace the words “the Secretary is to approve” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 18A, amending section 175(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 18A, amending section 175(4) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, titled “Section 191 amended (Single-sex schools)” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, amending section 199(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, amending section 210(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, amending section 212F 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, amending section 212G 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 19A, amending section 212H 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 20 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 20(1) to replace “1 or more charter schools” with “a maximum of 1 charter school” 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 20(1) to delete “or more” and replace “schools” with “school” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20, inserting new subclause (1A) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 20(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20, deleting “if applicable” in new section 212I(6)(b) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 20(2), new subsection (6) to insert new paragraph (c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20, inserting subsection (6A) into new section 212I 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 20(2), to delete new subsection (7)(a) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments inserting new clauses 20A and 20B, amending sections 212K(1) and 212L(5)(p) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 20A, inserting new section 212L(5)(ga) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 21 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 21(2), to delete new subsection (5B)(a) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 22, inserting new section 212M(2)(b)(viii) relating to an amount for the property maintenance fee under section 212W 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 22, inserting new section 212M(2)(b)(viii) relating to any additional fees not included in property maintenance fees 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 22, inserting new section 212M(2)(b)(viii) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 23 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 23 inserting new subclause (1A) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 23 deleting new section 212O(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 24 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 24A amending section 212W 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 24A amending section 212X 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 24A amending section 212ZA 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 24A repealing section 212ZE 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 25 to delete new section 212ZEA 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 25 replacing “must” with “may” in new section 212ZEA(2) and deleting new section 212ZEB(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 25 amending new section 212ZEA(2) and deleting new section 212ZEA(3) and (4) and new section 212ZEB(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 212ZEA(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 212ZEA to delete subsections (3) and (4) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s two tabled amendments to clause 25 inserting new section 212ZEB(3A) and (6A), relating to community support for replacement schools, form a single alternative proposition, and I will put one question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s two tabled amendments to clause 25 inserting new section 212ZEB(3A) and (6A) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 212ZEB(6) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 26, replacing new paragraph (f) of section 212ZF(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 26(1), new paragraph (f) to delete subparagraph (ii) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 26A repealing section 212ZJ 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 27, 28(a), and 30 relate to the role of the Director of Regulation and form a single alternative proposition. I will put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 27, 28(a), and 30 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 27 and 30 are out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 28 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 28A amending section 237(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 28A amending section 237(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 29 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 29 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 29, new section 239 to delete subsection (2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 29, replacing “$3,000” with “$500” in new section 239(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 29, replacing “$3,000” with “$3” in new section 239(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 29A amending section 243 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 29A amending section 244 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 29A, amending section 244 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 30A amending section 281 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 30A amending section 281A(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 30A amending section 281A(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 30A amending section 281B 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 31 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 31A amending section 415(6) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s eight tabled amendments to clause 33 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s three tabled amendments to clause 33 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s three tabled amendments to delete clause 34 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 34(1) to replace new subsection (1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 34 replacing references to public notification in section 476 with references to the Gazette 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s five tabled amendments to clause 34 inserting subparagraphs (vi) into new section 476(4)(b) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 34(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 34A 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 35 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 479(1) relating to providing direction for teachers 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 479(1) relating to enhancing the status of teachers 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 479(1) relating to identifying and disseminating best practice 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 36(1) new subsection (1) to insert new paragraphs (j) and (k) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 36(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 36(3) to replace new subsection (3B) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting new subsection (3C) into section 479 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 37 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 37 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 38 inserting new paragraphs (d) to (f) into new section 480A(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 38A amending section 483 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 39(2A) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 40 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 41 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “not more than 9” in new section 517D(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 42, new section 517D(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, there are eight tabled amendments from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan proposing to insert paragraphs (g) into new section 517D(3) relating to areas of knowledge of New Zealand School Property Agency board members. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on three of those amendments.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (g) into new section 517D(3) relating to environmental protection 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (g) into new section 517D(3) relating to sustainability and sustainable building design 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting paragraph (g) into new section 517D(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining five tabled amendments to insert paragraphs (g) into new section 517D(3) are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 517E relating to ongoing learning opportunities 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (aa) into new section 517E relating to a long-term sustainable plan 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (12:59): Members, we have reached—well nearly reached, in a few seconds—1 p.m. and I would like to explain what will happen next. Before we reach the question on Part 1 itself, the committee must first deal with the amendments to Part 1, and I have a reference here to Standing Orders, which is 315(2). The Chairperson defers the interruption of business until the amendments are dealt with—see Standing Orders 53(2)(a). The committee, therefore, is continuing beyond 1 p.m. There are many amendments still to be dealt with and this will take some time. However, extended sittings are not urgency and have no ability to run on into another sitting day. If the committee is still dealing with this part, I will interrupt the voting and report progress in time to allow another sitting to commence at 2 p.m. I have consulted the Speaker, and the appropriate time to report progress would be 1.50 p.m. OK, I’m going to crack on with some more questions.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 31A amending section 415(6) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 42 new section 517E to insert new paragraph (c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 517F(1)(b) relating to healthy environment standards 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 517F(1)(b) relating to universal design 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting subparagraph (ia) into new section 517F(1)(d) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (ga) into new section 517F(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 517F(1)(h) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 42 amending new section 517F(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 42 amending new section 517G(1)(c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “at any reasonable time” in new section 517H(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “reasonable notice” in new section 517H(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s three tabled amendments to clause 42, amending new sections 517H(2) and (3)(b) and (3)(c) to require New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) notices to be in writing form a single alternative proposition, and I will put one question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 42, amending new sections 517H(2) and (3)(b) and (3)(c) to require NZSPA notices to be in writing 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “remove” with “obtain” in new section 517H(2)(c) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “remove” with “take” in new section 517H(2)(c) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 deleting new section 517H(2)(c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “48 hours’ notice” with “5 working days’ notice” in new section 517H(3)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, replacing “4 weeks” with “2 months” in new section 517H(3)(b), 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “24 hours’ notice” with “48 hours’ notice” in new section 517H(3)(c) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing new section 517H(4) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “must facilitate” with “may facilitate” in new section 517H(5) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517H(8)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517I(a) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s seven tabled amendments to clause 42 amending new sections 517K, 517L, 517M, 517N, 517O, and 517P to apply various activities of the NZSPA to charter schools form a single alternative proposition, and I will put one question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s seven tabled amendments to clause 42 amending new sections 517K, 517L, 517M, 517N, 517O, and 517P to apply various activities of the NZSPA to charter schools, 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting “and charter school” into new section 517K 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting “if reasonable” into new section 517L(4)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “may” with “must” in new section 517M(4) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “may give notice” with “must give notice” in new section 517M(5) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 replacing “NZSPA will approve” with “NZSPA may approve” in new section 517M(5) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 deleting new section 517N(1)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517N(3) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517N(4) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting “if reasonable” into new section 517O(4)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chair. I just want to seek your clarification: can the Minister in the seat double up as a Minister in the House? There are currently no other Ministers in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yes.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517Q 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 deleting new section 517S 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting “on the administration of education property” into new section 517S(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the result of an earlier vote was incorrectly announced. The vote on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 amending clause 51A to insert new section 640A(2A) relating to reviewing regulations every three years was announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67. The correct result is Ayes 21, Noes 101. The record will be corrected accordingly.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 517S(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517S(3)(b) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517S(5) be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chair. Seeking guidance from you: what happens when the major party, the National Party, have fewer than five people in the House—what would that mean for the vote?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It doesn’t mean anything, Dr Xu-Nan.

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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517S(6) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just to address that last point of order. The quorum for the House is three: myself, the Clerk, and the Minister. So keep an eye on those numbers.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK. Apologies, just checking, that is specifically for the committee stage?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s correct.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK, thank you. That’s good to know.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting paragraph (ba) into new section 517U relating to consulting boards of State schools 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting paragraph (ba) into new section 517U relating to kura kaupapa Māori 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517V(1)(a)(i) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 42 amending new section 517Z(2) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 44 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 44A amending section 589(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 44A amending section 589(1) 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to delete clause 46 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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (13:49): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 1.50 p.m.