Tuesday, 26 May 2026

Tuesday, 26 May 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

Obituaries

Dame Julie “Jools” Topp DNZM

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (14:01): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the passing of Dame Jools Topp.

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

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing of Dame Julie (Jools) Topp DNZM; convey its deep sympathy to her family and friends, in particular her twin sister Dame Lynda Topp; thank her for her contribution to New Zealand comedy, music, and activism; and remember her love of rural New Zealand and horses.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Auckland Football Club—A-League Championship Win

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:01): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the Auckland Football Club’s A-League championship win.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That this House congratulate Auckland Football Club on becoming the first New Zealand club to win the A-League championship with their 1-0 victory over Sydney FC in the 2026 Isuzu UTE A-League Grand Final last weekend.

Motion agreed to.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:02): A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):Petition of Rene Astle requesting that the House legislate to end dental extractions and make non-surgical, needle-free, non-anaesthetic, drug-free, and non-invasive innovations the new standard.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:02): Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK (14:02):

New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, annual report 2025

Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Financial Stability Report May 2026.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:03): Nine select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:03):

Report of the Environment Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Estimate of environmental expenditure 2025/26: Method and results November 2025

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into performance reporting and public accountability

report of the Health Committee on the notice of motion to approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2026

Reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Department of Corrections, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2026

petition of David White MNZM

review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission

review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of the Independent Police Conduct Authority

Reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Darrin Cassidy

petition of Justice For All Incorporated, and the

petition of Tony Gore.

SPEAKER: Those reports are received. No bills have been introduced.

Debates

Handling of Documents Requested Under the Official Information Act—Prime Minister’s Office

Urgent Debate

SPEAKER (14:04): Members, I have received letters from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the handling of documents requested under the Official Information Act from the Prime Minister’s Office. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The matter appears to be of sufficient importance to warrant the attention of the House and there will be no other opportunities to debate it.

Where the Speaker receives two applications dealing with the same subject, priority is given to the application lodged first—Speaker’s ruling 216/2. Chlöe Swarbrick’s application was received first. Therefore, after question time, I will call on her to move that House take note of an urgent public matter.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Energy

Question No. 1

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (14:04) to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made about securing New Zealand’s future resilience by supporting businesses to transition away from dwindling natural gas supplies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (14:05): The Government is fixing the basics and building the future of our energy sector. Yesterday, the Government announced that Budget 2026 provides for a Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme. Scheme. The scheme is one more practical and helpful initiative towards securing a reliable and affordable energy supply for commercial and industrial users, and it has two main purposes. The first is to improve energy resilience by reducing demand on New Zealand’s dwindling gas supplies. The more that large gas users reduce their use, the more gas there will be for those without viable alternatives. The second driver is about economic resilience. By helping businesses futureproof their energy needs, this scheme will help protect the jobs and incomes on which New Zealanders and their families rely.

Tom Rutherford: How will the scheme work?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Businesses using more than 1,000 gigajoules of reticulated New Zealand natural gas each year—which is roughly the amount used by 40 households—will be eligible. They will be able to apply under the scheme for a loan to cover all or part of the cost of reducing their gas usage by at least 15 percent. The Government won’t be picking winners. Banks will be the lenders, retaining their usual commercial discipline. The Government will guarantee 80 percent of each loan under the scheme and, in return, borrowers will receive more favourable terms on their loan. The maximum value of any single loan will be $50 million, and the scheme will apply only to new loans, not refinancing. Up to $1.2 billion of loans could be written under this scheme.

Tom Rutherford: Why is the scheme needed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because, unfortunately, natural gas is running low in New Zealand. It is becoming more expensive and contracts are getting shorter, which is a challenge for many businesses. At the start of this year, known remaining reserves of natural gas were 23 percent lower than at the same time last year. This is becoming a critical matter for many businesses in New Zealand, and with 12 of the 17 gasfields that are currently operating expected to stop producing within the next 10 years, it is only going to continue to get more challenging without future gasfields being found. The situation has been made worse by the previous Government’s decision to ban exploration for the oil and gas on which New Zealand’s manufacturing industry and New Zealand’s jobs depend, and the unfortunate message to overseas investors was that you’d better be wary about investing in New Zealand. The loan scheme will support businesses switching to a different energy source to entirely or substantially reduce their gas use through energy-efficient measures.

Tom Rutherford: What response has he seen to yesterday’s announcement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I saw the Auckland Business Chamber saying that the scheme addressed a pressing need for businesses across New Zealand and that it had the chamber’s full support. Business New Zealand said, “The announcement should prevent avoidable closures, retain capability, and reduce long-term costs to the economy. Aiding the transition to alternative fuels is a sensible step.” The Employers and Manufacturers Association head of advocacy, Alan McDonald, said he had just recently talked to a major gas user who couldn’t secure gas supply beyond the end of June. Late last year, another was looking to move all of their manufacturing to Australia. Mr McDonald said that the “scheme could make a real difference to a number of manufacturers and help arrest the recent trend of deindustrialisation”. That’s exactly what this Government wants to avoid. We want to protect New Zealand’s exports and protect New Zealand’s jobs, and to do that, manufacturers need reliable energy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So why did the Government decide to scrap the gas transition plan which had been due for publication at the end of 2023, after they came to Government, which would have meant that we would be at least 2½ years ahead of where we are now on gas transition?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the previous Government’s approach was to subsidise businesses, not through a gas transition scheme as we have outlined here today, but to, effectively, subsidise businesses, pick winners, and throw huge amounts of cash around like what was happening. We have come up with a prudent measure but, at the same time, we’ve reversed the ban on oil and gas exploration. We’re supporting further drilling to ensure we have more indigenous supply in New Zealand whilst addressing the very real needs of these businesses, who are struggling from the previous Government’s policies.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Minister is so concerned about “picking winners”, what then does he make of the Government’s decision to provide a $200 million taxpayer subsidy for the production of new fossil fuels?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s about co-investing to ensure we actually get indigenous gas out of the ground, and, ultimately, this Government is actually backing business and backing industry. On that side of the House, they’re prepared to export—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —our jobs. We—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —won’t tolerate that.

SPEAKER: Just general advice to the House: attacking the Opposition by way of a question is not part of the deal.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister explain, perhaps in quite simple terms, the difference between subsidising or giving $200 million, compared with taking a stake in an investment which would later be repaid?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the previous Government’s Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund was about, effectively, providing cash directly to a business; not in exchange for some sort of stake or equity share. Providing what the member has suggested is actually getting a stake or an equity share, which ultimately would require a return in the future. This scheme that we’ve allocated today actually has the banks making creditworthy decisions. They are the ones who ultimately have to determine the creditworthiness of each business on a case by case basis without the Crown pumping cash to businesses on a case by case basis, with Ministers making those decisions.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. By some calculations, this identical question has been asked over 30 times by the same member, and surely around about now you should rule it out for being tedious, boring, and repetitive.

SPEAKER: Well, the Speaker has—[Interruption] Excuse me. Just a minute. The Speaker’s got a number of responsibilities, but one of them is not for ensuring that members can remember what questions they’ve previously asked. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins—question No. 2.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:12) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who in his office received the 2024 briefing note prepared on behalf of the defendants in the Smith v Fonterra case, which proposed legislation to halt that litigation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s not in the public interest to identify specific members of staff, but I understand it was someone who left a while ago.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any meetings held between his staff and representatives of Z Energy or Fonterra in relation to the Smith v Fonterra litigation; if so, why is there no record of those meetings?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, there is no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. There’s nothing more I can tell you other than what I said yesterday. Ideally, there should be a record of it, and that’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to make sure everybody understands their obligations.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So were any meetings held with representatives of Z or Fonterra by members of his staff?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, we have no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. Ideally, there should be a record of it. That’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his office has no record of these meetings, what steps has he taken since the existence of the briefing note became public to establish whether any such meetings occurred?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there is no record or recollection of any such meetings or interactions, but what action I have taken is that my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind all staff of their obligations about record-keeping.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ve answered that: there is no record or recollection of any interaction in 2024. But, again, this was a Cabinet decision about this case. There are many Ministers who felt very strongly about this situation. Again, what we’re interested in is that it’s the State that sets the climate change framework—it’s not the courts; it’s not business. We don’t need a parallel system causing uncertainty. So it was a pretty straightforward decision for many of us in this Government to make.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t an answer to the question or even addressing the question that I asked him. I asked him whether the proposal that was given to his office by Z Energy and Fonterra was passed on by his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials.

SPEAKER: Well, he most certainly did address the question, so I think—you can carry on if you want to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, there is no record or recollection of that interaction in 2024. Ideally, there should have been a record kept; there wasn’t. That’s why my office has subsequently asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s question, that there’s a proposed amendment to New Zealand climate change laws, can’t possibly be correct because no court has ever found the existence of a so-called climate tort—the Government is proposing to act to prospectively amend the law to make sure that doesn’t happen?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is why climate change frameworks have been agreed to by past Governments. It’s actually up to the State to administer them, not the courts, not business. We don’t want to see a precedent where there are claims of climate change harm being resolved through the courts. That is the responsibility of the State.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can any New Zealanders who object to court proceedings against them directly request law changes from his office, or is that a privilege that is exclusively reserved for corporate lobbyists?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that Ministers in his Government, including this one, strongly support the Government’s position on this matter, despite never having heard anything about any of this so-called lobbying until it was brought up by muckrakers over there?

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rawiri Waititi: Have a look at your bank account!

SPEAKER: Question No. 3—

Rawiri Waititi: All of you!

SPEAKER: —Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order! Sir, I’ve sat through that particular question, and there’s a host of elements to the questioning that were borderline, but the member to my right—Waititi—screaming out “look at your bank account!” goes well beyond the pale. It hints that something corrupt and rotten has happened with bank accounts, and an allegation about what may or may not happen in meetings pertaining to Mike Smith’s tort case. You should rule that out and get him to leave this House right now.

SPEAKER: Thank you for your advice on how I should proceed. I didn’t hear it; it didn’t come—

Hon Member:I did.

SPEAKER: —over the very, very strong audio that I’ve got here. Just a minute. I’ll simply ask the member: did he make that statement or offer that accusation across the House?

Rawiri Waititi: Yep!

SPEAKER: Then the member should either withdraw the remark or remove themselves from the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Withdraw.

Joseph Mooney: Point of order. Does the Opposition leader want to ask another question about the member who actually wrote the bill in question and can confirm that he had no meetings with anyone or nothing was passed on to him?

SPEAKER: No, well, look, it might have been an interesting observation from the member but it doesn’t make much sense in the context of what we’re doing. [Interruption].

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. What the last member of Parliament is saying does make a whole lot of sense, because what he is saying is that months before that, he was presaging the same concern, and he wasn’t consulted and it wasn’t the result of a lobbyist meeting. He thought it just wise in the legal sense; that’s why it’s seriously relevant.

SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t say it wasn’t relevant. Read the Hansard and you’ll see what I actually said. With all due respect, that wasn’t a point of order; it was a point of clarification. It wasn’t necessarily needed. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—question No. 3.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:18) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:19): Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to Radio New Zealand’s findings that more than $1.2 million in political donations has been linked to fast-track projects since 2022?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Right Honourable—the Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Chris Bishop: Ah, Bishop.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m not sure which of us should be more offended.

SPEAKER: Well, firstly, my apologies to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Chris Bishop: What about me?

SPEAKER: My apologies to the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: And now we’ll hear from the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: The Prime Minister is not responsible for political party donations, as I think you know, and as I think the member probably should know; he is responsible for the actions as Prime Minister and for the Government.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your intervention. I was going to intervene because he’s also not responsible for the editorial commentary from Radio New Zealand, sadly.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister think that our donation laws are fit for purpose?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can the public trust the integrity of the fast-track process when over 98 percent of these donations have gone to Government parties who exercise approval powers over fast-track projects?

SPEAKER: Look, you can reword that in a different way if you want to, but that is effectively making an allegation—unsubstantiated. That cannot be done in question time.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister concerned that his office may have lost other important communications, such as Z Energy and Fonterra?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware of, no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have any fast-track applications led to concerns of the Charities Commission into illegal donations to a political party undisclosed?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the Prime Minister has—if he’s seen reports or whatever.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister accept that even the appearance of political interference damages public trust; and, if so, will he support an independent inquiry into corporate influence over his Government’s decision making?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Speaker’s ruling 195 makes it completely evident that that question cannot stand. There is no political evidence when Ministers are exercising their statutory powers. That assertion is inversely related to the truth, and that question cannot stand.

SPEAKER: That’s right. And the member was out of his seat with almost Usain Bolt - type speed—surprising as that analogy may seem—and I was not able to actually get to that point. But no, the question is not acceptable.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, I didn’t hear you.

SPEAKER: You can’t ask that question. Ask a different question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister concerned that Ministers such as Shane Jones are connected to fast-track projects—

SPEAKER: No, no—hang on, how could he be concerned about that? He appointed him to that role. Ask a question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister absolutely confident of the integrity of the fast-track projects in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the fast-track process is transparent for everyone to see. Final consenting decisions are made by an independent panel. But the most exciting thing of all is that we have 23 projects that are job-rich, that are getting the job done on infrastructure, housing, renewables, mining, and quarrying. It’s taken about 118 days to get those decisions done. That’s the most important thing—kiwis want us to get on and get things done and build in this country, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the statutory process for fast-track decision making is indeed just that, a statutory one, and that once a project is referred to a panel it is decided upon not by Ministers but by an independent, essentially quasi-judicial panel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Correct. And I think that’s well understood by all.

Pacific Peoples

Question No. 4

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:23) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (14:23): Yes, including my statement at the Media Awards on Friday where I referred to the member as “my very good friend Carmel Sepuloni”, and I hope she won’t contradict me on that point.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister have a target for reducing Pasifika unemployment, given an additional 14,000 Pasifika people are now unemployed compared to the March 2023 quarter?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is very focused, in the broader sense, on reducing Pasifika unemployment, and the best thing that we can do in that regard is ensure that the kids are at school and being prepared. So the good news is that since we came into Government, there has been a very significant increase in attendance amongst Pasifika students—from a terrible 32 percent in term 1 2022, to nearly 60 percent today. So that is a very powerful step.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did the Government cut $22 million from the effective Tupu Aotearoa programme, designed to get Pasifika youth into work, when Pasifika unemployment has doubled since the March 2023 quarter?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there has long been a bit of a debate about whether funds should be better spent on a specific, separate Pasifika programme managed through the Ministry for Pacific Peoples or as part of the broader effort across Government through the Ministry of Social Development. There is a bit of a debate about what is best there, but our focus is, like I say, on making sure that Pasifika kids are well educated and that we’ve got a strong economy that can create the jobs for them to be employed by.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did the Government close the Tauola Business Fund that helped to support Pacific businesses at a time when over 3,000 businesses have been liquidated in the last year alone?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: See, that’s an example of how the previous Government, in my humble opinion, was confused. They’d set up a small programme to focus on employment and yet neglect the fact that their broader public policy settings were leading to a collapse in economic activity and an increase in unemployment generally. Our approach is to say that, as is obvious to everybody across the economy, we have challenges but we have a plan to fix the basics and build the future, by having very clear settings to increase investment and productivity. We can go through those in great detail if they’d like to.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has his Government been reducing the funding, the staffing, and, effectively, the effectiveness of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to justify dismantling the ministry or merging the Ministry for Pacific Peoples with other agencies?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we haven’t made any decisions around the structure of Government departments, but I think, if we look at New Zealand as a whole, there are quite a large number of them—39 of them—and there may be opportunities for improvements there. But no decisions have been made.

Finance

Question No. 5

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:27) to the Minister of Finance: Malo le soifua, manuia, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:27): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that her Public Service cuts won’t affect front-line services that people rely on, when she can’t say where those cuts will come from?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I simply look at the track record of this Government, in which people are waiting less time for elective surgery and in the emergency waiting room despite reductions in public servants at the Ministry of Health. I look at what is being achieved in education, with lifting rates of reading, writing, and maths occurring in our classrooms despite discipline about the number of public servants at the Ministry of Education. It is wrong for the member to equate how many public servants are hired in the back office with what services are delivered for New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Salvation Army on her Budget’s social housing changes, that it will “mean increased debt, greater stress, and harder choices about how to get through the week in terms of the basics such as food and heating.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I acknowledge that rents rising for social-housing tenants will be challenging, but I think it’s important that the Salvation Army and others in this House note that a significant part of the housing reforms announced last week will ensure that 110,000 New Zealand families are better off by $15 a week.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will her Budget provide relief for Kiwis who, as the KiwiHarvest CEO has said, “are getting to the point where it is around the cost to survive in New Zealand rather than the cost of living. Food is becoming a discretionary item with people’s budgets”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I acknowledge that the cost of living is a challenge for many New Zealanders, particularly exacerbated by events in the Middle East, which have lifted the price of petrol, with effects throughout the economy. It is also the case that we have very recent history that shows that simply applying band-aids and administering sugar hits is not a way to make New Zealand more affordable in the long term. We saw that approach with the last Government. It saw inflation out of control for 33 months in a row, reaching a generational high. It has left deep scars on New Zealanders’ household budgets. Our Government’s approach is to be responsible and to ensure that we’re driving affordability, with lasting reform, whether that’s to our housing system, our electricity system, capping rates, ensuring that more jobs can be created, and yes, doing that by signing free-trade agreements with India, which will ensure more kiwis can be exported.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will her Budget ease the pressure on families, when as the New Zealand Food Network has said, “Every day, our hubs see hard-working people who never thought they’d need support, double income families who can’t keep up with costs, and everyone in between.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I can assure this House that our Budget will forecast more jobs and income opportunities for Kiwis to get ahead in the years ahead, and I want to acknowledge the role that food distribution entities take.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:31) 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) (14:31): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he requested any advice or assurances that his Government’s $200 million subsidy for new oil and gas exploration is or is not in breach of our free-trade agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, I reject the characterisation of that part.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister’s response to concerns that have been raised over the past year by independent King’s Counsel advice, and Lawyers for Climate Action just this week, that the Government’s climate policy changes risk our country breaching free-trade agreements, “Just trust me, bro”? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, even I didn’t understand the question there.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister’s response to concerns that have been raised by independent King’s Counsel and by Lawyers for Climate Action that his Government’s climate policy risks breaching our free-trade agreements, “Just trust me, bro”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m confident we’re meeting our obligations, but I’m a bit confused by that question. I couldn’t hear it over the quacking from the other side.

Hon Members:Quack quack!

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Chlöe Swarbrick, and no one else.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’d like to seek leave of the House to request another supplementary question, given that the Prime Minister couldn’t hear my previous supplementary because of the quacking from his side of the House.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there an objection?

Hon Members:Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Interesting. [Interruption] Supplementary?

SPEAKER: We’ll hear the supplementary question in silence, other than the speaker.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Away you go, sister.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Seriously? Will the Prime Minister seek any assurances whatsoever, from independent advice or from his own officials, that his Government’s policies are or are not in breach of our free-trade agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m confident we’re meeting our obligations.

Conservation

Question No. 7

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (14:33) to the Minister of Conservation: What funding from the international visitor levy has the Government committed to protecting New Zealand’s iconic landscapes and native environment from the spread of wilding pines, wilding conifers, and other invasive wilding tree species?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (14:34): As part of the $79 million uplift for wilding control the Government announced on Sunday, we’ve committed $30 million of funding from the international visitor levy, the IVL, to wilding control over the next three years. This funding will make a real difference in the fight against wildings. It will boost control efforts in some of our most threatened landscapes, protect native biodiversity and productive land, and help stop vulnerable areas from being overwhelmed by the spread of wildings. This is an addition and buildings on the over $13 million of previous IVL funding over the past three years allocated to wondrous places like Rangitoto Island in the Hauraki Gulf.

Miles Anderson: Why is controlling wilding pines important for conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Wilding pines crowd out native species, damage fragile habitats, alter water flows, and permanently change open natural environments. This investment will help protect some of our most environmentally significant and special areas for future generations. Shoulder to shoulder with Miles Anderson and Stuart Smith, I’ve borne witness to the degradation of iconic places such as the Mackenzie Basin, Molesworth Station, and Marlborough. Throughout our nation, my colleagues have highlighted the impacts wildings have had on their communities and our communities. With these funds, this Government is saying no more wildings.

Miles Anderson: What impact will this funding have on local environments and communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The funding will support large-scale removal and containment work across priority regions like Queenstown Tāhuna, and the Kaimanawa Ranges that are special to communities but are being devastated by wildings, to be protected and restored to a condition that means we and our tamariki and mokopuna can enjoy these areas for generations to come. This will support landowners whose stewardship of the land has been impacted by wilding, and will be able to ensure their land remains productive for the good of our country.

Miles Anderson: How does this announcement reflect the Government’s broader environmental policies?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This investment demonstrates the Government’s commitment to pragmatic conservation action that delivers lasting results, and I want to acknowledge Prime Minister Luxon and my Rangitīkei brethren, Minister Andrew Hoggard, for their leadership and unconditional support through the Budget process for this mahi. Protecting native biodiversity, preserving iconic landscapes, and preventing further damage to the conservation estate are critical to ensuring New Zealand’s natural heritage is protected and enhanced for future generations, and endangered species like this robust grasshopper continue to thrive in the Mackenzie country.

Housing

Question No. 8

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:36) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “We want a system that supports people who need help”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:37): Yes, I stand by my full statement: “We want a system that supports people who need help, while also backing people to move forward where they can and making sure support is available for others who need it.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How does he expect a pensioner in social housing to cover the average $31 a week increase in rent when this outstrips the recent annual increase to New Zealand super of $16 a week?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government is making changes to the social housing contribution that people make in order to improve the equity of the entire system. There are a variety of people in social housing who could manage a private rental in the private rental market because they earn enough, and therefore, we are trying to make sure that social housing is for those who have genuine and persistent difficulties, like people with disabilities or mental health needs, for example. It is also the reality that there are a variety of people who are in exactly the same situation as somebody else. The only difference is that one family is in social housing and the other family is in the private rental market, and the family or the person in social housing is considerably better off than the person in the same circumstances in the private rental market. The thrust of Government policy is to improve the fairness of that situation for everybody.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How does he expect someone unable to work due to a disability to cover the average $31 a week increase in rents when the recent increase in the disability allowance was only $2.50 a week?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The issue of disabilities is precisely one of the reasons why the Government is making changes to social housing. Very sadly, there are a group of people in New Zealand who are being failed by the social housing system. There are 19,000 families roughly, I think close to 20,000 actually, families or applicants on the social housing register, many of whom have quite significant needs, whether it’s disability or mental health or addiction or they’re victims of family violence, for example.

Hon Willie Jackson: Well, what are you going to do about it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: At the moment, they’re not in social housing, partly because there are a range of people in social housing who have the income to support themselves in the private rental market. What we’re doing, Mr Jackson, is making changes, which I don’t pretend are easy, but rather than just look the other way and throw money at the problem and pretend everything can improve by money, we are actually making the structural difficult decisions to improve equity in the social housing system for everybody and back Kiwis to get independent when they can.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How is he supporting those who need help when he is increasing rents for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country after giving landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member, very unfortunately, stereotypes everybody in social housing. I encourage the member to actually engage with the analysis that the Government has done. It is definitely true that there are people for whom social housing should be a house for life, actually; who need social housing; and they need the Government to provide a home for them. At the moment, actually, part of the problem is that that doesn’t happen—it doesn’t happen anywhere near well enough. But there are also people who can survive in the private rental market—in fact, 30 percent of people, roughly, who receive social housing assistance, now, earn enough to manage a lower-quartile private rental. What the Government is doing is narrowing the gap between the amount that people earn or pay in social housing, and what is available through the private rental subsidy, which is, essentially, the accommodation supplement, which (a) improves equity, (b) improves the incentive to work, and (c) makes sure we back independence, which is what this Government is all about.

Biosecurity

Question No. 9

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (14:41) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made about tackling the spread of wild conifers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) (14:41): On Sunday, the Government announced an extra $79 million over three years to escalate the fight against wilding pines. This takes the total to $109 million. This additional spending will mean Biosecurity New Zealand can back the crews, contractors, and landowners already doing the hard yards. We will get ahead of the spread instead of chasing it. It also means that we can get in and make a difference on some large infestations on public land. These seed sources are causing a huge headache for neighbouring landowners. Can I thank my colleague Tama Potaka, who, as we’ve just heard, has redirected the international visitor levy to help fund this. That’s this coalition Government: fixing what matters.

Cameron Luxton: And why is controlling wild conifers important?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Wilding pines are a blight on productive farmland in the high country, and on some of New Zealand’s most unique and natural environments. This is an investment in rural productivity, but it’s not just that; wilding pines are also bad for biodiversity and for water supplies in sensitive catchments, and create fuel for wildfires as we saw in the Ōhau fire in 2020, where 48 homes were lost. More than 2 million hectares of New Zealand are affected by wilding pines and, left unchecked, the impact could reach $3.6 billion over 50 years. An independent assessment estimated the cost-benefit ratio at 30:1.

Cameron Luxton: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Hold on, just one person only speaking while a question’s being asked.

Cameron Luxton: How will the Government ensure that the control plan and funding are sustainable in the long term?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, getting on top of wilding pines for good will take time. I recognise that funding will need to be secured beyond this three-year horizon. That’s why Biosecurity New Zealand will be adapting the wilding conifer control plan into a national pest management plan. National pest management plans, like the bovine tuberculosis plan, have a good track record of successfully addressing pests over the long term. They can give us secure funding from a range of sources and bring national consistency to a patchwork of regional rules.

Cameron Luxton: How can wilding pines impact river flows?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, thirsty wilding pines suck water out of the catchments. According to the Whakatipu Wilding Control Group, dense infestations could cut the flow into rivers by 30 percent to 40 percent, and they threaten four of our six biggest hydro catchments: Tongariro, Waitaki, Clutha, and Manapōuri. When those lakes run low, power prices go up for everyone. Controlling wildings isn’t just about the view; it’s keeping water in the lakes, and pressure off our power bills.

Public Service and Digitising Government

Question No. 10

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:44) to the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government: Does he stand by his statement, “This overhaul is about ensuring more resources reach frontline services”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government) (14:44): Yes, in the context in which it was given. The full comment was “This overhaul is about ensuring more resources reach frontline services and fewer are tied up in duplication and administration.” The Government’s fixing the basics in the Public Service, and building the future with better outcomes for New Zealand, and careful management of our spending.

Camilla Belich: Given that answer, can he rule out disestablishing the roles of customs officers who intercept methamphetamine, fentanyl, and child exploitation material at our border?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we won’t be removing all our customs officers, obviously. The broad point that I would make around the public services is that the more efficient we can be with back-office delivery of functions such as finance and human resources and information technology—all those things—the more efficient we are with that, the more opportunities we have to invest in front-line services where they are required.

Camilla Belich: Can he rule out disestablishing any of the roles in food safety who keep contaminated meat, infant formula, and other products off our shelves?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: My answer to the previous question is equally relevant to that question.

Camilla Belich: Can he rule out disestablishing the roles of social workers responsible for protecting our vulnerable children; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I'm afraid we’re not making much progress here because the answer to my first supplementary is equally applicable to that one.

Camilla Belich: Can he at least rule out disestablishing the roles of civil defence and emergency management staff who coordinate the response to natural disasters?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, at the risk of repeating myself, the simple purpose of our reforms—and I just remind people who are tuning into this debate up and down the country and listening in on their crystal sets that the Public Service had 47,000 core employees back in 2017 when Bill English and John Key, in the previous National Government, left. It grew to 65,000 in the month after we took office—a very, very significant increase of around 18,000 extra public servants. The reality was that that is not sustainable. It’s one of the reasons why we are borrowing a lot of money as a country and why we’re running a deficit. So this Government is trying to return to historical averages in terms of the overall size of the public service, and our focus, of course, is on ensuring that we’re efficient at the back end of the office so that we can free up as much resources as possible to deliver good front-end services.

Justice

Question No. 11

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:47) to the Minister of Justice: What action has the Government taken to protect New Zealanders from stalking?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:47): As of today, the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Act has commenced into law. Stalking is now a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. For years, this has been raised by many people very concerned with the fear and intimidation that stalkers create. The previous Government had different priorities; this Government has focused on actually delivering. We’re fixing the basics in law and order so as to build a future where New Zealanders feel safe in their communities. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Ask a question. Don’t call out like that.

Rima Nakhle: What does the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Act do to protect New Zealanders from stalking?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Act creates a new offence of stalking and harassment, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, where an offender undertakes a pattern of behaviour which the offender knew was likely to cause the victim fear or distress. The pattern of behaviour is defined as two specified acts within a two-year period. It includes activities such as following, loitering near, obstructing a person, recording or tracking, or other specified acts.

Rima Nakhle: Why did the Government take action to protect New Zealanders from stalking?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because there had been widespread calls for this action, and we are committed to ensuring there are real consequences for crime and that the victims are at the heart of our justice system. It underpins all the work that we’ve done to fix the basics in law and order, and it’s part and parcel with the efforts that we made also to end permanent name suppression for adult sex offenders. There’s also—part and parcel—the effort that we did to restrict the amount of discounts offered in sentencing, because if there are not consequences for crime, the Government and the people of New Zealand are not sending a clear message to the stalkers and to others who cause mayhem on our streets that this country doesn’t tolerate that activity.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:50) 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) (14:50): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Government making 129,000 families an average of $24 poorer per week to subsidise landlords?

SPEAKER: No, look, you can ask the question, but the last part is not in the spirit of the Standing Orders, but we’ll let it go. The Prime Minister can deal with it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer, well, we’re not doing that.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he square increasing the rents of tens of thousands of public housing tenants by 20 percent with his “laser focus on reducing the cost of living”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because people in similar circumstances should receive similar support, whether they are in social housing or private rentals.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Palmerston North beneficiary Kathryn Dixon, who said, “I can’t think of another scenario where we say, ‘Here’s a group who are really doing it tough, so let’s make the kind of OK people suffer more.’”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The purpose of the reforms are to make it fairer for people in similar circumstances, as I said to the member in answer to the first question. The second objective is to make sure, where possible, we’re helping people into a pathway of independence, and the third objective is to make sure it’s better targeted so we generally can get housing to those in need.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he justify leaving thousands of low-income home-owning families $42 per week on average worse off while his Minister claims $1,000 per week that goes towards a property they own?

SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to allow that question.

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll repeat it in a way that is hopefully more acceptable to the Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s to the House actually.

Hon Marama Davidson: To the House. How does he justify leaving thousands of low-income home-owning families $42 per week, on average, worse off?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I would put our record in this Government on housing up against the Labour-Greens’ record any day of the week. Housing is more affordable, rents are stable or down, we have taken about 6,000 people off the State social housing wait-list, and, importantly, we’ve dealt with the blight—the real problem that we had in emergency housing. It’s all very well pontificating and asking questions, but show up with some ideas. You had your go, and you failed abysmally. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: One voice!

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to public housing tenant Agnes Magele, who was responding to the Minister of Finance’s statements in the media and said, “There’s nothing lucky about choosing between food, power bills, to pay rent, transport or sitting in emergency housing with babies, wondering how they’re going to get through tomorrow.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to folk that are sitting on the social housing wait-list, thank God they’ve got a coalition Government that cares about them and does something about it.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break for those who need to leave the House to do so. I’d ask you to do it quickly and quietly without conversations on the way. Just move with a bit of speed and without the conversations.

Debates

Handling of Documents Under Official Information Act—Prime Minister’s Office

Urgent Debate

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:54): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe; tēnā koutou e te Whare. Regular people, regular New Zealanders, don’t get to give secret documents and have backroom conversations lobbying the Prime Minister’s Office and officials to then have the law changed in their favour.

What we are debating today is something that I think is worthwhile spelling out the chronology of. In 2019, there was a court case bought by Mike Smith, who was the climate change lead from the Iwi Chairs Forum, against some of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the country. Those greenhouse gas polluters argued that the responsibility that they had for those greenhouse gas emissions shouldn’t exist within the common law but should be those that are dealt with under legislation. Mike Smith won the case in the High Court because, as was clearly argued in the court and as the court found, our legal frameworks currently provided for under parliamentary law are not adequate to deal with all of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, let alone the question of who pays for the clean-up—an issue that I will get to later.

In March 2024, we now know, as of the news that has broken over the past week, that Fonterra and Z Energy—two of the defendants in that case, who then went on to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court—met with the Prime Minister’s Office to advise on their concerns around the Smith v Fonterra case. Both Fonterra and Z Energy provided a briefing document, a written document to the Prime Minister’s Office, regarding the case—a document that we now know contains arguments and rationale which are being repeated almost word for word by Ministers and the Prime Minister of this Government.

Then, in March 2025, this information was actually requested by the Environmental Law Initiative through an Official Information Act request—very specific Official Information Act requests—to the Prime Minister’s Office to try and discern whether anything like this had occurred. Those Official Information Act requests ended up coming up blank. It was not declared that these secret backroom meetings or these secret documents, which ended up resulting in a successful law change on behalf of some of our biggest polluters in this country—they were not declared.

Then, a year later, in March 2026, the defendants in the Smith v Fonterra case were ordered to release documents related to their lobbying efforts. It was only then, through a court discovery process where the polluters, who had been actively lobbying this Government for the law change that they successfully got over the line, themselves gave that evidence before the courts. And then, hey presto, in May of this year—this month—the Government announced that they would be changing the law to benefit those big polluters; to prevent them from being able to be sued, to find liability in tort, from climate damage.

I think it’s actually really important to run through just how egregious this situation is, just how abnormal this situation is, because it is actually really unusual to have a Government deciding to interfere with active legal cases; to effectively depart from the principle against retrospectivity and the rule of law. It is enacted four times by this Government over just the past 2½ years. Firstly, they did it with the bill that obviously was announced this month—the fourth piece of legislation that they have introduced with the intent of cutting off the legal rights of New Zealanders to hold powerful people and companies to accounts.

Secondly, with the Equal Pay Amendment Act last year: if we all recall, just a week or a few days before the Government’s Budget last year, they announced—surprising everybody, least of all the 300,000 lowest-paid working women in this country—that they would cut off their rights to pay equity. Then there was the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Act 2025, which, of course, was also retrospective with regards to the powers exercised there. And then, with regards to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025—

SPEAKER: Hang on. The member has asked for the House’s time to debate a very specific topic, as contained within the requirements of the Standing Orders. Please come back to the topic.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yes, Mr Speaker. The point that I am making here is that this is not happening in isolation. This is a pattern of behaviour by this Government using their powers to cut off the rights of regular, hard-working New Zealanders to hold this Government and their corporate mates to account.

Now, the Prime Minister, as he has tried to do in just the last few days, is attempting to shrug this off as though there’s nothing to see here, this is just business as usual. For anybody who is tuned in watching Parliament TV—those poor dozen souls or so—who may be hearing how aggravated—

Joseph Mooney: Oh, so much hot air—so much hot air.

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the Government is with the idea that we would debate this issue with transparency, the Prime Minister shrugging this off should worry all of us, because we should not normalise behaviour that is seeing corporate lobbyists engage in secret lobbying behind the scenes, successfully ending up with law changes that benefit those very corporate lobbyists.

Joseph Mooney: I wrote the bill; they never met me—they never met me, and I wrote the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I guess, just to unpack some of the rationale that we’ve also heard from—

SPEAKER: That’s the last time I will require the member to be quiet.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: As I’ve also heard in the arguments from the Minister of Justice, who’s just resumed his seat, when I actually asked him in the House a week or two ago about whether he, by proxy or directly, had engaged with any of the defendants in this case, any of those major corporate polluters—it’s on the public record; people can go back and watch it or they can look at Hansard themselves. He ummed and ah-ed and said that it was relatively normal for Government Ministers to engage with corporations who had an interest in our economy, but we now have it exposed in the last week that there was that direct engagement through the Prime Minister’s office with those corporate lobbyists who ended up getting the law changed in their favour.

Now, the argument that we have heard from the Government is that this is to be dealt with in Government legislation and in climate change frameworks that the Government puts forward. They’ve said that it’s to be dealt with through the likes of the emissions trading scheme—lest we remind everybody, let alone this Government, that this Government has also been successfully lobbied by corporate powers to completely exclude the dairy and agriculture industry from ever paying under the emissions trading scheme.

We are once again left with the ultimate question of who pays. Who pays when climate change - charged weather events devastate Aotearoa New Zealand? Let me remind this Government that we are currently in May of 2026; in just the five months alone that have passed this year so far, we have had 21 states of emergency—all of those states of emergency and all of that weather far more extreme, far more frequent, demonstrably as a result of climate change, which the Government is now moving at pace to legislate the active protection of those major polluters from.

The question that that leaves all of us with is: who is this Government really here to serve? They show us every single day as they decide to cut support from the lowest-income New Zealanders instead of making those at the top pay their fair share, those who are profiting handsomely: the gentailers, the supermarkets, the many corporations who they so clearly are here to serve.

Our final call, our call that I would hope actually every member of this Parliament can agree with, in the interests of upholding transparency and the integrity of our democracy—some really basic and important things, I would say, for all members of Parliament to believe in—is for every party in this House to agree to an independent, urgent inquiry into exactly what happened and who knew what when. If the Prime Minister wants to shrug this issue off, if he wants to tell us all that he has clean hands, then he has the most vested interest in backing this inquiry—to clean those hands. Otherwise, we are left with allegations of corruption, and those allegations needs to be taken seriously. [Interruption] We call on all members of this House, especially the members of this Government who are currently heckling me, to support that independent, urgent inquiry. Let’s get this over and done with. If you’ve got nothing to hide, then let’s put it all out in the open.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thank you—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Who’s texting Fonterra?

SPEAKER: Now, just a minute. That is also completely uncalled for, so we won’t be having any more of that. The Hon Paul Goldsmith—starting again.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:04): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the primary claim being made by Chlöe Swarbrick, and in the House, is there was a briefing from a couple of parties—Fonterra and Z Energy, I think is what she said—to Government officials in early 2024, in relation to a case, and that led to the law change which the Government has announced two years later. I think most people listening in would be, sort of, puzzled about one thing automatically leading to another, because the Cabinet made a decision in April—I think it was—to progress with legislation to clarify our view that Government, through Parliament, should set the regime for climate change policy and how to respond to it, as we have through the—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re not doing that either.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —through the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The member on the other side can argue and debate about how good we are at doing that, which is a perfectly legitimate question to raise and that’s something for Parliament to discuss, but for better or worse, we’ve done it and what we didn’t want to see by allowing this case to continue would be the risk of a parallel regime being created by the courts. Why would we be concerned about that? Well, we’d be concerned because then there would be a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to investment.

Now, if I was to step back and sort of say, “Well, why does investment matter?”, we all want to have higher living standards in this country and we want to do well and be prosperous and have money to invest in education and health and all those sorts of things, and so, how do we get economic growth to sustain that? Well, you get economic growth, fundamentally, through investment. Somebody, somewhere decided to—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I did interrupt the previous speaker saying, “Come back to the point. The House is giving its time for the discussion of an urgent matter.” You’re getting very wide of what that urgent matter is.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, well—yeah, perhaps you’re right, Mr Chair. I was just trying to‍—

SPEAKER: No—no. There is no “perhaps” about it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: You definitely are right and so I will come to the point more swiftly, which is to say: to get investment one needs to have an element of certainty around the law and what it applies to and what it is. So, fundamentally what the Cabinet and the Government of the day is trying to achieve is some clarity for the law as regards to climate change, going forward: to say that it is what Parliament has set through the ETS regime, not a situation where a business could be compliant under that regime, doing everything that the law requires, and yet still be liable somewhere else for another regime that’s been developed through the courts. So that’s what we set out to achieve to do.

Now, the fact that somebody, a party that was involved with that litigation, contacted people in the officials of the Government two years before, I would not think would be a disqualifying matter for actually progressing that legislative change. That would be a very odd thing to do. It is absolutely regrettable that there was no record kept of that meeting from 2024 or the information that was sent through, and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, he’s not happy with that and he’s sent a message to Ministerial Services to reinforce with workers in the building and staff to be more accurate with their record-keeping. I think that’s appropriate and we take that on the chin and that’s absolutely right—we should have. But I think it’s a huge leap from that to say that this opinion or view or approach somehow means that the Government can’t go about making a rational decision on what I think is a very important public policy matter.

I mean, we hear from a range of voices. Mike Smith, for example, is part of the Iwi Leaders Forum, which the Government has met with on a number of occasions over the last couple of years. I don’t know what exactly has been raised in the room, but he’s been part of the climate change discussion group, and discussions would have been had, and so there’s a wide range of—

Hon David Seymour: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire! We’ve got the smoking gun!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Where there’s—so perhaps we should not have talked to him in any way shape or form, I’m not sure. Conversations have been had in our small little country with all sorts of people, and the views of all parties involved in this litigation are widely, publicly known. We’re aware of that, we’re conscious of that, and we engage with many people—not in some nefarious, secret way that Chlöe Swarbrick refers to; it’s just the nature of doing things in this Government and our small country. Ultimately, what the Government has to be is accountable for its decisions. The decision that we’ve made, and all the papers and Cabinet Papers and the advice that we’ve seen have all been released under the Official Information Act. Papers that I’ve had as Minister of Justice looking at this matter, getting advice over the last two years and then deciding to press ahead with the changes that are being made—all that has been released, people can see it, and people can make a judgment as to whether this is a wise thing to do or not, and they will, no doubt.

Part of what it’s fixing the basics of when it comes to the rule of law and the legal environment that we operate in is being clear about that, and clarity in the law, as a bedrock of investment, is one of the most important things that underpins a successful economy.

Hon Louise Upston: Great. Thanks.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: OK, well—I think I’ll leave it at that then, Mr Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a serious matter, and it was good to hear the Minister stating that it’s a serious matter. However, it was somewhat undermined by those on the opposite benches beside him joking about “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Now, the reason that I say that this is a serious matter is because there are a few issues that need to be resolved, and I don’t accept what was proffered by the Minister—that the issue here is that people had conversations with the Minister. That is not the issue. Of course that happens in our democracy. The issue here is that it was not recorded, and the transparent processes that we have associated with the Official Information Act (OIA) have clearly, in this instance, been breached. It has left the Government open to questions about their transparency and their accountability. These are serious matters.

There’s also another serious matter that I want to raise, which is the decision in the first place for the Government to—

Hon David Seymour: Sometimes you can record too many things.

CAMILLA BELICH: It’s very important for the Government to answer for the fact that they’ve decided to overturn an existing case. We heard earlier, in question time, the Leader of the Opposition try to get some clarity from the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, that wasn’t forthcoming, but I do think there are outstanding questions for him.

The first alarm bell, in this case, is that we have a case in front of the Supreme Court that is ongoing—it’s been ongoing, as previous speakers have said, since 2019—and the Government, prior to the resolution of that case, has decided to step in and legislate the right to take the case away. We heard Chris Bishop say that no court has ever decided that this was the law, and therefore the Government isn’t changing the law. Well, the High Court determined that this should not be struck out and that there was an arguable claim, and they have managed to take this claim all the way to the Supreme Court. Now, if this was just vexatious litigation that had no basis or sound argument in law, it would not reach the Supreme Court, so I think it is incorrect to say that this is not affecting the law in New Zealand. It’s affecting the common law as being able to be stipulated by the Supreme Court, and it is taking away a New Zealand citizen’s right to be able to have that case heard in the Supreme Court.

Now, that in and of itself is unusual and it is alarming, and the facts that follow just add further questions to it, unfortunately. What we’ve seen in this case is we’ve seen—I think, the claimant in this case feels that the Government’s response has been very, very similar to the arguments that corporate New Zealand has put against this case. Now, it’s not surprising that these corporations are against this case, because, of course, it might mean liability for them; it might mean they have to change their operations; it might be costly for them. This is, in fact, criticism directed at the office of the Prime Minister and the way that he has handled this claim. What has happened in relation to the OIA is that, actually—the first instance, as I understand it, was that this OIA was referred to another Minister, the office of the Minister for the Environment. Then and only then was it responded to by the Prime Minister’s Office, and these briefing documents were not included. The briefing documents of course, as we’ve heard from other speakers, stipulated the exact same response to this—which was to essentially legislate away Mr Smith’s claim—as was in the briefing documents. Now, it has taken until May—this very month—for the court to order that these briefing documents be made available. Now, that is an extraordinary thing to happen in a transparent democracy, for us to have to wait for a court to order that something be released that should have properly been released under the Official Information Act.

There are questions for the Prime Minister and his office. He said today that he doesn’t want to name names as to who received that, and I respect the fact he thinks, as the employer, that he doesn’t want to put the staff member in the firing line. I think the person responsible—and I agree with him in this—is himself: the Prime Minister. But we do need to know whether this was this a ministerial staffer or was this a public servant, because different codes of conduct apply. Whether it was a ministerial staffer or a public servant—that fact should be made clear. We want to know who else in his office knew that this information existed. Did public servants know? Was it only ministerial staffers?

I also should note before I finish that this did not happen once. This happened to two meetings and two briefing documents, and so there are serious problems in the Prime Minister’s office that need to be answered.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to take a call in this urgent debate because I agree with one thing they’ve said: it is potentially important. We don’t want to live in a society where people get special access to power in clandestine ways, or pay for policy. That happens in some countries. I’m proud to say I don’t believe it does happen in New Zealand, and it’s worth preserving that.

I think, really, there are three questions that have been raised by the Opposition: what should the law be, who should make the law, and how is the law made? As far as the question of what the law on climate change should be, I think the Opposition actually agrees. They passed the emissions trading scheme. They passed the zero carbon Act. It was those parties that put these laws in place. If they felt those laws were inadequate and that individuals should be able to take court cases against companies for polluting, they could have actually made laws like that when they had the chance. Actually, I think the whole Parliament, if we really think about, agrees that the right way to make climate law—

Steve Abel: The case was taken against the Labour Government.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —is to have an emissions trading scheme where you have a cap and trade, and if you emit, you pay, and if you absorb carbon, such as by planting a forest, you are able to be paid under that cap and trade. That’s an orthodox policy for dealing with environmental problems around the world, and it has gone a bit further than the ACT Party would like, but that is what the law should be and all parties have actually supported it, and this gentleman over here from the Green Party, Steve Abel, has helpfully said the case was taken against the Labour Government. Well, he’s absolutely right, and that’s the point. What the law should be is settled across the Parliament.

It’s one individual who wants a totally different law, and that brings me to the second question, of who should make the law. I’m going to quote the Labour Party constitution, or thereabouts, because there’s a principle in that I really like, which is that all political power should be exercised by those who are subject to regular, free, and fair elections with a secret ballot. I like that value; it’s probably the only Labour Party value I do like. But it is important that the laws are made here in Parliament, democratically and openly, by people who can be voted out if the people don’t like what we do. I’m not suggesting to the public that that’s a good idea this year, but that is the underlying principle, which is that Parliament makes the law, not some court deciding that they can start inventing novel concepts.

It’s worth noting that most of the courts that have had this before them—the High Court and the Court of Appeal—have said they shouldn’t be inventing these novel concepts and they shouldn’t be adding new ways to deal with climate change by legislating from the bench. It’s only slipped through one exception, and so I think that it’s right that the policy should be as it stands, and it’s right that Parliament—not the courts—should make it.

Now, that brings me to the question of who should make the law, and the allegation is that there is some sort of clandestine idea behind the scenes that is influencing the Government. I can tell members of this House that I happen to be the Deputy Prime Minister and I hadn’t heard anything about any of this until it came up in the media. I came to the conclusion about what the law should be and who should make the law by something called reading and thinking and reasoning about what the policies of New Zealand should be so you don’t actually require these clandestine processes to get to the conclusion that I got to; you’ve just got to believe in good, orthodox economic policy, like a cap in trade, and parliamentary democracy, which you can find in the Labour Party constitution.

That brings me finally to this question of the Official Information Act and the recordings—I think it came out in Camilla Belich’s speech. The main thing that she’s concerned about is that they didn’t record that a piece of paper that hasn’t actually influenced most of us got somewhere somehow. That’s all she wants—better recording. The Labour Party knows this because they record everything. If you’ve heard some of their rehearsals, sometimes they record a little bit too much, such as recording how to answer duck-horse questions. If it’s simply an argument about recording, the Prime Minister’s already said there should be more recording.

But what I find most interesting is the mover of this debate, Chlöe Swarbrick, the climate change warrior who says we should all emit less and who says that there’s some shadowy corruption going on that is influencing politicians’ policy, and yet it’s the exact same member who flew business class to London—the most you can possibly emit, flying on a plane—paid for by corporate lobbyists when she did it. Oh, the irony! I wish—I wish—more people could appreciate just how ironic that is and just who she really is. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:21): Thank you. I take a stand to bring to rise what this kōrero, I understand, is really about. I’d like to, first of all, remind those that are listening that this is about a critical piece of legislation that affects our taiao. We are a nation that has been experiencing huge amounts of environmental, climate, and weather changes. What we have is someone—Mike Smith—who stood for the national Iwi Chairs Forum in 2019 and won his case. Now, the national Iwi Chairs Forum matters just as much as the Z Energies and the Fonterras and all those others who are lobbying the Government. We know that those relationships happen. There’s nothing wrong with those types of relationships, but what we have here is a question of transparency.

On the question of transparency, we’re being asked to believe, all of a sudden, that the Prime Minister has staffers—we’re not sure if they are ministerial staff or his own staff—who have lost a piece of information that belonged to a court case, and we only found out about it because of a court case. Now, this is really unusual, and even trying to get the questions from the Prime Minister today and not being able to get answers is really concerning, because this is somewhere where we should be able to be extraordinarily transparent when we’re talking about the future of our mokopuna’s environment. We have been asked to believe—and this is the real hard part; and we’re hearing even this Government’s voters are contacting us, really concerned, because they are being asked to believe that a document was lost, a document not just from Debbie down the road, a document from Z Energy and Fonterra. Now, these aren’t small people; these are major organisations, corporates, that belong here in Aotearoa. We’ve been asked, in the first instance—ordinary New Zealanders have been asked—to believe that that paper was lost. Then, we’re saying, “Well, how come you don’t lose any other papers that are affecting us? Why is it that every other piece of paper that comes across—however it does—has been found, and it comes through the Official Information Act (OIA)?

This then leads us to the questions: should we be concerned about the OIA process? When we start to wriggle and create a lack of transparency in these sorts of things and are being asked to take a leap of faith and believe in the Prime Minister that this was just coincidentally lost, that’s a big ask for all New Zealanders—even for his own voters who are making comments. The transparency of this doesn’t sit well. Then, we’re being asked to believe that the two sentences that were changed around—and also we heard copied and coming out of Minister’s mouths—is a coincidence. Coincidentally, a piece of major information, a briefing document, was lost—from not just anybody; from two major corporations—and then we’re being asked to believe that the changes that happened were, coincidentally, just part of another Cabinet discussion. See the maths—one plus one. We’re just being asked to believe and take, again, a leap of faith. Then we’re being asked to say to ourselves here, “OK. This was lost.”—maybe—“This is being changed to materially almost reflect word for word what those two major companies were lobbying for.”, and then we have to say to ourselves, “Who benefits? Who is benefiting from this change, from this lost document, from this lack of transparency, and from the two sentences? Who benefits?”

That’s where it really comes down to the purpose of this debate—those who benefit are two major corporations, two major polluters, one in oil and minerals and one in dairy. We’re being asked for all of those submitters that are around and constantly, constantly in battle with them—as are represented by Mike Smith—to believe, and that’s really what it comes down to. We’ve been asked to believe that a document was lost. We’ve been asked to believe that the material changes just happened to reflect what those lobbyists or what those corporations were lobbying for, and then we’re being asked to believe that may be the case, that they are benefiting, but that it was already on the Government’s radar. That doesn’t sit well with us, and it’s not sitting well with this Government’s voters as well. Government has to show that it is in there for everyone, that it is governing for everyone, that it is above reproach, that you are transparent, and that you’re doing everything possible to show that transparency. When things like this go out, it creates mistrust of the highest form. There should be an inquiry into this, but if not for anyone, for the Government’s own sake. Kia ora rā.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I see three themes running through this debate this afternoon, three issues that have been discussed off and on by various speakers. One is that a right has been removed, and it’s been removed because businesses need certainty. The second is around what exactly happened to the information that was handed over to the PMO, to the Prime Minister’s Office. A third is the claim that, when it comes to legislating, in actual fact, it’s up to the State to create frameworks, not up to common law. I want to just work through each of those in turn, as the themes that have been raised by various speakers in this debate today.

First of all, we know that this Government has decided and has announced that it is going to remove the right or remove the capacity for a person to sue under tort law—I think it’s under tort law—around climate change. You cannot claim injury through climate change. The Government announced that about a week ago now—maybe 10 days or so ago. Then, since then, it has come to light that people have lobbied around it. But let’s just go back to that first issue. The Government is justifying removing that right to sue under tort because it says that businesses need certainty in which to operate. The Minister of Justice further added that businesses need certainty because, in an uncertain state, they cannot justify investment, and so the economy is at risk and so on. This we see as a problem in itself—that the Government has announced that it is going to remove the right to sue while there is a court case under way. The Government could have acted and said it was going to remove future rights but not this particular right. It’s actually a particularly important case because this is sort of case is being tried around the world to try to understand where liability for climate change might lie, so it’s a real shame that this Government is not allowing our highly respected courts to proceed with this very difficult discussion. If the Government didn’t like the outcome, they could have legislated afterwards. There are other possibilities. It’s a real shame that this case will not be allowed to proceed. Why? Because businesses need certainty, which—

SPEAKER: The House has set aside time to discuss the issue of the missing document.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed, and I will move on to that right now, Mr Speaker.

In terms of whether a document has gone missing or whether a missing document—this document is highly unusual. It was handed over on two separate occasions, we have found out, in two separate meetings, we think, with the Prime Minister’s office, and it was handed over in hard copy. Now, who uses hard copy these days? Stuff tends to be handed over electronically. There’s usually a record of it. It’s actually very unusual to hand a document over just in hard copy. Now, that seems a bit odd in the first place. Why not create the electronic record?

SPEAKER: Certainly not in my world, but anyway, carry on.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But then we are being asked to believe that somehow this document, that was handed over from two quite important entities, was somehow just not recorded—it was lost. I mean, really? What else are we expected to believe? There is something very odd that has gone on here, so we do need some answers on that.

But the third claim that was made in this debate by the Deputy Prime Minister was that it was up to the State to legislate. Now, let’s be quite clear about that. We actually have a long tradition of law arising from two sources. One is from legislated law, the other is from common law or case law. It is often common law—case law—where these difficult cases are sorted through, where they are tried out, where people try to come to some conclusion. This Government, by acting on those memos which have been conveniently lost, is actually refusing to allow that process to continue. It’s refusing to allow the discussion to continue, and that is a real shame.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Democracy is, in truth, a very fragile institution. It lives or dies on the basis of trust, and really, transparency is the mechanism through which that trust can thrive or that it doesn’t. The problem we have now is that, regardless of why we’re in this situation, whether it was an active breach of the Official Information Act (OIA) or it was a mistake, it does impact trust, and the public will be asking questions about what has happened here. The Government members have given the public a series of dots and they will be looking to connect those dots. That is simply what is going to happen in the public space, so I just want to talk back through those dots.

The first one Minister Goldsmith spoke to and he talked about the Government’s active consideration of this very issue in Cabinet, so looking at overriding the legislative decisions in lower courts and intervening with primary legislation. This was in front of Cabinet. It was a live issue. It’s also a very significant issue. In terms of what comes in front of the Government to change, legislating to obstruct future litigation is huge. It is akin to a movie plot in many ways.

The second thing we know is that on two separate occasions, two extremely large companies supplied written briefs to the Prime Minister’s office. Just a fact. It’s a dot. We know that.

The third, the Prime Minister answered for us this afternoon. He said that there are no records kept of either of those interactions and no one in his office recalls those documents or whether meetings occurred.

The exercise the public will now be engaging in in terms of connecting those dots are asking questions about what is tenable. Is it tenable to suggest that no one knew about the existence of those two—I would call them important—documents, because the context is this is a big issue in front of Cabinet at the time. Is it tenable to suggest that no one else knew? The second question: is it tenable to suggest that those companies didn’t seek a meeting with anyone in the office? Again, I won’t answer that question. These are questions that the public will be asking. The third is: is it tenable that major companies lobbying in terms of this space, if they were read, was not taken into account when the Government made a decision to bring in this legislation?

The impact of this is huge. The impact of this, regardless of what actually happened, is big, and I do wish that Government members would recognise the importance of compliance with the Official Information Act and not just wave it off as a mistake because mistakes, if that’s what it was, also matter. Geoffrey Palmer wrote an article in Newsroom recently titled “Open government requires transparency”, and it began with the words, “Within the modern workings of New Zealand’s constitutional framework there are few statutes more important than the Official Information Act.”

If we look at the Act itself, its purpose is to progressively increase the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand. It was put in there as the first of what was intended to be many building blocks, not for a Government to offhandedly dismiss the fact that it has been breached, whether a mistake or otherwise. I also worry that what we’re hearing in terms of the flippant way in which Government members are handling the Official Information Act is a signal—is a signal—and it’s potentially a signal to the New Zealand public that this is a Government who want to change the Official Information Act.

Now, we know the Minister of Justice has asked officials to examine the costs associated with the OIA request. This is a fact. This is a fact. And he notes that he wants to know what revisions could be made to make the Act more efficient and practical. Now, this suggests, in my view, that the Government may be looking at limiting the information that’s available to the media, the information that’s available to the public. These are not things I am making up. These are dots that you are giving—sorry, Madam Speaker, that the Government is giving to the public. They should not be surprised if the public begin to join those dots.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take the call on this important debate. Regarding the documents that were lost by officials representing the Prime Minister—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I believe that the Green Party don’t have another call in this urgent debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve sought advice on that, and I took advice from Mr Speaker before he left the House that if the call is available and a party chooses not to take it, that Mr Abel is entitled to take his call. Speeches can be transferred in this case.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is extremely important for there to be no doubt in the public’s mind that our democracy is truly transparent and that it truly works in the interests of the public. And what is more, it is similarly important for our national reputation that we are truly a transparent and open democracy.

Where we are dealing with a company—the biggest company in New Zealand, Fonterra—making direct bids to the highest office in this country for actions to be taken legislatively that cut down citizens’ rights to recourse through the courts, then it is certainly a matter of significant national interest. Because are we expected to seriously believe that no official working in the office of the Prime Minister, or working for any senior Minister in this country, was not aware of the significance of a document handed to them by Fonterra and Z Energy in regard to requests to specifically take action to stop the course of a court case that was a threat, as they saw it, to their businesses?

I echo the point of my colleague from the Labour Party, both Vanushi Walters and Deborah Russell. Since when do we deal in documents only, but not in electronic exchanges of documents? It is absolutely no accident that Fonterra’s lobbying effort was presented in physical form so that it would not be on the public record. That is what I put to the House, Madam Speaker, and it is not tenable or credible for the Prime Minister’s office to have no record and no recollection and no recall of a correspondence from the biggest company in this country regarding a matter that they are concerned about, so much so that they will only print it on a piece of paper and hand it to an official. The public deserves to be disabused of the perception, as my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick put it, the “allegation of corruption”. That is a serious allegation, because we all value the idea that we have a reputation internationally, and the public should have a faith locally, that this is a transparent and a true democracy where information is freely available to the public, should they wish to criticise determinations made by any Government.

It is notable, the matter which the biggest company in this country were lobbying on. Because it is a matter involving the recourse of a citizen, as part of their democratic rights, to the courts, where they perceive that subsequent Governments have failed to act sufficiently to protect them from harm. That is the exact nature of the Mike Smith case; it is where he perceived that the Climate Change Response Act, that the emissions trading scheme, were not sufficiently dealing with the harms that were being caused to his whānau, his hapū, and his iwi by climate change. He sought recourse to the courts, and the Supreme Court deliberated at length, whether he had a right under tort law to take those companies for negligence, and the fact that their pollution was impacting him and his family. The Supreme Court agreed there was a case to be heard.

Now, no one questions that the executive have the final word, but the principle is that a case should be allowed to run its course through the courts, and if the Government doesn’t agree with it they hold the final pen to then change the law to correct a decision that they perceive the court has made that’s incorrect. But to shut down that court process is anti-democratic in itself, and it is a denial of citizen rights. The fact that Fonterra are lobbying the Government to do that against its own citizens is a scandal.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:42): It is an extraordinary day that we have when a corporate lobbyist is more transparent than the Prime Minister of New Zealand. And it is of real concern that the best answer that the Prime Minister of New Zealand can give about what’s going on in his own office is “I have no recollection”, which is what we have heard from him.

Transparency is one of the pillars upon which our democracy is built. The idea that we have lobby groups, major corporates, in the Government relations arms coming to Parliament—and there’s nothing wrong with that; that’s part of our democratic process. But that they hand a document to the Prime Minister’s office, and it’s disappeared? This isn’t Hogwarts; things don’t disappear. We want to know where that document is now, and if it has been shredded, say so and tell us why. But, at the moment, all we’ve got is “I have no recollection”.

Now, I accept that we don’t want to pin this on some staff member who’s doing their job, because responsibility does go to the lead Minister in that office, which is the Prime Minister, who needs to answer some questions; not to duck and say, “Oh, it would be good if my staffers better understood their obligations”, because that document’s still there. We need to know what exactly happened. There will be an Outlook calendar with a meeting date in it. We want to know that meeting date. If this Government was up front about this, that would be all out in the open right now. But this is not a Government that’s up front; it’s the opposite. And this isn’t the first time there’s been a mysterious document that’s cropped up and ended up as Government policy. If that’s the kind of Government we’ve got, it’s a Government which does not help us when our rankings as a good democracy are slipping. This is exactly the kind of thing which undermines the faith and trust in this House and this Government. It’s shocking, and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

Look, we know that ministerial officers have an obligation to keep good records. In fact, even under something as anodyne as the Archives Act, you’re not allowed, it’s improper, to take a document and dispose of it and say, “I don’t know where it went”. That is a ministerial record that needs to be stored for the very purpose that it can then be examined. The fact that this document, which contains a draft clause to change legislation to extinguish a claim in court against those parties—

Steve Abel: It’s outrageous.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —is absolutely outrageous. You’re right.

Hon Damien O'Connor: It’s been called “corruption”.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It’s been called all kinds of things, and there are only so many explanations for them. One of them is competence, one of them is a lack of transparency, and the other ones don’t bear mentioning in this House. It’s good to hear that the Ombudsman has now opened an inquiry into this case. I hope the Ombudsman looks deep and hard and asks those difficult questions. The Ombudsman, of course, will be able to go to the staff in the Prime Minister’s Office and find out what actually happened.

But it just does not compute that there is an important document that results—or that a Government announcement mirrors, and all of a sudden, “We have no recollection of it. It’s disappeared. I don’t recall any meetings.” This is an important part of policy, and to say that this has suddenly disappeared is not credible. This is a Government which lacks transparency, which needs to be up front with New Zealand, and if it’s going to go into the election this year with this kind of obfuscation, it’s a deeply concerning proposition for the people of New Zealand.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:47): We know—as a Government, as Ministers, as MPs—that there is a lot of engagement with all walks of society. That seems to be being seen as evil by the Opposition in this debate. Obviously, engaging with major businesses—and Fonterra and Z are major businesses, by anybody’s standards; they’re major employers, they are major generators of export revenue, they are really, really important. Why would a Government not engage with them? So I don’t think there’s any great issue in that. We don’t know what was in the documents. We’ve already heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that he didn’t know what was in those documents because he wasn’t party to those. We’ve heard from Joseph Mooney, who has written a bill dealing with this particular issue, that he didn’t know either. So the allegations which seemed to go to there was something dodgy going on certainly, I think, are unwarranted.

I just thought it might be worth us thinking about what sort of engagement might have gone on, and if there was some engagement, they might just be saying, “Oh, they were concerned about the litigation which is going on”—that would not be rocket science to work that out—“and what can they do to try and make sure that this doesn’t continue.” Because otherwise, effectively, what we could have is every single one of us contributes—whether individuals or businesses—in some way to emissions. That means anybody could be sued by somebody for this. That is the sort of concern you can imagine that they would be articulating.

Just to just to finish off, I do recall that those of us who are new in terms of the relationship with the court, those of us who were new MPs this time—and I understand this was a new thing—were invited to go down to the Supreme Court. We heard from the heads of every single layer—Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, you know, High Court, District Courts—we heard from every single one of them, and we heard very, very clearly that if we, the Parliament, do not like what it is that they have done in terms of a decision, that it is Parliament’s right to be able to correct the law, to make sure that that decision is corrected.

Steve Abel: Correct the law after the case. Not shut down the case.

ANDY FOSTER: That is exactly what is being suggested. That is exactly—that’s a slightly more efficient approach, but the Greens don’t know what efficiency is. So that’s what they told us and that is what I think this is in line with. I will end my contribution there. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Siting

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (15:49): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 27 May 2026 to consider the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill committee of the whole House stage, Public Service Amendment Bill third reading, and the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026—Approval and Regulations Review Committee Report

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (15:50): I move, That the House approve the issue by the Minister for Regulation under section 7 of the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 of the Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026 presented as parliamentary paper G.77 on 20 April.

This notice excludes classes of legislation from the requirements set out in the Regulatory Standards Act 2025. Classes of legislation are excluded for reasons such as but not limited to practicality or appropriateness. The Regulations Review Committee has considered the notice and recommended that the House approve it. I would like to thank the committee for that consideration.

The Regulatory Standards Act establishes a benchmark for responsible regulation through a set of regulatory principles based on good lawmaking. The Act aims to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality regulation by increasing transparency and making it clearer where legislation does not meet those standards. It intends to bring the same discipline to regulatory management that New Zealand has had for a long time in fiscal management under the public sector Act. It supports accountability of the executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems. It also strengthens Parliament’s scrutiny of legislation by setting out principles for responsible regulation and setting legislative requirements for agencies and/or responsible Ministers to identify and transparently report on inconsistencies in most new and existing legislation, and the reasons for those inconsistencies. It establishes an accountability mechanism in the Regulatory Standards Board and it supports the Ministry for Regulation’s oversight role. It was enacted on 18 November last year. It comes into force on 1 July.

I think that is a very important change in the way that we govern in New Zealand. If a law or regulation is going to impact on a person’s rights or property, then we should ensure that it is as clear and transparent as possible to the people what those impacts are, because by reducing the costs that voters face and monitoring the activities of politicians in Government, it is far easier for a democracy to function and for voters to identify who is making laws that affect them and how. That is exactly the kind of pro-democracy, pro - property right, and pro-prosperity legislation that I am so proud that this Government has brought to this House, that this House has enacted last year, and that will become the law of the land from 1 July. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:53): Never to go untested—David Seymour’s version of whether this is pro-democracy or not. But it is a pleasure to rise and give a call as the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, which has carefully considered this order and has recommended by consensus, as is the tradition of the committee, to recommend it. I want to first start by thanking the Minister for Regulation for making his officials available for that consideration, which was tightly managed by the Regulations Review Committee.

The notice excludes large categories of legislation, as well as named pieces of legislation. In our report to the House, we assure the House that we have considered each piece of legislation and that there is nothing unusual about which pieces of legislation have been excluded, as well as the classes. In practical terms, though, when we zoom out and consider what is being proposed here, the Minister is deciding which kinds of laws and regulations will not need to go through the new responsible regulation consistency framework created by the Act.

Labour supports this because exclusions from that regime are good, and this is a notice which excludes pieces of legislation from that. They’re broad. They include things like the emergency powers that are important in many pieces of legislation. Those are not technical. Emergency powers for Parliament are closely scrutinised by the public after they are used, and it’s important that a different sort of scrutiny regime applies to those. That sort of scrutiny regime, like Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act orders, remains untouched by this.

Trade agreements are also excluded by this. They are a special type of legislation which is scrutinised in a different way, and that is also untouched. There are also other things like constitutional matters, legislation involving iwi and hapū agreements, Reserve Bank exemptions, Commerce Commission exemptions, tax and social security instruments, and other administration-of-Government sorts of regulations which are excluded and are included in the notice that the Minister has given.

It’s important that we understand what we are debating here. The Minister is asking Parliament to agree with his officials’ view of what sort of regulation should be within the realm of the Public Service to decide whether it is appropriate for New Zealanders to not have the sort of oversight that he has provided, and a special sort of category of legislation will then be subject to the new regime.

The key issue for us, as the Regulations Review Committee, was not whether every exclusion was individually unreasonable but it was an issue of institutional clarity, because the alternative to the regime that is being proposed, and now enacted, by the Minister for Regulation is not having no scrutiny. The alternative of having scrutiny by different mechanisms of Parliament—whether Parliament should remain in control of whether regulations are enacted in a way which is fair and reasonable for ordinary New Zealanders is something that I believe in, and the mechanism for Parliament to do that is the Regulations Review Committee. Parliament has that scrutiny system for delegative legislation through the Standing Orders and through the work of that committee under Standing Order 326.

In December 2025, that committee reported to the House and then made a submission to the Standing Orders review about the risk of overlap between Parliament’s scrutiny role and the new, executive-created regulatory oversight mechanisms. The committee’s position was this: that parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation belongs to the House and its committees, not to executive-created bodies. The difference is that in the ideology proposed by the Minister, he would have a certain set of regulations which were always going to be administered—and complaints administered, as well—by a part of the Public Service.

That is not what we have now. We have accountable members. We have people you can stop in the street. We have people who you can book a meeting with at their electorate office, or go along to their Friday electorate clinic, who are responsible for the function of delegated legislation. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but you can bring a complaint about regulations which affect you. If you are a nurse and you are charged more in any given year by your professional regulatory body, you can bring a complaint. If you are a plumber and the rules don’t make sense about what kind of work you can do and what kind of work you can quickly do under self-certification, you can bring a complaint. That is the way that the system has worked, and that is a system which I will defend.

The committee also warned in that report that any future executive body with an advisory or oversight role could unintentionally dilute or overlap Parliament’s existing scrutiny responsibilities. This is the first time a framework has been proposed in this House where some legislation and categories of legislation are excluded from the broad oversight of the Regulations Review Committee. That is not actually, in my view, the legal case. The Minister can’t exclude provisions from the oversight of the Regulations Review Committee, but now we have a group of legislation and regulations which have both of these pathways available for oversight: both the Ministry for Regulation, and the Regulations Review Committee. This creates a problem in our system and it is yet to be tested.

The Ministry for Regulation is also said to be developing guidance and administering the framework, shaping the exclusions, and helping to define the practical scope of the Act. At the same time, we have our own jurisprudence, as the House, through the work of the Regulations Review Committee, which has developed these principles since the early 1980s. Those standards will not be Parliament’s standards if the Ministry for Regulation develops it on their own. They might have some deference to the Regulations Review Committee or they might have deference to the Legislative Design Committee, but they might not. That is not hardwired into the legislation and that is not the intention of the Minister.

So we hope—we only hope—at a parliamentary level, that is the case. That is the Regulations Review Committee’s concern, in a nutshell, that this concerns the right amount of executive oversight, the sort of administration that we have created by doing it in this way, and parliamentary scrutiny not being clear enough around whose job is what with legislation which is not included in these exclusion orders.

I also want to speak about what this means for ordinary New Zealanders. They’ll never read the exclusion notice that we’re debating now, but the rules that we are talking about—the secondary, delegated legislation—will impact on how benefits are set; how social housing is administered; how financial markets operate; who’s in, who’s out for exclusions. They’ll impact on health workers, how they can get registered, what they pay; for teachers administering their powers under the education Act; it will impact on tax administration.

Everything that New Zealanders do that has some touch of the State is usually impacted by secondary legislation but there is a clear mechanism where most New Zealanders understand that they can bring a complaint to their local MP. They might not hit the right MP—the right MP is me—but it will eventually make its way to a committee where people that they elect are empowered to do something about that concern. That is an important function of our Parliament. It hasn’t always been used; it should be used more. A Minister who is passionate about improving regulation in this country and giving New Zealanders a sense of democratic control over it should be the Parliament’s biggest advocate for that committee.

I also want to make the point that in reference to the Minister’s decision making and the Cabinet papers around this: they point to the policy intention to have a broad based Regulatory Standards Act system, and that model creates this compliance process across Government that is not necessarily going to be as effective. In the situation where you have a deep and lateral complaints process, where a member of the public can bring a complaint about regulation to the Regulations Review Committee, not every issue will be covered but that particular issue will be delved into deeply by some of the most talented regulatory counsel that we have in this country, through Parliament’s processes. That is a deep power that means there is a very high standard for public services to always maintain.

When we move to this system, which is essentially an exercise where the Ministry for Regulation will set a sort of framework or a piece of paper which public servants have to fill in to ensure that they have met the requirements, that is not the high standard that is currently required by the complaints process. The broad coverage actually makes it less efficient and less clear when public servants have to meet these guidelines, and it isn’t the most effective or cost-effective way—and this was acknowledged in the Cabinet paper—to ensure there is regulatory scrutiny across all of the departments which make this kind of secondary legislation. I could go on; I am passionate about this—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You could, but you’ve got 15 seconds.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, I seek leave for another two minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not granted.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I’m sorry, but this is important. We commend it to the House with those reservations.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:03): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this particular notice of motion. Like the previous speaker, Arena Williams, also, who is a fantastic chair of the Regulations Review Committee—has said that the reason that the Greens are supporting this as well is we feel like the more bills that are being excluded from having to be involved with the Regulatory Standards Act, the better it is. But there are also obviously sensible reasons for that as well. Before we do that, I think it’s really important to understand the context of the notice of motion that is being presented in the House today.

Now, as we know that notice of motion was specifically being brought by the House under Standing Order 330, which is around affirmative resolution procedure. But it’s also important to note that this is a particular part of Standing Orders that doesn’t normally gain a lot of attention of the House. Indeed, in this term, there’s only—when we’re looking at that particular section of the Standing Orders, between Standing Orders 325A to about Standing Order 331, I believe, that we’re only looking at a few instances where—particularly 329 to 331 and 332—have been triggered. Last year, for example, Standing Order 329 was triggered as a potentially—particularly when it comes to disallowance of secondary legislation, and that was around the tikanga Māori that also triggered a particular debate in this House.

I think when it comes to the examination of secondary legislation, it is really important that we do have those kind of checks and balances in place by this Parliament, and particularly by the Regulations Review Committee, to be able to hold the executive and also the Government accountable. I think that’s an important aspect when we’re looking at the separation of power between the executive, the judiciary, and also the legislature. As we have heard today already, there has already been blurred lines and certain overstepping of the executive into the judiciary but also into the legislature in the form of the Regulatory Standards Act.

This is where we had the initial issue and, again, something like this being brought to the House with this particular notice of motion is that blurred line; less so between primary and secondary legislation but more to do with how secondary legislation is scrutinised here in Parliament and also potentially by the Regulatory Standards Board.

Now, as the previous speaker mentioned, this is something that we try to grapple with as part of the consideration for the bill itself when it’s going through the House: who then is responsible for secondary legislation because, understandably, as a democratically elected House of Representatives and as a committee of this particular House, as well as empowerment through the Legislation Act, for example—I saw Standing Orders 326—the Regulations Review Committee does already have the power. So when we’re looking at the Regulatory Standards Board adding another level of bureaucracy on top of that, it is a lot of extra red tape when we’re looking at duplicating of roles and functions between the Regulatory Standards Board and also the Regulatory Review Committee.

Ostensibly, when we’re looking at the Regulatory Review Committee, like I said, it is a committee of this House and there are representatives in some ways equally between different political parties in this House whereas, as we all know, with the Regulatory Standards Board, they sit squarely under the ministerial guidance of a particular Minister, which takes anything—anything that you get with that takes away the independence.

When we’re looking at some of the additional Standing Orders requirements as well—and I already mentioned some of the Standing Orders that are empowering or have empowered the particular consideration of this bill with regards to Standing Order 330—but also like I mentioned when we are looking at the ability for the Regulatory Review Committee to consider secondary legislation but also uphold any complaints around secondary legislation, we can already be able to do that under Standing Order 327, which lists the number of grounds that people are able to make those complaints. Complaints can range from anything from fees and levies to the way that particular secondary legislation could have been drafted that’s unexpected or unusual use of regulatory making power, as in power through our primary legislation. Indeed, as we see, probably the most recent example that’s been publicised or is immediate is around the curriculum review, which is again a secondary piece of legislation under the Education and Training Act, section 90.

It is really important that the Regulations Review Committee maintain the ability to scrutinise secondary legislation but also be able to look into the regulations that, for example, have been exempted by this particular order or by this particular notice. When it comes to this particular notice, I think there are a few interesting observations that deserve some highlighting. As the previous speaker Arena Williams has already mentioned, when this was brought to the House, under Standing Order 330—under the affirmative resolution procedure—it must be sent to an appropriate select committee, in which case it was the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee have 28 days to be able to report to the House. This is different—when I mentioned in terms of disallowances, under Standing Order 329, which is actually only 10 days.

So 28 days does allow the committee to have some sort of idea, and with that, I do want to thank the Minister for Regulation and the office for being prompt with the responses and being at least transparent with the document that has been provided. I think that is an important part for the Regulations Review Committee, to consider this particular notice fully.

However, one of the things that we did look at as part of the Regulations Review Committee, noting that under other parts of section 7 of the Regulatory Standards Act, it already allows for certain exemptions to certain Acts. This is not necessarily secondary legislation, but things around emergency management, imprest and appropriation Acts, and Acts relating to Māori-Crown relations, particularly around Treaty settlements, as well as other Acts—for example, relating to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. They already give allowances, but in this particular case the notice is to exempt certain primary legislation, but essentially a substantial—I say “substantial”, but it is a portion. We know there is a lot of secondary legislation through various departments, and a portion of that secondary legislation has been exempted as a result of this.

One of the things that I think has not been responded to in a satisfactory way is particularly around the idea of what is considered administrative or what doesn’t hold any particular kind of public interest. I wanted to point out that when we were even going through the Cabinet Paper, one of the challenges that even the Cabinet Paper hasn’t really elucidated is around what the criteria are when determining what secondary legislation should be exempted as a result of this. Is there any particular framework that was used? Based on the information that the committee has been presented with, it does seem somewhat arbitrary—the way that this decision was made.

Drawing attention to the specific list over here: for example, the WorkSafe New Zealand Act has been exempted as a result of this legislation, but it’s not the only Crown agency. I guess that in some ways, WorkSafe does interact with emergency situations, but the fact that the whole Act has been exempted does raise some questions.

I do want to mention, for example, obviously, my favourite Act, the Education and Training Act. Section 66 is exempted as a result of this, which is around mid-term start dates; sections 162 and 163, I think, are around the lease of school land, or leases and contracts, which you would think would have a substantial impact in certain areas, whereas other things like section 90, which I mentioned before, is not considered as a part of this, or indeed other sections as well of the Education and Training Act. Again, this is one of the things that, unfortunately, the Regulations Review Committee, within the time allowance, possibly, of 28 days, hasn’t been able to fully tease out.

Furthermore, just in the final 30 seconds, one of the things that has been raised—I think this is an important point to make. As part of this, the Cabinet did say that this is going to be able to provide more cost savings in some ways because of the administrative burden. Again, like I’ve said, this is the red tape that’s been placed on various agencies in terms of them having to now upskill themselves and be able to meet the framework—whatever the framework will be for the Regulatory Standards Act, and however this exemption is going to lighten that load. It also says nothing in here in terms of what’s going to happen in light of the 9,000 public service positions that we’re going to be seeing cut. But, with that, the Green Party will support this.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (16:13): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to take a call to speak on the motion to approve the Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026. It’s not the most high-profile debate we’ll have in the House and some of it is quite technical, but it’s still important, and it affects a wide range of how laws will be treated behind the scenes.

As other speakers have alluded to, excluding legislation from the Regulatory Standards Act is something that we support. The notice decides which type of legislation should not have to meet the full set of requirements in the Regulatory Standards Act under section 7 of that Act. The Regulatory Standards Act, which was passed last year, was proposed to set out a framework for how legislation should be tested and to set up processes for review and scrutiny over time. This notice creates a set of exceptions and, as I’ve mentioned, more exceptions would be welcomed by this side of the House—and it clarifies in law that for certain kinds of laws, those checks as included in the Act won’t apply. Before this notice of exclusion can take effect, under section 7(3), that motion has to be approved by the House, and that’s what we’re doing today.

The starting point here is quite straightforward and understandable, which is that this legislation shouldn’t have to go through every step of the framework and there are situations where applying the full process would not make sense. The notice before us today sets out some of those situations. Just to note those, it includes legislation dealing with emergencies, as other speakers have already discussed. In crisis situations, Governments need to act quickly, and there are other checks and balances on those processes.

It also includes implementation of international agreements, including trade deals. Again, there are other areas of our legislation that that can be reviewed within. Also of note is that it includes dealing with constitutional matters, or it requires consultation with the judiciary areas. It also includes legislation that gives effect to agreements between the Crown and iwi and hapū. Also, it includes a large—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d just like the member—I realise it’s a technical bill and there’s a lot of things in here that require you to be exact, but just a little bit less reading and a bit more speaking to the House, please.

GEORGIE DANSEY: Yeah, OK. I can do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

GEORGIE DANSEY: You want it a little bit more looking at you, while I’m reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. You don’t have to look at me, but you can look at the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY: OK, I’ll pick up my papers then. It also includes a large amount of legislation that is administrative.

In principle, having these exclusions is sensible. It’s not the House simply approving a technical list, but we’re, in fact, improving the first major set of boundaries around the new regulatory standards regime itself.

I don’t sit on the Regulations Review Committee, but it was interesting to read in the report on this notice that that the committee considered particularly questions about how the list of exclusions came about. From reading the report, I see that there were about 40 agencies that were consulted, and questions arose for me around what that consultation looked like. I know that local government was informed what that looked like. Those are some of the things that came up for me when I was reading that, including the request that agencies discuss the proposals with other relevant Crown agencies in that space.

I understand that the Minister also said that there was meant to be a high bar and that laws should only be excluded when there is a clear and good reason. The categories in the notice seem to line up with those principles, and I see that the committee did not raise any major concerns and has recommended that the House approve the notice.

The committee’s position was that parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation belonged to the House and its committees, not to executive-created bodies. The committee was concerned that any future executive body with an advisory or oversight role could unintentionally dilute or overlap with Parliament’s existing scrutiny responsibilities. I believe that Parliament should retain its own independent scrutiny standards under the Standing Orders.

While the Labour Party supports this motion, this along with everything else that we consider in this House must be considered in the context in which it arises, and so I want to step back for a moment and just have a look at the bigger picture that this motion sits within. That wider system is the system built around the Ministry for Regulation, and that is where there are real concerns from this side of the House. The Ministry for Regulation was set up with a clear promise that it would improve regulation, cut waste, and bring discipline to lawmaking, but what we’re seeing does not match that promise.

The Ministry for Regulation replaced the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission had about 22 staff and it cost around $6.5 million a year. Today, the Ministry for Regulation has grown to around 93 staff, more than four times the size of the agency it was set up to replace, and its costs are sitting at about $16.6 million a year. At the same time, it has spent nearly a million dollars on contractors doing ongoing roles that could’ve been filled permanently, and should’ve been filled permanently. The Ministry for Regulation has spent more than $860,000 on consultants to carry out core work, including regulatory reviews, which is exactly what the ministry was created to do itself.

We know that even Treasury advised against this expensive project—advised against setting up a stand-alone department—saying that a smaller unit within an existing agency would be cheaper and easier to establish. That advice was ignored in favour of the most expensive option, the Ministry for Regulation. The Hon David Seymour has repeatedly attacked other Government agencies for wasteful spending and bureaucratic bloat, but his own ministry ignored official advice to choose the cheapest structure, grew far beyond its stated size, and relied on expensive temporary staff rather than hiring permanently—the exact behaviours he criticises in others. If you set up a ministry to lecture the rest of Government about efficiency and better regulation, then that ministry has to meet those standards itself. Otherwise, it starts to look like there’s one rule for everybody else and another for the Government.

Labour’s position is clear. We do not support the Ministry for Regulation in its current form, and so this notice of motion excluding aspects is something that we do support. We don’t think that the Ministry for Regulation represents good value for money, and we would not keep it as it is. That is not, of course, the question in front of us today, but as I mentioned, it’s important that we look at the wider context around this. Today, we’re asked to make a much narrower decision, and the question is around whether these specific exclusions make sense, as the committee has thoroughly explored, and I thank the committee for doing so.

When you look at the categories in this notice—just to finish up—the emergency laws, the international agreements, constitutional matters, and administrative rules, it’s a pragmatic call to exclude these, and Labour supports this notice of motion.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:23): Thank you very much. Usually, the saying goes “age before beauty”, but in this case it’s beauty before age—thank you, Doctor. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of this notice. This notice will exclude certain classes of legislation from the Regulatory Standards Act’s requirements. Our position is that all legislation should be excluded from the Regulatory Standards Act. We will repeal the Regulatory Standards Act when we are in Government, and I know that’s the same commitment the Labour Party and the Green Party have made also.

The draft notice explanatory note states that its purpose would be to exclude selected classes of legislation from the Act’s requirements based on it not being practical or appropriate for the requirements to apply. The notice would exclude legislation that—just bear with me, Madam Speaker—provides powers to respond to emergency situations, implements existing international trade agreements, gives effect to specific bi- or multilateral agreements, updates the text of international agreements once New Zealand has accepted changes, relates to specified constitutional matters or that requires consultation with the judiciary, implements agreements between the Crown and iwi and hapū, is issued by independent Crown entities or the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and provides exemptions from legislative requirements as administrative or having no ongoing public impact.

This notice is a reminder of what this Government has done to te iwi Māori, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to the very constitution of Aotearoa with the Regulatory Standards Act. Instead of erasing the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi through the Treaty principles bill, the Regulatory Standards Act was the first step in overwriting them. Over 160,000 people wrote submissions on the bill; 99 percent opposed it. The next step is the Treaty clause review, which will water down Treaty obligations across all laws until they have absolutely no power.

We support this notice because excluding any piece of legislation from the Regulatory Standards Act is a good thing, but it should go further. All laws should be excluded. The Regulatory Standards Act should have been thrown out with the Treaty principles bill. This notice will exclude laws for climate emergencies—this is a good thing, but what about the housing emergencies? What about the poverty emergencies? The Regulatory Standards Act will make it harder for our whānau to be housed and to live with dignity.

This notice will also exclude laws where it would be too expensive to meet the Act’s requirements, but what about the laws that impact the price of kai? We should be striving for an Aotearoa where everyone can afford to eat, and we cannot allow regulatory standards to get in the way of this goal.

During question time today, we asked the Prime Minister about the millions of dollars this Government has received in donations from corporations. The Regulatory Standards Act is exactly what they paid for: less regulation, less responsibility to our taiao, and more exploitation. All the Public Service job cuts that we are seeing are a result of a regulatory standards thinking. They have already cut 10,000 jobs, and they’re planning to cut 10,000 more. This is the first Government to campaign on cutting jobs instead of creating them. This is regulatory standards thinking.

David Seymour thinks that we don’t need public services to look after those in need and we don’t need the Government to look after the environment, because in his mind these are all issues of personal responsibility. Never mind the decades of colonisation that have left our people landless, poor, and sick. Never mind all the experts who are telling us that corporations are destroying the planet. Something needs to be done—for him, the answer is to give the corporations more power.

Te Pāti Māori believes that there is only one regulatory standard in this country, and it is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We already have a benchmark for good regulations in Aotearoa, and, like I said, it’s called Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We never needed the Regulatory Standards Act to overwrite it. Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects all people in Aotearoa from exploitation. It is our blueprint for equality and justice, and we should be looking at all laws through the lens of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, not through the Regulatory Standards Act. Kia ora tātou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (16:28): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re a bit slow, Hon Dr Duncan Webb, but I know that you do want a call on this bill because you’ve tried about three times—you’re just a bit slow this time. So I will take a call from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:29): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker, for that. You’re right; I had tried to take a call earlier in this, because this is an important piece of secondary legislation. One of the things that I did, actually, was to go through all of the legislation here that is going to be excluded, and it’s interesting, because if the argument is that the Regulatory Standards Act is a necessary check on legislative quality, then I’m interested in—and it would be great if the Government members took a call to explain this—why some of these are in fact being excluded from this so-called quality check.

Of course, there are two aspects to the quality check, and I think it’s really important to say that first—the so-called quality check. One is the compliance statement that has to be done, which is a little bit like a regulatory impact statement, and the other is that it’s subject to the Regulatory Standards Board.

If we look, for example, at clause 2(1) in Schedule 1 of the notice, it relates to “Secondary legislation under section 14 or 15 of the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987”. Now, that power is actually a power to prevent publication of information relating to terrorist threats, and so it’s a free speech fetter and there’s a reasonable question to be asked as to whether that should, in fact, be subject either to the compliance statement or subject to the Regulatory Standards Board.

Importantly, under the Regulatory Standards Act, you can get a free pass from the Minister from the compliance statement anyway, and so if you’re doing something, you can go to the Minister and seek to, essentially, be excused from any compliance statement. But there is an argument to say that if the Regulatory Standards Board is so important as a quality check and is able to give feedback in a kind of positive, virtuous feedback loop into Government, when you’re doing something like limiting free speech—they’re the party of free speech, the ACT Party; apparently—why would you put this into the “you don’t have to, it doesn’t apply” category?

The other one I looked at, which was also in Schedule 1—and so we’re heading to clause 2(2), which is the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023. That was the response to Cyclone Gabrielle, and I went to have a look at that to see what regulation-making powers were there—

Arena Williams: Very broad.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, in fact, they’re all repealed. I was perplexed as to why, and I know the Regulations Review Committee is excellently chaired and not a bad committee, by and large, but—

Arena Williams: Still in force.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It is still in force, but you can’t make any regulations under it, and so I was just curious.

The other thing is this, and it may be that the Minister can move an amendment. I’m not sure whether I’m able to move an amendment to this, but in clause 2(2), it doesn’t say, “Secondary legislation under the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023”; it just says the “Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023”. Now, that’s perplexing to me, because emergency Acts of Parliament are already excluded from the ambit of this legislation. It may well be that there should be some additional words and it should be made clear that what we’re talking about is secondary legislation made under that Act.

Arena Williams: Yep.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And the chair of that committee says that, yes, that’s right, and so that’s a slip. The problem now is that if you exclude the legislation, it doesn’t actually refer to delegated legislation.

Whilst we’re on that, I’ll go to clause 8 of Schedule 1, as well, which simply states “COVID-19 Response (Taxation and Social Assistance Urgent Measures) Act 2020”, but it doesn’t say, “Secondary legislation under”, and so, once again, you’ve got a slip. It appears that it should say, “Secondary legislation under the COVID-19 Response (Taxation and Social Assistance Urgent Measures) Act 2020”, and it doesn’t actually say that.

It does look like the Ministry for Regulation has just gone to the other ministries and said, “What ones do you want excluded?”, because we then have a large list from the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI): the Animal Products Act, the Biosecurity Act, the Fisheries Act, the Food Act, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act, and the Organic Products and Production Act. What’s excluded there is a raft of emergency powers which relate to, essentially, MPI taking steps when there is an outbreak of some kind, but we all know also that this can be extremely difficult for members of our rural communities. Remember Psa and all the vines that were pulled out? Remember Mycoplasma bovis and all the herds that were destroyed? The question becomes: who is able to review regulations made under that Act?

Now, I get that you don’t necessarily have to do the upfront compliance with your regulatory standards checklists and so on, but the Regulatory Standards Board cannot inquire into any of these regulations, even after the emergency has abated. If there was an emergency declared of some pest or fungus and all the vineyards in Marlborough got pulled out, it turns out it was a not a threat at all, and the regulations were poorly constructed and poorly consulted on, that’s exactly the kind of thing that David Seymour says the Regulatory Standards Board should be looking at.

The other one I was really perplexed by, if I can find it—and you’ll see that I actually did get them all out here—was the Building Act one. Clause 5(1) of Schedule 1 of the notice says, “Secondary legislation under section 133BQ(2)(a) of the Building Act 2004”, and that just doesn’t make any sense, because section 133BQ says that “(1) A responsible person may inspect the exterior and interior of a building” and the “assessment must be prepared—”, and the paragraph (a) bit is “in accordance with the methodology … approved by the chief executive;”. I mean, it’s a really mundane statement about how you assess a building after an event. To me, it’s questionable whether it’s secondary legislation, at all. It’s just a methodology approved by the chief executive, and it strikes me as falling quite outside the ambit of secondary legislation.

As we go on, there’s a couple I’ll get to—crikey, is that the time already? I’ve got so much more to talk about. Well, there’s a couple more here, because the other one is “Secondary legislation under section 4 of the Petroleum Demand Restraint Act 1981”. Now, 1981 was a bit after the fuel shocks of the original Iran crisis. All it does is it gives the Government powers—in fact, probably the very powers they’re now contemplating using—to put constraints on how petrol is sold. It actually talks about the equitable distribution of fuel in the community.

It’s a pretty heavy-handed piece of legislation. The interesting thing is this: it does not require an emergency to trigger it. You’ve got a schedule which says, “Legislation that provides powers to respond to emergency situations”—in fact, that’s how this was contemplated in the original legislation—and then you’ve got this Petroleum Demand Restraint Act, which simply says, “to maintain prudent supplies and equitable distribution”. I mean, I’ve got it in front of me here, and that’s roughly the framing in that piece of legislation.

The other one—well, there are so many more, or there are a couple more I really wanted to touch on. The other one is the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act, which is, apparently, excluded because it relates to international treaties, but, in fact, all it does is set up an appropriate framework and rule-making powers for recognition to ensure that, for example, qualifications as an accountant in one country—in Australia—are the same as qualifications here.

Now, I’m not sure why that is excluded either, but, certainly, if we go through all these, there are lots of questions that could and probably should be asked. It’s a very detailed list and it actually deserves a lot of scrutiny.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (16:39): Kia ora e te Pīka. Ngā mihi nui. I rise in support of the motion before the House to approve the Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026.

I want to begin by thanking the Regulations Review Committee, chaired most ably by my colleague Arena Williams. It is also a committee where we usually agree on most things. I’d also like to thank the contributions of other members of the select committee: Miles Anderson, Nancy Lu, Joseph Mooney, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who is actually a member that attends most of our select committee hearings, as well.

This is the first notice ever issued under section 7 of the Regulatory Standards Act 2025. It is worth pausing on that point, because we are debating this section for the very first time and it will, actually, reflect on how we will deal with notices like this, it will set the precedent for various notices like this in the future, and the pattern of how we deal with things that follow on section 7.

I’d like to speak a little bit more about what this section actually means. Section 7 of the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 is a delegated power. It allows the Minister for Regulation to issue a notice declaring that the Act does not apply to specified classes of legislation, but—and this is the constitutionally important point—section 7(3) provides that a notice can only be issued and take effect after it has been approved by the House of Representatives. In other words, the executive does not get to say the final word on what is excluded from the Act’s consistency assessments, the law’s review obligations, or scrutiny by the Regulatory Standards Board—Parliament does.

So there are three things that I’d like to note about section 7, and they are as follows. First, it is a House resolution, not a regulation made in the ordinary course of how we have regulations-making power in this House. That distinction matters. Second, under Standing Order 330(1), every section 7 notice of motion stands referred to a select committee. In this case, that select committee will be the Regulations Review Committee. That gives the House the benefit of detailed scrutiny before the question is put on any section 7 notice. Third, the notice itself is secondary legislation. So while approval is by resolution, the instrument that takes effect carries the full legal force of delegated legislation. This on its face is a robust parliamentary check; however, whether it operates in this way in practice will depend on how seriously we in this House take our responsibility every time a notice under section 7 comes through, and today is the first test of that.

Now, turning to the substat—substantial. Sorry, my Tongan sometimes overtakes! Under the substantial notice of the notice itself, section 7 would exclude eight broad categories. I’ll only speak about four of those. It will exclude legislation providing powers to respond to emergency situations, legislation implementing existing international trade agreements—we in the Labour Party agree with these exclusions. It will exclude legislation implementing agreements between the Crown and iwi and hapū—again, very important. And the last exclusion I’ll speak of is the legislation that is administrative or has no ongoing public interest. What we know from some of the papers that we’ve read in our select committee is that very last category is by far the largest one, because schedule 8 of the notice alone tells us that it would exclude about 175 instruments on the basis that they are administrative and have no ongoing public impact.

I just want to note that these are not minor categories—all eight of them, even though I didn’t speak about the other four. They include emergency powers, trade implementation, Crown-iwi agreements, and the operational instruments of our independent regulators. But I do want to say that around the end of April, our chair, Arena Williams, wrote on behalf of our select committee to the Minister, asking various questions, including: how did the Minister and his ministry come up with the eight that they have actually said will be excluded? We wanted to know what information sat behind the decisions that were made. The Minister responded to our select committee towards the end of April with Cabinet papers, Cabinet minutes, and papers. So what we found was that the Ministry for Regulation consulted with more than 40 public sector agencies. Those agencies were asked to discuss the proposals with the relevant Crown entities and various other organisations. Government agencies were asked to identify legislation under four buckets. These four buckets are: emergency response, Crown agreements, intrusion into parliamentary judicial and independent affairs, and legislation where the costs of compliance outweigh the value.

I talk about these things because, after the select committee looked through the advice and the recommendations from the Minister and the Minister for Regulation, we came to the conclusion that we would be unanimous in our support of section 7. We had no concerns to draw to the attention of the House. We considered that the classes specified in the notice were practical and appropriate to exclude. We found that the Minister’s consultation processes were appropriate. But I do want to say this: I would like to place on notice in its broader context that the Labour Party opposed the Regulatory Standards Bill. We opposed it at first reading, at second reading, and we also opposed it at third reading. We did so because we considered—and we continue to have this consideration—that the Act elevates a particular ideological value of property rights and individual liberty above the collective interests that this Parliament—all of us members of Parliament—are elected to protect. In our opinion, these are: Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the environment, public health, and the role of the Public Service in carrying out those obligations.

When people put through their submissions to the main Act, 98.7 percent of those submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee opposed the bill. That opposition has not gone away simply because the Act has commenced. I want to be clear that Labour’s support for the select committee’s recommendation today is not an endorsement of the Regulatory Standards Act; it is a recognition that while the Act is on our statute book, section 7’s exclusion mechanism is a safety valve that should be used and should be used well. Excluding emergency powers, Crown-iwi agreements, and constitutional instruments from the Act’s reach is sensible in our opinion. It is the bare minimum of what we should do as parliamentarians. But let’s not mistake this vote today from the Labour Party as a vote of confidence in the Regulatory Standards Act itself—no, not at all. That debate is for another day and another Government. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:48): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the House approve the issue by the Minister for Regulation under section 7 of the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 of the Regulatory Standards (Excluded Legislation) Notice 2026 presented as parliamentary paper G.77 on 20 April.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Select Committee

Debate resumed from 21 May.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be able to take another call on this referral motion to speak to my colleague Duncan Webb’s additional amendment that he put forward, which was, I believe, to delete the words after “the date referral”. This is particularly—Mr Speaker, I’ll just ask if the clock has been—thank you. This is important because move-on orders are a particularly important piece of legislation that changes the way that the Government deals with people who are not only acting in a way which is considered to be disruptive, but also this particular bill covers the fact of begging. It also covers people who are rough sleeping.

It is a departure from what has previously been put forward. I did mention previously that we are a very busy committee in the Justice Committee, so I think that letting a normal process, which is, essentially, what Duncan Webb’s amendment would do, is exactly what should be put in place. Lawrence Xu-Nan has put an amendment which has a specific date, which I am also more supportive of, which I have already spoken to, but this would actually take it back to a normal policy process that would allow the Justice Committee to go through it in a decent period of time.

We do know, obviously it goes without saying, I suppose the elephant in the room is the fact that we have an election coming up. However, I think that Duncan Webb’s proposal, which importantly sets out that the normal procedure would take place, would allow either this Government or the next Government to take advice and to have a full select committee process without having to rush the submissions process too.

We do know, and I spoke last time, about the parliamentary staff, but I also want to acknowledge the staff that work at the Ministry of Justice, who, I understand, would be providing advice on this bill. Now, the Ministry of Justice has had probably the highest number of bills referred to it for its advice, and they give very good, candid advice, they advise the Government of the day, which is their job, but it must be seen within the context of having such a significant workload that making any shortened report back would impede the advice which they have been providing. I did previously speak about parliamentary staff, but I do think that perhaps, more importantly, the ministerial staff in place should be considered. They have so many bills that, actually, it is going to be a little bit problematic.

I won’t take the full 10-minute call, as I’ve already contributed to this debate, but I didn’t have the opportunity to speak to my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment, so I just wanted to put on record that I am supportive of that. I do think it takes it back to its original purpose. There are additional considerations that we have to have in terms of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, which I think the committee should take into account.

The other thing I think it’s really important to know is that this isn’t something that touches just on justice; this is also something that touches on our strategy towards homelessness. I know my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who is the Labour Party’s justice spokesperson, has a contribution he wants to make from that perspective, and that is almost equally important because of the nature of this particular bill.

I won’t use the full 10 minutes, being respectful of making sure there isn’t any repetition. I am wanting to put on record that I support Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment that we need to consider the Ministry of Justice and making sure that they have the capacity to be able to respond in a thoughtful way that New Zealanders would expect in such a departure from the existing policy in relation to dealing not only with perhaps what we thought this bill would be about, which is about antisocial behaviour, but additionally with the additional measures of rough sleeping, homelessness, and also an important matter which I covered in my contribution to the House in the first reading, which is the fact that it impacts children.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—bearing in mind I hope you weren’t set up by your colleague Camilla Belich that this is very much on the instructions to the select committee, not the wide range of topics that were indicated by your colleague.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:53): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am keen to make a contribution on this debate on the instructions to the select committee because the nature of this bill warrants a particular level of contribution from the community, such is what has been proposed by the bill. As was indicated by Camilla Belich, there is primarily a justice angle on this. However, I’m coming at this from a housing angle, and indeed, actually, that is how most people are looking at this, because, on the one hand, we have the Government saying that this is essential to address unruly behaviour, but, on the other hand, their insistence to include rough sleeping in the criteria means that, actually, this bill is about addressing rough sleeping and homelessness.

Now, why that’s important to ensure that there is a full process here is that, if we consider the context that homelessness has grown to an unprecedented level—it is the worst it has been, ever, according to the Wellington City Mission; now, keeping in mind how long they have been serving the Wellington city, that is quite a significant statement to make. Now, those that are involved in this are not prone to hyperbole; they are saying this because it is reflecting what they are experiencing.

There is a very important point to make here, in that when the Government first indicated that they were wanting to do something along the lines of move-on orders, there was a response to that, which is natural. Now, one might assume, in something of this nature, you would get a mixed response, but, actually, there’s been Sunny Kaushal and Viv Beck in favour of it, and, basically, everybody else opposed to it.

Every relevant agency that were consulted by the Government raised material concerns about this, and three—the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Social Development, and Police—on the specific point of rough sleeping. The fact that the Government have ignored that advice from their own officials and have included rough sleeping shows that the move-on orders aren’t actually about antisocial behaviour. The fact that the Government is proposing to limit the opportunity for the public to have a say on that is at the core of this debate that we’re having now. How many proposals that have gone through this Parliament, that have had such a clear opposition not just from the public but also from Government agencies—in fact, I haven’t been able to find advice from any Government agency that says the inclusion of rough sleeping is a good idea.

Clearly that is something that the public would want to have a say on. Is the public comfortable with the idea of a 14-year-old rough sleeper being moved on and fined $2,000? That is what has been proposed, and now the opportunity for the public to have their say on that is significantly reduced by the instructions that this Government has moved to the select committee.

Now, an important point of process—and it is relevant to this instruction—is that, on numerous occasions, as is indicated by the public minutes of the Business Committee, select committees have had to seek permission from the Business Committee to extend the time in which they have been allocated to consider a bill, and, on every single one of those occasions, it’s because there was a motion from the Government, an instruction from this House, opposed by the Opposition but supported by Government parties, to restrict the time that select committees consider bills, in the instruction that they’ve moved. That is poor process.

There’s been a clear indication that there is clearly a trend that people are getting sick of it, and, actually, we could avoid that if the Government simply allowed a full select committee process to flow through. Why that is significant not only from a parliamentary procedural perspective but from a rough sleeping perspective is that, given the Government’s decision to no longer continue with the census, that was actually the only formal, recognised measure of homelessness in this country. Now, in the absence of the census, we, as a country, have no other measurement in terms of the level of homelessness, except for the testimony of those on the front line, who, as I said earlier, have indicated that it’s now at the highest level it has ever been. But the combination of the removal of the only official measure, and a restriction on the public’s ability to have a say on this bill, front-line providers are universal in their opposition to this and they have talked about the significant impact that this will have on those people who literally have nothing and are facing a $2,000 fine because they have nowhere else to go. Also, the public should have the opportunity to question what measures are in place to actually address that level of homelessness.

Keeping in mind that this has been billed by the Government as an anti – disorderly behaviour mechanism, their insistence to include rough sleeping does warrant a full select committee process.

Where are these people going to go? There are trusted agencies in this country, like the Salvation Army and the City Missions, that have been around for decades, for generations, that have built tremendous goodwill over that time. When they speak, people listen and they trust them. When these agencies say that all this will do is shift the issue from the centre city into people’s suburbs—into their front yards, essentially, the areas where they live, work, and play—in front of suburban shops instead of city shops. That is a significant consequence of what is being proposed in this bill that the Government is now proposing to restrict the public’s ability to have a say in that.

When we’re talking about, on one hand, this is a response to the growing level of homelessness that actually will not house a single person, that will move the issue into—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: This is repetition.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The Minister is talking about repetition. Perhaps he might want to listen. Perhaps he should have listened when he tried to include this when he was an Auckland City councillor and even John Banks as mayor was too ashamed to pursue it. But he’s finally got his chance. He shouldn’t be too concerned about repetition, he should be concerned about listening to the public. That should be the Minister’s focus here. But instead, he has shamelessly indicated that he will move an instruction to the committee to limit the public’s ability to do that. That is shameful. It is shameful because it is yet another example of this Government wanting to bypass proper parliamentary process. It is shameful because they want to restrict the public’s ability to have a say on this, and it is shameful because they want to pretend that the homelessness that their policies have created doesn’t exist by shifting it out of the centre city. In the Prime Minister’s own words, he doesn’t want tourists to come in and see homeless people on the streets. Well, let’s not grow the number of homeless people. That is the best way to address that concern. There are many concerns about this, including that the Department of Corrections have flagged that this bill has the capacity to increase the cost to Corrections by $300 million.

Now, we’re about to have a Budget this week, and there will be measures that are a fraction of $300 million that the Government will want to go around the country crowing about how great it is and will want the public to have their say on that. But they don’t want the public to have a full opportunity to have a say on a bill that not only impacts those who are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, but also, through the words of their own department, could have a fiscal implication of $300 million. And this instruction that this Government has moved will limit the public’s capacity to have a say on that. That is why we are opposing this instruction.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:03): 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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): 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 word “3 September 2026” with “22 September 2026”.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all of the words after the words “3 September 2026” be struck out.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 September 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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73, Noes 47.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed from 19 May.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (17:09): Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

We come first to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. When we last considered the bill we had finished the debate on Part 1 and were voting on the relevant amendments. A number of amendments to Part 1 remain and must be voted on. I will now put those questions to the committee.

Members, the Hon Ginny Andersen’s five tabled amendments to clause 46 will amend new Subpart 4A of Part 6 to make participation in the monitoring studies voluntary. 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 the Hon Ginny Andersen’s five tabled amendments to clause 46 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 46 replacing “must” with “may” in new section 618A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 46 replacing “must” and “must ensure” with “may” and “may ensure” in new section 618B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 46 amending new section 618B(2) 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 46 inserting paragraph (ba) into new section 618B(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 46 replacing “The Minister may grant the exemption only if” and “The Minister may grant” in new section 618C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 46 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 618C(2)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 new clause 46A amending section 619A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 delete clause 47 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 47 replacing reference to the chief executive and the Education Review Office in new sections 621A and 621D be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 47 inserting paragraph (ha) into new section 621B(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 47 deleting subsection (3)(b) and (6A) of new section 621D be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 47 amending new section 621D(6) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 48 inserting subsection (1A) into new section 628 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 48 replacing “at any reasonable time” in new section 628(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 48 replacing “remove” with “obtain” in new section 628(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 48 deleting new section 628(3) and (4) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 48 inserting subsection (1A) in new section 628 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 clause 48 replacing “at any reasonable time” in new section 628(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 48 amending new section 628(7)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 delete clause 50 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 51A amending section 651B(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 51A amending section 651B(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 55 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 57 amending Schedule 20 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 57 to 62—“Amendments to other legislation”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take this opportunity to have the first call on Part 2 of this bill. Now, in Part 2 of Schedule 2, when you’re looking at “Amendments to Secondary Legislation”, there are a few that I want to address. Obviously, the most substantial one is the changes to the Education (Hostels) Regulations 2005. I want to start by asking the Minister about the changes. When you’re looking at the changes to how the hostels are going to be able to be adjusted—this is also a part that was in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583—but also we’re looking at changes to the role that moved from the authority—i.e., the Ministry of Education—to the Director of Regulation and, now, sits under the Education Review Office (ERO). My first question to the Minister is: how is the Minister going to ensure that the Director of Regulation, as an individual, is going to have the expertise but also the support? Not only has the function moved from the ministry to the Director of Regulations, but the director, now, has also moved under ERO, so what assurances are there to ensure that some of these regulations—particularly pertaining to things like registration, non-compliance, etc.—are going to be done in a way that is going to ensure students safety? I’m going to start with that question, and I do have a follow-up question regarding specific regulations named under here in relation to the changes that function from the authority to the Director of Regulation.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:32): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to tabled amendment 5.11.06, which proposes, in the name of my colleague Dr Xu-Nan, after clause 56 and clause 57 of Part 2, “Schedule 20 amended”, and this tabled amendment amends the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill and also suggest that all students should be entitled to attend a co-educational school. He provides the example there of the Epsom electorate where there is no available State coordinated educational school, despite there being eight secondary schools. In terms of the primary legislation, going to clause 57, it amends the principal Act. I’d be really interested in the—[Cellphone makes noise]

Tom Rutherford, naughty! I’d be really interested in the Minister’s views on that. I’d like to check too. Are we also discussing Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, or we just doing—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Schedule 2.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We’re doing Schedule 2—OK—as well. I do have a question in relation to Schedule 2 in the bill as well. I’ve asked a number of written parliamentary questions in this space and haven’t had some answers, so I’m just wondering if this actually fixes the provisions where there are not clear specifications for hostels and where you have the specification in regulation 4 to revoke the definition of “authority” and with replace with “Director of Regulation” in each place, I’d really like an explanation from the Minister as to the purpose of that change. It does not seem clear from the bill or from the commentary on the bill as to why that change is being made. There are a number of consequential amendments that all replace “authority” with “Director of Regulation”, and it’s unclear as to the particular reason for that change in terminology. If the Minister’s able to answer it, that would be great.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:34): OK, I’ll just follow on from the previous contribution, now that I’ve noticed that there’s a change in the Minister. I did jump ahead slightly—I do apologise to my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen. I jumped to clause 61, which is around Schedule 2—specifically relating to Schedule 2, Part 2, Education (Hostels) Regulations 2005. If you would indulge me, Mr Chair, I just want to finish my questions to Part 2 of Schedule 2 under clause 61 before addressing some of the other clauses in Part 2 overall, particularly some of the areas relating to the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) as well and also our education school boards and planning and reporting.

Just in terms of this, I’m still seeking some guidance from the Minister on the question I asked before, and I think I’ll just briefly, I guess, recapture some of that, just because we’ve got a new Minister in the chair. The question is: when it comes to the Education (Hostels) Regulations, noting that there are also changes in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583 that change the way that hostels must ensure student safety etc., how would the Minister ensure, or what confidence does the Minister have, that since not only has the person responsible changed but that entire role has also moved from the Ministry of Education under the Education Review Office, that they’re going to uphold the same level of standards and scrutiny when it comes to registration of hostels as well as non-compliance? That is my first question.

My second question is—and this is quite a specific one. Now, I’ve noticed here that the first one—I guess clause 1, you could say, in Part 2 of this particular schedule—refers to section 5(2) of the regulation. I do want to check with the Minister because, unlike the rest of these sections, where are a lot of those are to do with the registration, non-compliance, quality assurance, etc., section 5(2) is very specific. It relates “to a hostel being used, for a period of up to 3 months, or for a longer period approved by the authority,”—i.e., the Director of Regulation—“mainly or solely for the accommodation of students (whether under a plan required by regulation 48(b) or not) because of an emergency.” I want to check with the Minister: for section 5(2), which is on page 62 of the Minister’s amendment, how is the Director of Regulation going to determine, and what criteria are they going to use to determine, what that emergency is in respect to whether the hostel could be used for that particular context? Again, it might deviate from the existing process when it comes to the authority, and, again, we’re seeing some changes with hostels in general, but I think that’s a really important question specifically hanging on to that regulation.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:37): Mr Chair, thank you. I would like to ask the Minister one question, and it does relate to the other part of the bill, but given that this legislation in its primary changes around the Teaching Council and there were no questions to be able to ask out of any of the Amendment Papers, I would like to ask two questions in relation to that. Primarily, I would like to understand from the Minister why Amendment Paper 583 has made changes to home schooling without consultation with any of the community affected and why it wasn’t sent to select committee. I would like to know that.

The second question is why did Amendment Paper 583 remove the final democratically elected positions from the Teaching Council? This was also not allowed to be sent to select committee. I think it’s only fair because these people did not get to submit on these changes and we, as members of the Opposition, did not get to ask questions of the Minister because we moved on at clause 24 of the bill. I think it is only fair democratic process for New Zealand for the Minister to explain Amendment Paper 583 and why those people impacted did not get consulted or have the opportunity to submit at select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just bear in mind that that is part of Part 1. I’ll leave it up to the Minister whether she chooses to answer that, but it will be in her hands.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still waiting for a response and some engagement from the Minister regarding my previous questions. I do want to, now, move on to—also in Part 2 of Schedule 2—some of the other ones that we’re seeing in there. Now, this is going to be kind of interesting. I guess, in some ways, this is pedantic, but as we all know as legislators, you do want to be very pedantic when it comes to the letter of the law.

I want to check with the Minister. In the Education (School Boards) Regulations 2020 and Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023, in both instances, I guess specifically when you’re looking at school boards regulations, in clauses 15 and 16, it says to delete “foundation curriculum policy statements and national”, and so I went and had a look at that particular regulation. In the Education (School Boards) Regulations 2020, regulation 21, “Duty to report on progress and achievement of students”, it says “(2) The reports must … (b) include the student’s progress and achievement—(i) across any relevant foundation curriculum policy statements and national curriculum statements made under section 90 of the Act;”. However, if we delete that particular line, it will now be read: “(b) include the student’s progress and achievement—(i) across any relevant curriculum statements made under section 90 of the Act;”.

As we saw in Part 1—I’m referring to Part 1 only to ask the Minister the question to provide some clarity, because one of the things that was proposed as part of the select committee process is that we insert the term “national”. So if we’re looking at Part 1 now, it actually says in the headings, etc., to replace “curriculum” with “national curriculum”, but then when we come to the school board regulations here, the word “national” has been removed, in which case, it’s just simply any curriculum statement. Can I check with the Minister how then would a school board interpret that, because the curriculum statement itself no longer will exist in section 90 of the Act. Is that a drafting error, or is that interpretation of the curriculum statement in this case an assumption made that is still referring to national curriculum, even though the word “national” has been removed?

I also wanted to note that in other instances of this bill where the word “national” potentially was removed as part of changes and then it was reinserted back in in the final select committee version—well, actually, version two of the bill as reported from select committee. Clearly, the consistency in including the word “national” is important, and so, again, I’m checking with the Minister on that particular regulation as to whether there is another curriculum statement that we are referring to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:42): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to speak to clause 62 in Part 2 of the bill in relation to revocation. It provides that the Public Service (Chief Executive for School Property) Order 2024 is revoked. I just want to be clear that that means that the new entity created for school property—I would like to be clear around the accountabilities. So does that mean that the chief executive for school property title no longer exists? It would be good to understand that. It would be also good to understand from the Minister what those lines of accountability are through the Public Service, as well.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. Noting that we still have yet to have any engagement from the Minister regarding this part, I will actually move on to a different clause because I have asked my questions for clause 31.

I want to check with the Minister that, for example, when you’re looking at clause 62, “Revocation”, this is to do with the Public Service (Chief Executive for School Property) Order 2024. Presumably it is being revoked because we now have a new school property agency system being set up, but I wanted to note that if you’re looking at the order itself, it does have certain requirements around the function of the chief executive and role of the chief executive for school property, as well as additional recommendations. Would there be a separate order that would be made by the Minister as, I guess, the chief executive for the New Zealand School Property Agency? Would that be something that’s likely going to happen, or is what is already in the Public Service (Chief Executive for School Property) Order 2024 encompassed within this current bill?

Would the Minister be able to elucidate, because, again, I feel like the order itself—particularly when it comes to certain aspects of the role of the chief executive—is important to maintain for clarity, but also for the general overall purpose of the role and function of the chief executive currently for school property, which might be something that’s captured, as well, under the chief executive’s role. I do want to check with the Minister broadly whether a separate order would be made for the chief executive for the New Zealand School Property Agency, before I ask some specific questions around what is in that order that is being revoked and whether that is consistent with what we’re currently seeing in the new bill, and particularly some of the new sections on this school property agency.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:45): I’m just checking the Minister is not going to—no. OK, we’ll keep going. I just have another question on the role that we’ve just been discussing in relation to the newly established New Zealand School Property Agency, or NZSPA. The question I have in relation to that relationship with the Public Service is that I’d be interested to know whether the Minister has a view on whether creating that role undermines the Treaty of Waitangi or any obligations to Māori in educational autonomy, or whether she thinks that it is not. In terms of creating a new entity, does that and the role of the—what is the person called? They are the chief executive for school property. What are their obligations in relation to ensuring that Treaty provisions are OK? Do they have a direct responsibility under the Treaty?

She has mentioned that school boards aren’t Crown entities and that she has the responsibility of the Treaty relationship. I’m interested to know what her views are on that role of the chief executive for school property in that. Obviously, she’s aware that there are risks around asset privatisation with the shift, given that there are charter school provisions in this bill, as well. I’m really interested to understand whether she has any views.

The problem kind of is that this bill grants this new entity quite broad powers over school property, and so the chief executive has quite broad powers, but it provides pretty unclear limitations on asset disposal. It potentially creates risks for this person who has responsibility—the chief executive for school property—should they become an agent of privatisation in the selling or disposing of public education assets in ways that reduce public educational capacity and that benefit private interests. So I’m very much interested to understand the revoking of that title and the impacts that it has on the Treaty relationship.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (17:47): In relation to the last question from Ginny Andersen, we’ve covered this in Part 1. The Treaty of Waitangi obligations of the Crown and the new entity were well traversed in Part 1. In relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questioning around the functions of the functional chief executive, this will be covered by the New Zealand School Property Agency and, therefore, that is not required.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up on what the Minister is referring to. Would the Minister then be able to point to this. When we’re looking at the function of the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) in, let’s say, clause 42, new sections 517F and 517G of the Act, which talk about the functions of the NZSPA and the collective duties of the NZSPA board. One of the things—and I don’t remember this particular phrasing being used, and this is, again, in that public order that is being revoked—is that the chief executive in that case is able to make decisions about investment in and disinvestment of school properties and education assets. Could the Minister point to in, let’s say, new section 517F or new section 517G where that still continues to capture that idea of both investment and disinvestment—whether that is something that is covered any more. Again, the reason that I ask is because there are certain aspects of the chief executive of school property audits that might be important to capture in the broader function of the NZSPA, and I don’t know if it does at this stage.

Now, the other important question I did ask the Minister, of course—there are two other important questions that I would like to have some answers to, or even an acknowledgment of—is around, specifically, regulation 5(2) under Part 2 in Schedule 2, “Amendments to secondary legislation”, in relation to the Education (Hostels) Regulations 2005, how is the Director of Regulation going to determine what hostels would constitute being allowed to have the three-month stay period in the event of an emergency?

Finally, I asked the Minister around the Education (School Boards) Regulation 2020, which has the word “national” removed as a part of that. I want to just compare it to what we’re seeing in Part 1 “Amendments to Act”, that when we’re looking at the Methodist Charitable and Educational Trusts Act 1911, or, even, under Part 2 Schedule 2, Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023, the word “national” is retained as part of that. I just want to check: how important and crucial is that word “national curriculum statement” or “national” for the Education (School Boards) Regulation 2020?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (17:51): Look, just on that very last piece around the word “national”, I’ve just got officials checking to make sure, but it, at this point, doesn’t look like a drafting error, but we’re just checking.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:51): I just wanted to give the Minister of Education one last opportunity. I know there are many people who are watching, tonight, and I know she’s indicating that she’s wanting Government members to call a closure motion so she doesn’t have to answer this question, but I really think that the Minister has an obligation to New Zealanders to answer why Amendment Paper 583 was not sent to the Education and Workforce Committee.

As members of Parliament, we’ve all received letters from members of the public who have asked for the democratic right to be heard, and they’re being shut down by this Government and not listened to. These are parents that have right to be consulted, they’re parents who have a right to have say. If she doesn’t have the decency to consult with them, at least stand up and answer why that is.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:52): 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 Part 2 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 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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 (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting new clause 209(3) and (4) of Schedule 1 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 replacing “must” with “may” in new clause 209(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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 209(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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 inserting subclause (3A) into new clause 210 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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 211 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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 211(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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting the word “Minister” from new clause 212 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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 212 of Schedule 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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 213 of Schedule 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 Schedule 1 deleting new clause 214 of Schedule 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.

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

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 2.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 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 (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete Part 2 of Schedule 2 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is resumed. When we suspended for the dinner break, we had finished voting on Part 2 and the Schedules. We come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (19:30): We’ve introduced an amendment. The Amendment Paper that I introduced last week in response to the Debbie Francis report had a drafting error which would mean the changes that I’m proposing in relation to oversight and monitoring of the council would’ve had a commencement date of mid-2027, not mid-2026. The Government’s intention, of course, is to ensure the Teaching Council performance improves as quickly as possible. Therefore, there is a Government tabled amendment to correct this drafting error.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by asking the Minister of Education a few questions around commencement. Now, Madam Chair, as you can note, in both the Minister’s Amendment Paper 583 and also in the original bill, there are some complicated sections around commencement, and I do have a few amendments on that as well. But, first of all, I just want to acknowledge the Minister for responding to my previous question around the school boards regulations—I did get a nod from the Minister, so that’s very much appreciated. Thank you for that. I want to start by discussing the Amendment Paper commencement date, in 583, and then, should I get a subsequent call, I can go on to the other ones.

I want to start by—this is in Amendment Paper 583, new clause 2(2(c)(i), and this is to do with clause 5F. Now, that is relating to the changes that we saw—again, noting that while there was a regulatory impact statement (RIS) in place, the RIS also states that there has been a lack of consultation around some of the changes we’re seeing to long-term exemptions, specifically around home schooling, in terms of some of the context around this. In that RIS, it does specify by saying that there’s been no consultation with the public; however, there was anecdotal evidence, but also potentially drawing on reports from the Education Review Office (ERO). I guess, just to get clarity from the Minister, my understanding is the difference between a school ERO report and an ERO report conducted for home schooling is that the ERO report will only be conducted if there’s been a complaint raised against, potentially, a home educator. In which case, I want to check if, while formulating the commencement date being 1 July 2027, there was any actual consideration on the evidence that currently exists and sits with both the Ministry of Education and ERO when it comes to having that broader understanding of the home-schooling sector. So that’s my first question.

But also, following on from that, we saw that—let me just quickly check. Clause 51A is, I guess, the regulations that attach to the changes we’re seeing in 5F. Now, noting in the new provisions coming into force on 1 July 2027, only clause 5F is being mentioned, not clause 51A—so, new section 640A inserted around the regulations. Can I check with the Minister: is that so that there is sufficient time in that period to be able to have that kind of robust process in determining what that regulation’s going to be? The regulation component, in my understanding, is then that clause 51A comes into effect on 6 July 2026, but associated, if you don’t fulfil the requirements of the regulations etc., it comes in on 1 July 2027. So that means home educators do not need to comply with 5F until 1 July, and currently there are no regulations under 51A—that’s specifically looking at new clause 2(2)(c)(i) in the context of home schooling, clause 5F commencement date, as well as clause 51A commencement date. I want to start with that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (19:34): Thank you. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a long period of time, hence the delayed commencement date, for the home-schooling regulations, to consult fully with the home-schooling sector around those regulations. So the member is right; there is that long period of time for that reason.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (19:35): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to some of my amendments in tabled amendment 4.30.01 in relation to clause 1, and I wonder if the Minister of Education has considered some of the alternate titles that have been provided that give a bit more clarity around what the bill does. For clause 1, 4.30.01 proposes to replace “System Reform” with “Reforming Education by Importing Ideas that Failed Overseas”. We know that these measures have been introduced in the United Kingdom around 2010 to about 2014, and the studies evaluating how the same measures introduced in this bill played out in the United Kingdom found that they further entrenched existing inequalities and that, in fact, a one-size-fits-all approach to education leaves many children behind. Some of those are the ones that have been writing to all of us, impacted by home schooling, and some of those will be in areas that already have socio-economic challenges, and they also disproportionately affect Māori and Pasifika communities.

Given that we are aware, through the evaluation of these measures in other countries—that’s the United Kingdom, and I’m happy to provide the references to the Minister if she’d like those—I wonder whether she has considered making a change from “System Reform” to “Reforming Education by Importing Ideas that Failed Overseas”?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister Stanford, for your response. Just one of the things I want to check is that I mentioned, in terms of the current level of evidence that is being held by the ministry as well as by the Education Review Office when it comes to the home-schooling sector and the home educators, that the evidence that currently exists may not accurately reflect the experience of the sectors. I just want to check with the Minister that when the Ministry of Education does consider the regulations, they are starting from a position of not just what they have on hold in terms of their reporting but also being able to engage in a way—and that process is able to be conducted with the sector in a way—that is genuine and that can be conducted within a 12-month period, for clause 5F to come into effect on 1 July.

I now want to focus on some of the other sections over here, which is new clause 2(2)(c)(iii), (iv), and (v), and that’s to do with the new criteria that is being put in place when it comes to the Teaching Council, and some of the requirements when it comes to the Teaching Council. My understanding is that clause 35, which isn’t listed in any of the specific ones, around the composition of the Teaching Council, would come into effect on 6 July 2026, but the requirements come into effect 1 July 2027. Why is there a delay on (iii) to (v) when it comes to Government policy, etc.? Even if it comes into effect, would there be an expectation of the Teaching Council to start working towards that so that when it does come into effect, they’re able to press go? That’s my next question; I do see that the Minister’s ready to answer that.

My final part—and I want to finish the commencement date section for Amendment Paper 583 first before moving on to the other sections. The last part that I want to ask about is around the requirements to the use of physical restraint in licensed hostels as well as what we see in clause 61 for Part 2 of Schedule 2—so this is new clause 2(2)(c)(ii) and (vi). We already see some of the things that are being shifted from the authority of the Director of Regulation in other sections, but can I just check: why is there a delay on the limited use of physical restraint in licensed hostels by a year—if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding to that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (19:39): Look, in relation to whether or not we can fully consult with the sector and have regulations in place in a year: yes, we absolutely can. I believe that the ministry is meeting with the home-schooling associations next week to kick off that process, and it will be done not only in consultation but together with those groups collaboratively.

In terms of the second part that you mentioned around the Teaching Council, if you’d listened to my opening address, that was the anomaly that we’re fixing up in the Amendment Paper.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, sorry.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, no, it’s OK—fine.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies, I didn’t hear. I heard the change to the commencement and the change that is needed, but I didn’t quite hear which section it was.

Just one final thing around the physical restraint, I guess, in that sense—the Minister is ready to answer, so I’m going to sit down—is: why delay it by a year, and what happens in between that time? That would also be really helpful to know.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (19:40): Just to answer that last question: we have to create physical restraint rules for the hostels, hence the delayed commencement.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (19:41): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just heard one point in relation to another—I’m not going through all of the amendments I’ve got in terms of title, so I’d just like to touch on one other area. There’s a couple of options there for the Minister: there’s 4.30.04, 4.30.05, and 4.30.06, and the general tenor of those is to replace in the title, in clause 1, “System Reform” with either “Strip the Sector of its Independence”, or “Weaken the Professional Standing of Teachers”, or there’s even “Give the Minister More Power”.

The fact that Amendment Paper, I think it’s called 583, actually made a change to—I think it would be better if it’s reflected in the title to give more accuracy to the fact that the final few democratically elected positions on the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand were removed without a select committee process or the ability for anyone in New Zealand to submit. If it’s not going to go to select committee, it would be nice in the title if it was just made clear that this is removing that democratic ability on the Teaching Council.

I know, also, in relation to the Teaching Council in that part, that the Minister did mention in her opening statements on this bill, and also in her press release on this bill—she did refer to both the Debbie Francis report and the Public Service Commission report, particularly around conflicts of interest and, also, some of those issues that we know were a problem for the Teaching Council. I’m really interested to know: from her point of view, did the governing body actually get to consider those reports, because it appears from Official Information Act documents that the governing body didn’t get to discuss those reports? Would it be appropriate to amend the title of this bill to reflect the fact that it’s removing that independence? I’m still interested to know from the Minister whether or not she thinks there is actually a conflict of interest still going on, given the current chair of the Teaching Council is also able to profit from The Teachers’ Institute and also decide and regulate the teaching profession.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (19:43): 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 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s 23 tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “System Reform” with “System Consolidation” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 1 replacing “System Reform” with “System Standardisation” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 1 replacing “System Reform” with “System Integration” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting subparagraphs (iii) to (v) in clause 2(2)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 replacing “1 July 2027” with “1 January 2028” in clause 2(2)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 deleting clause 2(2)(c)(i) and inserting clause 2(2)(d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 2(2)(c)(iii) to (v) is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 583 inserting new clause 2(2)(d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 583 as amended 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 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 584 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 14 tabled amendments to clause 2 to replace “15 June 2026” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s 14 tabled amendments to delete clause 2(2) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 585 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 586 to 590 would require provisions relating to the Director of Regulation to come into force on a single date set by Order in Council. They form a single alternative proposition, and I’ll put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Papers 586 to 590 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 591 to 599 would require provisions relating to the New Zealand School Property Agency to commence on a single date rather than by Order in Council. They form a single alternative proposition, and I’ll put a single question on them.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Papers 591 to 599 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 600 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 601 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 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 clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. We begin debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13—“Amendments to Building Act 2004”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the committee of the whole House. I will just acknowledge that previous discussion and debate at earlier stages have been very useful to my understanding, along with the discussion and debate at the select committee, whose changes we have the benefit of. I look forward to proceedings this evening.

Arena Williams: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Um—

Arena Williams: Arena Williams.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams—I’m so sorry.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. My first question to the Minister for Building and Construction is around his two Amendment Papers (APs): are Amendment Papers 632 and 578 the only amendments that we can expect from him in this committee stage? The reason I ask is because the committee considered a couple of issues extensively and delved into things that were missing from the proposed definition of self-certifiable work. The committee received correspondence from the Minister that he intended to seek Cabinet approval to expand the scope of the scheme, and committee members around the Chamber will be expecting, or at least hoping for, some explanation of how regulations might be amended to define self-certified work more in line with the committee’s view that some particular things should be included in it. Because this was a hard-working committee that hoped for a permissive approach to self-certifying work, buying into the Government’s agenda to improve the way their plumbing is delivered in a cost-efficient way, the question then became for the committee: what are those things that should be included in the definition? We heard from the Minister that there were three things that were his considerations. The first was whether the work was within, or related to, a building of no more than three storeys and didn’t contain apartments. The second was that it was designed to an acceptable solution or verification method. The third was that it was not within a shared tenancy wall or didn’t penetrate a firewall. The second of those is the important one when we are looking at his amendments and there is no indication that he has brought what is needed to be tabled as an amendment which would allow for things like on-site systems.

I have some more questions for him relating to on-site systems, but before we get started, that is my question. Are these two APs all that we will see tonight?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:07): Yes, I don’t intend to table any more Amendment Papers in my name on behalf of the Government. The member makes a good point about the discussion that took place at select committee among its members, but, of course, also reflecting some interest and indeed concern from the sector that the scope of the scheme might be too narrow. Of course, we want a broad scheme to enable it to be worth the while of plumbers to register for it and to pay levies into the self-funding of the system. The reason that we don’t have all the detail in front of us in this primary legislation—which is, of course, amending the Building Act but also the bespoke Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act—is because a lot of that detail will be reflected in regulation. In the spirit of helpfulness, I will provide for the member that it’s my intention to have Cabinet-approved regulations that would have an expanded scope relative to the scheme that was brought forward first at first reading and up to and including the present time, whether through on-site systems that are enabled or acceptable solution or verification method, and the first named of those would include pumped water systems, irrigation systems, grey water reuse systems, solar water heaters, and retention and detention tanks, which is a pretty broad swath of different types of plumbing that one might do and be able to self-certify.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:09): That’s great. I’m very happy to hear that. The question then to the Minister for Building and Construction is: does that not need a change in the primary legislation, given that on-site systems haven’t been included in the initial scope of work because they’re not designed to an acceptable solution (AS) or verification method (VM) standard, where an AS or VM is currently available, so that designation would be a new designation? The way that I understand it is that it’s not available to him to simply make regulations under the empowering provision. I think that—for the benefit of the committee, section 172 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006—to be able to enable pump systems like he is describing and exactly the ones that we should be considering, it was the understanding of the committee that a legislative change would need to be made and that it couldn’t be made at the regulatory level.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:10): I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for being engaged. I understand that other members may have questions on other aspects of clauses 3, 4, and 5. I did have a question on clause 6, if I may. In fact, I have a couple of questions here. When you’re referring in clause 6, new subsection (1A), to the building consent authority granting a building consent, I just was interested in the sort of consents they give for self-certification endorsed plumbers or drainlayers and whether they will be able to, actually, make charges that will cover the correct recording of these matters against the building in the information management systems that they may hold.

I also have a question—I’m not sure that the charges are covered specifically in this or whether you have any expectations on how building consent authorities might make those charges different. In some ways, it should be simpler if it’s self-certification, but, on the other hand, the risks—which is why we’re not wholeheartedly supporting this—are also bigger, so I just want to know a little bit about the charging. I also want to know about the building consent authority, which is usually but not always a council, in new subsection (1A)(b). It says, “the building consent authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the work is self-certifiable plumbing or self-certifiable drainlaying”. Now, would those reasonable grounds include an inspection? Would they include checking that the plumber that said they were self-certified is self-certified? Do those building consent authorities have access to the register that would be held by the board, or do they have to make an application to the board to find out whether the plumber or drainlayer is actually self-certified? It’s all one to say that you are, but are they really? I have a few more questions later on.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to clause 4—I’m at the top of page 5—the definition of “self-certifiable plumbing” is one that the committee spent an extraordinary amount of time on. We heard many, many submissions on this, and so Labour is supporting the initial definition—and this is a bill that Labour supports—but it is important that we get this right and that we understand from the Minister what is included in the self-certification. It’s great to hear that on-site systems, grey water, and solar hot water are included.

The next, probably, biggest ticket item that submitters wanted to make sure was included in the definition was light commercial. The example came to us from a business owner who owned a bakery. That person had a very small kitchen, which was very similar to a household kitchen. It had a sink, and it had a dishwasher that you would find in an ordinary residential home. It did not have any special drainage, and it was a small area. This submitter impressed upon the committee that this would be simple plumbing work, and, in many cases, this person would be able to conduct some of the plumbing work themselves, but because of the way that this legislation seems to apply, they would not be able to have self-certified plumbing of a qualified plumber in that same situation. We’ve heard from the Minister that the draft regulations will look to expand the scope of the bill, but the issue of no commercial-residential distinction being provided in the bill makes this quite unclear. If it is entirely left to regulation, then it’s quite hard to know, from the public’s perspective, what is in and what is out, especially when you have these light commercial kitchens, which look and feel very similar to residential kitchens. We have significant change in regulation, from the Minister for Regulation at the moment, which is enabling these household kitchens to operate much the same way as a small baker on the side of the street.

The definition that the committee kicked around—kicked the tyres on—within the low-risk commercial space was also buildings that were under three storeys; where plumbing and drainage systems didn’t serve multiple buildings, which would be important in a commercial context; where facilities didn’t include high-use commercial kitchens, industrial laundries, or medical facilities; and the plumbing drainage systems did not involve design-specific backflow prevention, grey water reuse, or rainwater harvesting. Has the Minister considered in his definition of self-certifiable plumbing, firstly a distinction between self-certifiable plumbing in a residential context and self-certifiable plumbing in a light commercial context, and then whether he is empowered, through his regulation-making power—which is new and the select committee has not been able to consider—whether scope will include some of this light commercial use?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank both members for their recent questions. The points made by Arena Williams reflect, obviously, her clear understanding of important discussions at the select committee level, and I suspect that we were approached by some of the same key stakeholders with some of the same points.

In terms of work that might be described as simple—or perhaps “routine” would be a more respectful term; I’m sure that I would be able to make an apparently simple plumbing task complex were I to attempt it. We’re into self-certification, but let’s not get carried away. I think for what you might call “light commercial work” or “commercial work of a low-risk nature”, there’s nothing in the primary legislation that would preclude it. In the spirit of helpfulness, I can offer to the member that it’s my intention that we be as enabling as possible, including in the commercial realm, and up to three storeys—agnostic as to being commercial or residential in nature, given that, according to my understanding at least, the plumbing work itself isn’t necessarily different. That would seem to be a distinction that I’ve originally proposed: that that wasn’t particularly meaningful or necessary.

In terms of the questions posed by Celia Wade-Brown—and again, I’ll acknowledge in this context, as I have in previous Building Act matters, that as someone who was responsible for a territorial authority and within that or alongside it, a building consent authority (BCA), she rightly asks important questions about lines of risk and responsibility. I will say, actually, that, if anything, we’re expecting the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board to do the heavy lifting. The nature of the checking, to the extent that it’s not entirely a trust model—it’s a high-trust model—is that we’re relying on the verification that that board is able to undertake to determine a person who is signing off their work as self-certifiable in the first instance and then, second, that it’s been correctly conducted in accordance with the building code; as opposed to having the work itself inspected from start to finish by the building consent authority. That’s really the thrust of the changes, and so from that flows the answer that inspections will not be required—or indeed allowed—on the part of the building consent authority.

If you think not only is that an exercise in saving time and energy and therefore cost and thereby enhancing productivity for a famously unproductive sector—taking the building sector as a whole—I also think from a BCA’s point of view, it’s important that they don’t attract liability for being involved in a process only as a half measure, as you might say, not having had the opportunity to reject an application or a set of plans, but on the other hand, being required to inspect the work as it was taking place. We’ve put a pretty clear line there, I think, in terms of self-certification being exactly that.

Finally, the point that Celia Wade-Brown makes regarding charges or levies that will be paid into the scheme, effectively it should wash its own face, so to speak, over time, but we will make provision for funds that are currently available to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board—hereafter “the board”—to be available to be applied for the purpose of maintaining and operating the scheme, including setting up IT systems in order for the work and the workers to be verified. We think it’s important they’re well-resourced to do that work, given how much weight we’re placing upon them to conduct audits and other ways of quality assurance.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge that the Minister for Building and Construction is a very engaging Minister and certainly, with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, did respond to some of the issues—

Arena Williams: Hard-working committee!

TANGI UTIKERE: —that helped that hard-working committee get to the point where it was.

Grant McCallum: You’re on that committee, are you?

TANGI UTIKERE: I am on that committee—and I’m hard-working. I just want to pick up on one aspect in the select committee’s report—and the Minister has touched on this. I am somewhat surprised, a little bit, because a big chunk of the committee’s report was talking about the fact that the committee thought about the possibility of scope widening; that the Minister himself had acknowledged that this was something he was looking into.

The way the committee has structured its report back is on, I think, an assumption that, through the committee of the whole House stage, there might be some movement in this space. I acknowledge in the committee’s report that it does say “may”, so that’s not a given, but I’m just wondering whether the Minister can provide a little bit more certainty to address the issues that have been raised by the select committee. It’s a little bit unique in the sense that the committee has made some commentary on this—on the assumption that some of the issues might be mitigated by a particular course of action that we’re in right now.

We haven’t seen that course of action come to fruition, but does the Minister have any indication around the timeliness of this in terms of—he talks about taking matters to Cabinet. Sure, that may or may not be a particular outcome, but I think it would help the committee just to understand—the Minister obviously accepts that it’s an issue. I take the point that there are sector-wide considerations at play here, but does he have any sort of indication as to timeliness to address some of the issues that have been raised in this report by the committee, particularly related to the commentary on page 4 of the report?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the member is a hard-working member of a hard-working committee—self-described but nevertheless, I’m sure exactly that.

Arena Williams: Correctly described! Correctly described!

Hon CHRIS PENK: Correctly described too, I’m assured by one of the relevant members. In terms of timing, I think it’s a fair ask given the circumstances of the high-trust model, I suppose, that operated between the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the Minister for Building and Construction, who has undertaken—I have undertaken—to continue to work alongside or parallel with the primary legislation. I do want to take this chance to say that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has done an excellent job on this aspect, as with all aspects of the bill. In fact, that team has done great work, I believe, across a whole heap of regulatory reform in the building sector.

More particularly, having been doing that work to understand and bring forward detail in this space that is more enabling, if we were to describe it in general terms, the long and short of it is that the bill, we expect and hope, will come into force on 30 June of this year, with the powers to make secondary legislation as part of that and with the systems in place for the scheme to go live in August or September of this year. If you were to work backwards from that, in terms of Cabinet decision-making around the regulations—and, ultimately, of course, the Governor-General to sign those off—that would suggest to me that within sort of the next two or three months at the latest, we would need to have progressed those and brought them forward.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:22): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Matt Doocey: That’s right!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thanks for the advice, Mr Doocey. Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:23): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m at the top of page 5, in the last section, in that grey box at the top—“self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer” definition. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction whether his definition here should and can include requirements for mandatory insurance.

He will not be surprised that I am interested in this, and I was not able to convince the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that this belongs here, but because we are supporting the Minister on this bill, he will indulge me for trying to convince him that it does belong here. This is something that has come up time and time again with submitters. The industry also points to this as something which is incredibly important, and one of the places you could include it is in the definition of who can be considered to be a self-certifying plumber—would be, essentially, a plumber who held not only the compulsory sign-off from the board but also held a minimum of $5 million in public liability insurance and compulsory professional indemnity insurance.

The reason it is so important is that this bill should be seen as one of several measures that the Government is taking to speed up not only the occupational licensing side but the permissiveness of our building systems. It is important that we make these measures on the supply side, but this is one area—insurance and who carries the can when things go wrong—where we must do those things at the same time or else we will have a regime which, on 30 June, will kick in and where mums and dads who own homes are required to present a lot of information which does not give rise to liability in other parts.

I will have other questions for the Minister on where those parts give liability for the mums and dads, but this is the definition of who can operate within this permissive regime. They are not required to hold insurance at the moment, and they should. The reason why we should require that holding of insurance—whether it is a special kind of insurance, which the Government has drawn a regulatory box around and required insurers to get in, or whether it is a product which we give a long run-in for the industry to be able to source from overseas, whatever that is, there is a really important step here which is missing, where we need plumbers to be able to have confidence that the result of the industry are going to be held to this. This is something which is supported by two of the professional associations within the plumbing industry. It is also supported by those industries that represent architects and engineers within the system who will have a role in signing off, because a requirement for mandatory insurance that goes within a self-certification framework makes that self-certification framework more robust and it is an ordinary part of that kind of occupational licensing regime. As the consenting system moves towards proportionate liability, this will also become more important. That is an aspiration for the Minister. It is one I share too. I encourage him to consider how we can bake that into the system now.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the member Arena Williams and I are on the same page when it comes to wanting a more enabling system but have consumer protections that back that up, such that a vulnerable consumer—that is to say a homeowner, in most cases—would not be left bereft if a professional were not to complete his or her duties in a way that they should.

I’m pleased to advise the member that part of the way that we will ensure that is not only that, as she correctly describes, the boards will have the ability to determine who is able to do work as a plumber or drainlayer, in the first case, as they already can, but also to enable them to be endorsed for self-certification, but, further, that that endorsement might rely on having a specific set of insurances or equivalent guarantee-type mechanisms.

It seems, to me—and I’m trying to find the section number within the bill, but it might be new section 51B inserted by clause 17, in which case, it’s Part 2, but, with the Chair’s indulgence, I’m happy to respond now and save us time later that the bill will require self-certifiers to meet their potential civil liability. Now, there’s a number of different ways that could be expressed or enabled, and that seems, to me, a level of detail that’s more appropriate within regulation, partly because it is quite detailed, by its nature but also it might change over time. It might be that insurance schemes become available or unavailable over the passage of time, and heaven forbid that we should come back to the House and repeat this exercise every time that takes place.

The final point I would make is that there’s a bit of mitigation in the system whereby this is an opt-in scheme. I did hear feedback from some sectors within the plumbing and related sectors that they should be a compulsory scheme—that is to say, not a matter of opt out or, even, opt in—but it seems, to me, if we have a scheme, whether it’s a degree of choice, then it might be that a plumber who is unable to obtain insurances to satisfy the requirements of the legislation, the regulations, and the board would nevertheless be able to do the work, but they would need to have that work checked by the council. In that sense, there would be, as I say, an optionality around whether it was self-certifying or just still to be consented in the usual way.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:28): Thank you. If I could just go back to clarify something in clause 6. I understand what the Minister for Building and Construction is saying about the scheme washing its face between the board and the inspections, and so forth, and how that might work, but what I didn’t hear him say, so I didn’t quite understand, was that there is a cost to managing the information side on the building consentauthority. I wasn’t really clear whether that fee would be paid by the plumber or by the homeowner or by the overall architect, or what, and whether that would be just the same as if they had applied for an ordinary building consent, whether council does do the inspection. Has that been thought through? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:29): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Celia Wade-Brown for seeking the clarification. The building levy, as already exists as a mechanism within the Building Act, is available for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment to help fund the operation of the Building Act so that purposes of the Building Act can be met. It seems to me that the workings of the board would fit within that pretty clearly and that indeed is the basis of some of the one-off, upfront initial costs that would be required to establish such a system. The main element of self-funding thereafter, though, would be the payment of fees—I suspect they’re probably called, rather than “levies”, but in any case, the payment made by eligible plumbers and drainlayers and gasfitters to the board for the work to do its work, that regulates that profession, would be the basis of that ongoing funding.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:30): I’m sorry—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a supplementary?

CELIA WADE-BROWN: It is, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, I absolutely understand how the board is funded; what I’m not hearing is how is the council funded, if the council’s a building consent authority, for their administrative side of things.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:31): Just in the usual way that it is currently, would be my understanding.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:31): A brief question to close out questions on clause 4: is the definition of “self-certifiable plumbing” going to exclude the granny flats regime, or do those schemes work alongside each other?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:31): Thank you. The member Arena Williams makes a good point in raising that there is an already an aspect of self-certification in this brave new world of trying to be more enabling but also, you know, with a responsible attitude.

Arena Williams: This abundant world!

Hon CHRIS PENK: A world of abundance, indeed. In the so-called granny flats regime, it is the case that the work can be signed off, carried out by a responsible, professional, duly registered and so on, and so that will very much operate alongside this scheme which is broader—it’s broader in the sense of the type of work that will be covered, but deeper or more narrow in the sense that it relates, of course, just to plumbers and drainlayers, as opposed to electricians and gasfitters, who can already self-certify—and licensed building practitioners who will be able to do granny flats. But, at the moment, not much else other than in the usual consenting pathway.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have a question on clause 4, this is the definitions part, and it’s the last one, which is “self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer has the meaning given in section 4 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006”. This is something that has been inserted post – select committee.

The question for the Minister for Building and Construction is: when one looks at section 4 of the Act, the definition as outlined there is not easily contained there. So just some advice, and it doesn’t have to be right now, but it would be helpful to understand where within that 2006 Act that the “self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer” definition actually exists.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:33): While the Minister of Building and Construction considers that, let me move on to clause 5. This is quite a gutsy change from the select committee. Clause (5)(1), section 45 amended, new paragraph (bd)(ii), as it relates to changes that are intended to speed up the process from when a plumber is giving the certification, in reality that is likely to be an engineer, a builder, or an architect, and that was something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard quite a lot of commentary on from submitters.

My question is at new subparagraph (ii)(B)—so now that the definition is inclusive of the architect, the chartered professional engineer, or the licensed building practitioner, and clause 5(2) applies—so I just want to understand the professional indemnity of those people now giving the certification. This regime is designed so that a plumber could give a certificate and that they would not be able to be held to an unreasonable standard of proof and in a way which would slow down their ability to be able to give that certificate to a building consent authority. But engineers, architects are a bit different from plumbers; they have different sorts of professional liabilities and different sorts of professional insurances.

Can the Minister just clarify for us—we didn’t have the benefit of a device on this at the select committee—how he intends for that kind of wider group of people giving this sort of notification to a building consent authority. Does the normal level of professional liability apply to the architect, given that this was not intended to excuse an architect from the normal professional standards that applied to them?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:35): I move—no! Tempting! I’m just creating a rod for my own back and answering questions at the same time. Arena Williams asked a very reasonable question about what I would call proportionate liability. We’ve indicated outside this particular scheme and outside this particular primary legislation that we intend—as a Government, and with the support of anyone who’s minded to come along the journey—that responsible building professionals as well as building consent authorities will be responsible for their own work. As part of that, again, under the heading of consumer protections, we would have design professionals—being architects and licensed building practitioner designers and also engineers—holding professional indemnity insurance. So I hope that helps the member to understand the kind of requirement that we’d have in that space.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:36): Sort of, but the question applies even without any move to proportional liability and, as the current situation stands, with joint and several liability. Perhaps I can ask a slightly different question about clause 5(2). The phrase that the declaration provided doesn’t create any liability in relation to any matter to which the declaration relates. Obviously that doesn’t include fraud—quite obviously—but then there is a question about, well, if professional recklessness is meant to be excluded by those words, that makes sense in the plumbers context, but it doesn’t make sense in the engineers context. So my question is about elsewhere in the Minister’s own amendments, he has used the words “on reasonable grounds”. Are you meant to read in reasonableness to new section 45(1A)(b), inserted by clause 5(2), especially where it applies now to registered architects, chartered professional engineers, and licensed building practitioners?

All three of those professions have a level of professional conduct liability and expectation from the public that recklessness won’t be something which would be acceptable in their professional conduct. Because we’re on board the happy journey, the happy vision that the Minister has for a more permissive regime for plumbers when that plumbing work risk is low, but where you have, say, a professional architect signing off on more bespoke designs, you immediately get into the situation where you’re a bit broader than that. It would be useful just to sort of understand what the situation is under the current regime of joint and several liability if you have an architect who’s submitted a form that says it’s all good.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d still be keen to understand from the Minister if there’s any guidance on clause 4. OK, great, thank you.

I want to just ask the Minister about the threshold for the declaration, because this is a change that has also emerged. It was a statutory declaration and now it’s a declaration that can be captured in terms of the question as to whether liability exists or not. When we talk about a statutory declaration, that in itself is of a particular nature and has a particular threshold, as opposed to a declaration that might perhaps lend itself into future audits that we’ll come to in the not too distant future around what that might look like. So just wanting to understand the change away from a statutory declaration to a standard declaration and whether he’s satisfied that that would still serve as a deterrent, or is it actually seeking to maybe expedite—which is an intent behind this bill, of course—things and therefore not having to try and find a lawyer or a justice of the peace or someone like that. But the consequences for doing things wrong still sits there and exists.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:39): Thank you. To respond to the latter question asked by Mr Tangi Utikere, he’s right, of course. Notwithstanding that the statute might refer to a declaration different from a statutory declaration. He’d know that in his capacity as a justice of the peace, I think, as well as a member of Parliament. But, yeah, the general flavour of what we’re trying to do here and the intent, as he’s quite rightly noted, is, of course, to be as expeditious as possible. We don’t want to simply substitute one category of paperwork with the council with having to see a lawyer. Not that there’s anything wrong with having to see a lawyer, of course, apart from the obvious.

But the first question that he asked I have now found the answer—in fact, it can be found in Part 2. So I regard these as runs on the board for later. Whereby, at section 15 of the Act, also there we see section 4 amended—that’s the interpretation section of the Act as it now stands—so that self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer means a person endorsed as a self-certification endorsed plumber of drainlayer. I know that sounds quite self-referential—wait for it—under section 51D, which in turn one can find elsewhere in Part 2.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:40): OK. Madam Chair, thank you, and I thank the Minister for his answers on this. Introducing the committee to the concept of signature sales, which is something that the select committee delved into not only with the industry but also with affected homeowners who had been through this experience. This relates to my questions for clause 7, new section 89A, and clause 9(2), amended section 94(3A).

Signature sales, a brief run-through, is when plumbers or drainlayers might sign off on a series of work with never having the intention to complete that work, so the assessment is the thing that is the professional service rendered. It is an expensive way of, essentially, giving an opinion for the consumer because they have paid for it. But then they may or may not lodge the paperwork with the council, but they don’t intend to be able to complete that job. It was a growing problem when there was a huge demand for plumbers during the 2021 to 2022 period. It’s not something which is prevalent in the industry right at the moment, but we do know that coming for the plumbing industry is a period where they will not be able to renew their workforce, so there will be a huge demand for plumbers and this might re-emerge in the near future.

So this is a real-world problem that the Minister’s new section 89A inserted by clause 7 seems to exacerbate, because this section puts a high onus on the homeowner to report to the building consenting authority any change of workmanship of work that has already begun to be undertaken. But members who are following closely, like Grant McCallum, will see that at clause 5 we have sort of enabled a system where, if anything is wrong on the document from the original plumber who has lodged that document that there is no punishment, because that is a go-fast scheme.

So my first question really is: is it appropriate still that there is this high onus on homeowners when we know that we might be adding a little bit of fuel to this fire where these signature sales are a practice in the industry which we know professional bodies have been trying to stamp out? This was a feature of, say, the drainlaying industry for some years. Do we think that it’s still appropriate for this high onus on the homeowner when there is now not a sort of corresponding punishment or corresponding disincentive at the plumbers level to make sure that their notice to the homeowner and the information that they provide to the homeowner is correct? Because it would seem as well that putting somebody’s name and that was the wrong name on the original certificate, most ordinary people would think that that was the fault of the person who had prepared the document and not the person who was the homeowner who had received the document. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are getting close. This is getting quite—

ARENA WILLIAMS: Following on. I’ll just remind members—for those who are following closely, like Grant McCallum—we are up to clause 7. I’m moving on to clause 9, which is a good clip. We only have a few more clauses after that till the beginning of Part 2. So bear with us. It’s important that we get this right.

The clause 9 question that I have is there’s now a corresponding punishment if the owner fails to provide the building consent authority with a certificate of compliance. The failure is sufficient reading for the building consenting authority to refuse to issue the code of compliance certificate. The problem there is that at the code of compliance stage the work has been done, the plumber has gone, we are entering the home hopefully in a couple of days, and then a homeowner is faced with this real problem where the code of compliance is not going to come through. I agree that we need, at some point in that system, a hard cut-off for when the papers need to be lodged, but at that point it is all the fault of the owner. In a situation where, say, you’ve got a new home buyer who’s built off the plans, that could have been six months prior and they’re now looking at a code of compliance which is going to be held up because of it. That is time, it is money, it is heartache for people who are trying to move into the home that they have long looked forward to.

The question is really not about whether we should have a hard stop; it’s whether the hard stop is in the right place, given his changes at clause 5(1)(ii) and at (2), new section 45(1a). Taking away some of those requirements for plumbers to meet the bar will then mean that there is even more of an incentive for homeowners—well, even more high pressure, high stakes, for homeowners—to take on those responsibilities. It doesn’t seem like that is the appropriate place where most New Zealanders would think the responsibility lay.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:46): With apologies to my colleague, who I know is keen to speak on the bill, I think the member’s point, if I understand it correctly, is that a plumber might fail to complete his or her work and that would leave the homeowner in a difficult situation.

Of course, she’s right that that is a situation that could arise already, but I think, in terms of clause 9(1) of this bill and the point that’s amending the existing legislation, it’s really the fact that a certificate of compliance must be accepted by the building consent authority (BCA) if issued by the plumber or drainlayer. I don’t see that there’s a connection there between the lack of work or, for that matter, the certification of that work that might be undertaken by the plumber as compared with the BCA’s obligation to accept it. Of course, that’s for the protection of the BCA, because they are not required—indeed, they’re not able—to look behind the work that’s done in the certification, and, therefore, they can’t be liable, and along with them, of course, all the ratepayers who would otherwise underwrite all the risk.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister questions about what is, effectively, struck-through clause 10. This wasn’t in the bill, and now it’s proposed that it is, basically, gone. This is really relating to the role that the chief executive might play, and it is around the monitoring of not just an application but how effective things are under Part 2AA.

Now, it’s one thing to strike that through and perhaps replace it somewhere else—and we’ll get to this in Part 2, about the audit opportunities—but when we look, what’s being struck through here is actually not around the auditing; it’s actually around the monitoring of the impact on the performance across the building sector, in terms of the business that they do. That’s quite different from what might appear in Part 2. I don’t want to traverse this at the moment—we’ll get to that in time—but, Minister, are you comfortable that the strike-through in terms of the role that the chief executive was tagged to play, in terms of monitoring things, is not going to be lost in terms of in Part 1, with the proposal for it to be struck out?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:48): Thank you. In answer to the question, yes, I’m satisfied that the appropriate oversight will be able to be provided by the board as opposed to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just on the last part of Part 1, and forgive me if I’m on the wrong part, but I think this best relates to the definition of the self-certified plumbers. Look, I have a question on whether it should be in legislation or whether it should be in regulation for the implementation of a code of ethics for plumbers; that is something the committee spent some time on.

It would just be good to close out the section with a comment from the Minister on whether it should be in the legislation, given that it faced some scrutiny from some quarters but, generally, was supported well by the industry. This is something that should be elevated to apply all the time. It should be a mandatory part of the practice of being a plumber or drainlayer in New Zealand—having a broad-based code of ethics that everyone can stick to, given this is a consumer-facing role with some degree of expertise and an imbalance of power. Like everything these days, it became a bit of a political football in the committee, and we’d just like the Minister’s comments about whether he supports the code of ethics, unlike some of his Cabinet colleagues.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member for her questions. We’re agreed on the importance of codes of ethics. I think, if you contemplate the difficulties that might arise and plumbing work being completed—not necessarily just what you would traditionally think of as workmanship or quality of the work from a technical perspective, but also the business practices, including communication and otherwise interacting with the client or the customer—those codes will sit, and indeed do sit, where they exist in legislation currently within the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill. It’s not this bit of legislation, notwithstanding that, of course, plumbers and drainlayers and so on might appropriately be caught under that regime.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:50): I move that the debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll see when we get the right words.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:51): Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Mr Chair—happy to take that a call on this one. I was actually surprised because Mr Bidois is a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and former deputy chair, just overtaken by Dr Carlos Cheung, and we haven’t actually heard from them yet.

Ryan Hamilton: Repetition.

TANGI UTIKERE: Look, it’s not repetition, because we haven’t actually pointed out that the former members—well, they are members of the committee but haven’t taken a call.

I’ve just got a question for the Minister. This is on clause 11, which is around what information a territorial authority must actually hold or keep, and, in particular, it’s just not any particular information but information about buildings. Now, this is a very straightforward clause. It seeks to insert a particular item or a document, and it’s really the certificates of compliance. Now, if we sort of stand back and have a look at that, we might think, “OK, look, certificates of compliance, that’s fine.”—plural, so one sort of infers from that that it’s talking about not individual ones but just a class of them. The Minister’s nodding his head, so I take it in the affirmative that that’s the case.

Just identifying, and without having a look or cross-reference around what else is in section 216(2)(b)—oh, what’s that, (ivb); I don’t know what Roman numeral that is, but whatever it is—that, basically, that’s kind of, for context, going to capture everything that’s needed.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (20:52): 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 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 578 and 632 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 14 to 46—“Amendments to Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:55): Well, this is the guts of it. This is a bill that changes the occupational licensing regime for plumbers and gasfitters, and we are into the clauses which change the requirements for their professional body and the fees that they pay and the ways that they are disciplined. So, this is it, and I would like to start with the Minister for Building and Construction’s new section 51A, in clause 17. I have an amendment to this clause which I enthusiastically welcome his support for, but I won’t talk about that yet, because I have a bugbear and I would like to get him on board with my bugbear, which is “(e) have paid the prescribed fee”.

Minister, as the former chair of the Regulations Review Committee, you must agree with me that these professional bodies—who look at legislation passed by this Parliament that says “prescribe a fee, please.”—when those professional bodies say, “The fee is the fee.”, surely that’s not legal? Surely it is not within their power to look at legislation that says “have a prescribed fee” and for the professional body to say, “The fee is whatever I say it is on the day.”—but tons of them do it, Minister. This is your opportunity to say very clearly to the future board—the enthusiastic, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed board that you will appoint—that, when you say “prescribe a fee”, you put a dollar amount, and if you can’t put a dollar amount, you put an hourly rate that is in line with the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s guidelines, and that is in line with the intention of Parliament.

Surely, it can never be that it would be in line with Parliament’s intention that, when Parliament wants you to set a fee which is known and knowable in the law and you are going to use the coercive power of the State to force people to pay your fee, it can be whatever you want it to be on the day. Surely, Minister, you agree with me?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:56): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank that very enthusiastic member of the Regulations Review Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Somebody has to be enthusiastic about it.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I think that if the fee were not prescribed, maybe even not prescribed in a manner that she was comfortable with, she or any other person could make a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee, thereby generating some work for herself, because she’s so passionate on the matter.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:57): This is a problem. It is a problem that the Minister for Building and Construction thinks it is OK for a professional body to set prescribed fees, to say, “Fee.” There should be a table of fees that people can know from one year to the next. If I paid $80 last year for my registration fee, this year I should pay $80 again, or I should pay $85, and I should be able to say, “Why has it gone up $5?” I shouldn’t have to say, “It might be a thousand dollars; I don’t know—it will just be at cost, or it will be ‘the fee’.” That is a problem. It’s a problem for our hard-working professionals, and now it applies to tradies. It’s not fair that some very hard-working, often low-paid people will have to pay a fee of whatever the board chooses it to be, but that is a matter for the future chair of the Regulations Review Committee.

Minister, I will now turn to my amendment which would make it a professional requirement for practitioners who wish to take advantage of the self-certification regime to hold professional insurances.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What’s the number of the Amendment Paper?

ARENA WILLIAMS: The number of my Amendment Paper is 575. It would insert a new section which just requires the holding of a $5 million professional liability insurance. The Minister might argue that $5 million is a line in the sand, but that is the number that has been submitted upon pretty widely, not only in his consultation but in the consultation of the select committee, and it’s supported by Master Plumbers, who say, about the $5 million professional liability insurance, that that is a sort of standard industry practice—that they, as a professional body, encourage their members to hold that in public liability insurance and that that is an appropriate amount.

We will never be able to prescribe exactly the right amount for exactly the right kind of broad-based, industry-wide levy, but this would be a huge improvement to make sure that there is an industry standard and that, in situations where things go wrong, there is a backstop for mums and dads who are getting this kind of plumbing work done, or new homeowners or, you know, the people who rely on the plumbing work to be done to a professional standard—that they can just generally know that, in New Zealand, plumbers are required to hold this insurance, and so they can call on that and it won’t necessarily come down to their relationship with the plumber about whether they get things fixed, or the ability of a plumber with deep pockets to meet continued, ongoing costs in the future.

It would be just an industry standard where this is something that can be called on by plumbers who have done broadly the right thing, met their professional obligations, but things have gone wrong through not fraudulent or reckless fault but fault that one might expect in this kind of industry, where these things are going on under the ground. We’re not always going to get it right. They’re behind walls; they’re not visible. There will also be situations, years on, where the problem comes to light and people didn’t anticipate this problem. It is a bit different from some of the other professions, like, say, sparkies, where those problems might come to light much earlier. This is something where professional liability really makes sense because of the nature of the sorts of problems and the kind of time frame that we’re talking about for ordinary consumers. This would be a sensible amendment that he should adopt today.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. Previously in debate, we’ve canvassed a number of different issues or themes that all directly respond to the proposal that the member is making. One is that detail is more appropriately contained in regulation rather than primary legislation; that would allow flexibility. We’ve also talked about the board being empowered to make a set of rules, essentially, that govern the way in which the occupation or the profession would conduct its business. I think it’s appropriate that setting out the civil liability, as we’ve alluded to before, professional indemnity insurance being an element of that, would more appropriately sit with them. As it happens, in terms of the amount that’s proposed by the member, it seems to me that $5 million would be too high an amount and thereby would preclude their participation in the scheme, and perhaps even the participation in the occupation by a number of plumbers, and that would be a shame. That would go counter to the idea of us being more enabling, as I think we all intend.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:02): Meitaki maata, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction questions about new sections 51B and 51C, inserted by clause 17. This is the process for someone that wants to get endorsement for self-certification. They, basically, send that off, and we certainly hope that under new section 51B(1)(a)—it just says that the application must be “sent or delivered to the Registrar”. We’re in the sort of age in this Parliament where we’re starting to ensure that any pieces of legislation are all-encompassing in terms of electronic means and all those sorts of things. We certainly hope—and I hope that the Minister can confirm—that that’s the intent there, that it’s not meant to be prescriptive around being sent via postal means, because that’s actually quite difficult at the moment. I’m just wanting to check on that.

When we look at new section 51C—so this is where an application has been received, and then there’s a requirement under section 51B(2) for the registrar to refer for consideration to the board the application. Now, one of the interesting things around new section 51C(2) is that it’s talking about how, in a circumstance where an applicant has already on a prior occasion had their endorsement either suspended or cancelled, the board would have to look at the reasons behind that. But, if we’re wanting this to be a streamlined process, for it to be efficient, for there to be no double-handling, there’s nothing in there that actually allows for the applicant perhaps to put forward their reasons or their case, so to speak. That comes, actually, in new subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii), where, if the board formed the view that, actually, there’s going to be an adverse outcome for an applicant, they go back to the applicant and ask them to sort of put forward some information there. I’m just wanting to get some clarity from the Minister around: is this effectively drafted in a way that allows for that efficient consideration of applications?

There is section 51B that talks about the nature of the information contained by the board, but I’m just wanting to ensure that there is as smooth a process as previously for those that might be identified, because it’ll be someone who is already in that category, and it might be that they have a different form they need to fill in. I’m wanting to make sure that that information is captured so that the board is not double-handling—you know, the person has to wait another two months, or what have you, depending on when the board meets to consider these matters, and it could’ve actually been dealt with all in the first go, so to speak.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:04): Mr Chair, thank you. I thank the member for his question. I think we all want a system that is both effective and efficient. The efficiency speaks to avoiding double-handling where that is not necessary. Effectiveness, of course, goes to having people who are endorsed who we would want to be endorsed and those whom we wouldn’t not being endorsed. I trust that’s clear.

I think, in terms of people who would be applying for an endorsement, clearly most plumbers would not fit in the category of previously having had an endorsement cancelled or suspended, so we’re down to a relatively small number of such applicants. In terms of the reasons for that prior cancellation or suspension, not only under section 51(2)(c), which the member identifies, but also at paragraph (b), the requirement to observe the rules of natural justice, I think it’s clear that that would include the right to be heard. If one were to express the reasons that one should have an application approved, notwithstanding that one had previously been cancelled or suspended, I think that’s a reasonable opportunity and not inefficient for a person to be given that opportunity to do that, whether or not, of course, the board would then accept that explanation and then decide to issue a new endorsement.

In terms of the first question of Mr Tangi Utikere, I would say yes. Clearly, in my view, as I’m sure others of this generation of lawmaking, it wouldn’t be the case that we would require hard copies or even facsimiles, as my youthful colleague Mr Ryan Hamilton suggested, perhaps in jest. But, of course, at paragraph (b), under section 51B(1), the application must “be in the form required by the Board;”. I would think it’s not beyond the wit of the board to state that an electronic method of making the application might be acceptable.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just moving to section 51E, on page 10. This is the regime which is, basically, on speed rails for a certain sort of work, which is good and which we agree with, but I want to get the Minister’s clarification on what sort of conditions he anticipates in that sort of regime. These are the kinds of conditions for things—like, if you have dentists who face complaints about malpractice and go through a disciplinary proceeding, you might end up with a condition about the sorts of practice they can do: they can’t do that kind of extraction any more, or they can’t work with, say, other junior dentists—to pick on dentists.

This is a different sort of regime than that, in that the intention is that highly qualified, longstanding, upstanding members of the plumbing profession will be able to use this quicker pathway for all sorts of good reasons, including lower costs and more efficiency for consumers. Are the conditions that he anticipates more like professional conditions that relate more to the code of conduct, or are they more like practice conditions, in which case you might need a list with graded types of work, which we at the committee couldn’t consider, because those regulations to be introduced under section 76 of the primary Act aren’t available to us at this point?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:08): Thank you. I’m fascinated by the dentistry analogy.

Arena Williams: I like to pick on them.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, this is starting to feel like pulling teeth, so the extraction analogy is a good one. Of course, the Crown does take interest in such matters. To answer your question, I mean, it’ll be hypothetical only. It’s not for me to do the work of the board to say what kinds of terms and conditions, other than to point out that they are of the kind referred to in section 30, but I can imagine a world in which conditions might include a certain type of work that a practitioner would be allowed to do or not.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a new line of questions. I’m on section 56A, at page 12. The audit specifications and the way that work would be considered by not only the board but others in the profession was something that did come up with submitters, and so I want to ask the Minister—this is something that the board submitted on as well, where they might need to ask questions and raise questions about professional competence or the completion of work—whether he considered in his proposals an ability for others in the profession to raise conduct and quality questions with the board? He will be familiar with the conditions of the rules of client care for lawyers, where there’s a very, very stringent provision, and not what I’m proposing here, but lawyers are required, where they see professional misconduct or work that is not completed to a high standard, to report that to the Law Society.

There’s a step down from that, though, rather than requiring, where you have, say, a plumber who has gone into a property and undertaken work and has seen that work completed before was not to a high standard or raised questions around professional competency, or documentation that they have access to also reveals some professional incompetency—whether there is an ability to feed that through to the board. This goes to their audit powers, because they currently have a sort of self-initiated stream, where they are able to undertake looking into work that is completed by plumbers that they want to look into where complaints have come to them, but they don’t have, I think, the ability to consider issues which are raised with them by other members of the profession around the professional conduct of their members. That, to me, seems like a useful provision to go hand in hand with those abilities.

I’m not suggesting here that he should embark on requiring plumbers to dob each other in, but I am suggesting that where that comes up—and for the provisional plumbers who I have spoken to, that is an issue; they know who the cowboys are in their area—there should be an ability for the board to consider that evidence and to have a process for managing that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:11): Thank you. I agree.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question for the Minister is around an endorsement under section 51E that is given but is subject to terms and conditions. We’ve covered this a little bit, but where someone has previously been endorsed subject to terms and conditions and they seek to lodge a new endorsement application at some stage in the future, they would do that, as I understand, under sections 51B and 51C, because it’s not a renewal under section 51H. As it stands currently, can the Minister confirm that there would be no requirement for the board to consider any aspects of terms or conditions of a previous endorsement that is not sought to be renewed?

Under the items that the board would be required to consider under section 51C, it only relates to previous cancellation or suspension of an endorsement, not a circumstance where terms or conditions may have been applied to an active endorsement. If that is the case, is that the Minister’s intention in progressing this bill, that, basically, someone subject to a term and condition who may reach the end of that particular time frame or time period—should there be a provision where there is an ability for the board to consider the fact that someone has previously held terms and conditions on endorsement?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I first thought about this kind of scenario about 30 seconds ago, and having reflected upon it for the last half minute, it seems to me that it’s not my intention that we would wish to preclude the board from considering any relevant factors that they know about an application, notwithstanding that, as the member has quite rightly pointed out, there are provisions that set out applications anew, so to speak, but also applications for an additional or renewal of endorsement.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions relate to sections 87AD, 87AF, and 87AG, on page 14. These are the certificate of compliance requirements for the new board. The question is—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, what was that—87AD—

ARENA WILLIAMS: AD, AF, and AG—particularly the public register provision at the bottom of that page, sir.

My question is about the keeping of that public register being a publicly available document, and the board, and having a role in making sure that the public has information. That is a role which is required in legislation because it is intended to offer sunlight and transparency as a deterrent for different sorts of behaviour which would mislead consumers, in that the issuing of, say, these signature sales that Master Plumbers and others drew the committee’s attention to might be noticed, but it also is a useful tool for consumers to look back on what sort of work has been carried out by their plumbing professionals.

My question is: no liability arises for plumbers who give these certificates, but does liability arise for the board? Should the board be able to look at 100 certificates registered in one day from Shanan Halbert and say, “He probably can’t do 100 jobs.”, or should the board also have some sort of check on three jobs from Ryan Hamilton and know that Ryan Hamilton could not complete those three jobs in that time? The question is: what liability arises for the board in the provision of that public document? Is it intended to be a check and balance on the system? Is it a professional liability - keeping tool? Is it meant to be sensible, or is it simply an exercise in publishing exactly what is given to the board on any given day?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:15): I don’t anticipate any such liability.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Andy Foster.

Tom Rutherford: I move that debate on this question now close.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:15): Sit down, you. Be quiet! Ha, ha! I have one question, and I think the Minister for Building and Construction will know the question that I’m going to ask.

Tangi Utikere: Oh, a question from a Government member!

ANDY FOSTER: It’s clearly a popular question. In this regime—I’m particularly looking, probably, at section 53 of the Act—if somebody’s passing themself off as something they’re not—obviously we’ve got plumbers, and then we’ve got the certifying plumbers, but also people who don’t have the qualifications that are required—what sits behind this in terms of a penalty regime to dissuade people from doing that and to penalise people from passing themselves off as something they are not? I hope the question is clear. It’s a question I’ve asked you before.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:16): Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I don’t think 53 is—

Hon CHRIS PENK: I think the Chair is pointing out that 53 isn’t here, but if he and the committee will indulge me, I understand the thrust of Mr Foster’s question.

Andy Foster: Well, I’ll take you to Subpart 2, if you want—section 53. It’s the amendment.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Well, let’s count it as runs on the board for later then, please. If there is a matter of fraud, then that would be handled in the way that is currently the case, which is to say that we’re setting out requirements for those who state that they have certain characteristics and that they are who they say they are. At the moment, the board, I would assume—but this is not either legal advice or a matter of legislative amendment—would be able to act upon any indications that that person is not acting in a way that is honest or upfront in terms of their application. Certainly, with the codes of ethics that are being handled elsewhere on the statute book—namely the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill—hopefully there would be some sort of dissuading of dishonest conduct. I think there is a point that the member might be raising around the fact that occupational licensing schemes tend to capture only their own members, so if someone’s outside that scheme and passes themselves off, for example, as an engineer or a plumber for that matter, and not being either of those things, then we’ve got a problem. But it’s not a novel problem, and it’s not one that we either exacerbate or solve in this legislation. So, to that extent, with all due respect, it seems to me that it’s out of scope.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:17): Can I just follow that up? That is the heart of the question. I didn’t hear anything in that that says it’s not a novel problem, but we have an answer to that, and that’s a penalty regime. Of course, at the moment, we’re reliant on council inspection processes, and everybody is aware of that, and that would no longer be the case in some cases with self-certifying plumbers. If somebody’s passed themself off as something that they are not, what is the penalty regime to discourage that and to give people confidence in the regime and the processes going forward? That’s the heart of what I want to hear from you. If there isn’t something, I suggest it’s something that thought needs to be given to.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:18): Thank you to the member for the question and indeed the advice. I didn’t have much of a litigation career as a lawyer, but I did once represent a fellow who was doing work that was only able to be undertaken by a plumber proper. He was not a plumber proper—he probably wasn’t proper in many regards, but it’s another story for another day—but the penalty regime, I understand, contemplated by what we’re legislating here does relate to a person misrepresenting himself or herself as qualified to be a self-certifier, but not in terms of whether they are a plumber at all, or not in the first place.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is about clause 19, on page 16, about the review of competence. There are no provisions in this part to prescribe fees that would be paid for a review of competence or the work that would be undertaken by the board. That creates an incentive, I guess, for the board to charge a fee for things they can charge for, which is either renewals or other things—say, a review of something like a condition.

I wanted to ask the Minister for Building and Construction whether that is intended because, when you have fees—obviously they’re not penalties, and they can’t be penalties—if the board isn’t properly empowered to be able to recover the costs of considering that sort of review, then it would be ordinary for them to look to recover those costs in some other sort of fee, which might start looking very like a penalty. Or is it his intention that another part of the regime gives rise to fees that would be able to be used in the review of confidence for a self-certifying plumber somewhere else in the provisions? I don’t see that. That will be very important, and that will come up probably most often for the board in assessing whether someone should continue to be a self-certifying plumber, but given that they give these endorsements for three years, simply using the renewal provisions to be able to enforce that doesn’t seem like a useful way of doing it when quite a lot of work can happen in three years.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:21): Thank you, sir. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his answer to my earlier question, and his point that he believes that the board should be able to consider any other sort of stuff that it wishes to—I certainly have a level of comfort around that. But is there a requirement to specify that in the bill, given that there is already guidance as to what the board must consider? It might be that the Minister does not believe that’s the case, but, if so, where is the provision that would allow the board to be able to do that?

My other question was on clause 17A—this is the new section 56A. This has been inserted by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and it’s an ability for the board to initiate some audit when it chooses to do so. This really, I think, is what you would expect with professional bodies of this nature where there is an opportunity at any time for any circumstance for an audit to be undertaken to ensure that the robustness still exists within the regime. My question to the Minister is: does he have any expectations around where that information might be reported? Not the specific details of what was audited and what the outcomes were, but specific numbers to provide public confidence in a new system of self-certification and in terms of where he might have expectations around where that information might be publicly reported or available for accountability purposes.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:22): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I thank the member for his various questions. Harkening back to that previous one, it doesn’t seem to me that it’s necessary to specify that the board can take into account information that reaches their desk, whether or not provided in one application or the other. I suppose reasonable minds could differ on that, but at least to answer the question at face value, that’s not something that I consider to be necessary.

As for the audit provisions—and of course audit is a mechanism by which we can be as enabling as possible within the regime as a whole, but also provide some measure of public confidence, to use that phrase that the member himself used, by having the possibility that the work would be checked. I think, for me, it’s a feature not a bug of the system that we are deliberately quite open-minded about what that might look like. It’s a new system for everyone to get their head around, and I think to allow the board some flexibility in terms of the number, but also the nature of such audits is helpful at this stage of the life cycle of the new regime.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (21:23): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 578 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 575 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 576 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended stand part.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 stand part.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 578 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended stand part.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, this is a bill that is timely and is useful because I think everybody in this House wants to see more houses built more affordably—quicker for consumers means better for the New Zealand economy and we support that. That is why we have worked really constructively, not only with the Minister for Building and Construction, but with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee ably chaired by Andy Foster from New Zealand First, because we want to see this being a sticky set of reforms which make sense for everyone who has to engage in them; from the top of the market, to the big group home builders, to the smaller plumbers, their professional associations, and the mums and dads buying the houses who are left with a system which they need to have faith in for their most valuable asset and, in most cases, their retirement savings.

But there was one part of this regime which we needed to get right, and it was the piece of the regime which this bill does not deal with. It was mandatory insurance. It was making sure that the little guy wasn’t left carrying the can when we did these smart and well-intentioned reforms to make some measures on the supply side work better. Because without an insurance scheme that is more like those countries that we like to compare ourselves to—like Australia, like Europe—we will still have a regime where mums and dads are left wondering who is responsible when things go wrong. I put this to the Minister in an email that I received recently from a lady called Jenny. She wrote to me and she said, “My taps aren’t working. Who is responsible?” Jenny, you are one of the many people who writes to members of Parliament all the time, people who come along to our electorate clinics, people who stop us in the street. We are the elected members who are responsible for the system, and that goes for your taps too. This is a piece of legislation which does not deal with that exact problem.

Yes, we have a system which is meant to protect your taps—a set of consumer laws which are meant to protect you with the products that you buy—but in terms of a self-certification regime for plumbers who can install them, we aren’t requiring them to make sure that their insurance is up to date, that they are holding the right kind of protection, and that you can call on them not only in one year after work is complete, but 10 years after work is complete, and make sure that they can come back and that they are fully equipped to deal with the work that might have gone wrong. Because things do go wrong for plumbers. Things go wrong under the ground that you can’t see; things go wrong in the walls which you can’t see. There is a problem here when we are not dealing with the critical factor, which is insurance and spreading of the risk, because Jenny shouldn’t have to deal with the problem with her taps. It should be a system that she can rely on. People like Jenny, who we represent, should be able to rely on a country like New Zealand having a regime in place that’s similar to Australia, that’s similar to Europe, that’s similar to the OECD countries we like to compare ourselves to. Because when we are making reforms that make things speedy and easy for the industry, the industry should also have a mind to those consumers that they are dealing with every day—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s right!

ARENA WILLIAMS: —and make sure that those appropriate protections are in place for Jenny—Rachel Brooking. This bill should be called the Building and Construction Sector (Self-Certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers, But We Forgot to Do Insurance at the Same Time) Amendment Bill, because I know that the Minister has an aspiration for Jenny. He wants Jenny to get her plumbing done faster. But he also knows that it is important and appropriate for a regime that deals with consumer protections for people like her and in her situation.

I know that around this Chamber we want to make sure that there are those protections in place. But just to say that it’s coming when we are making pretty wide-ranging reforms—which everyone in this committee wants to see—which are faster, which are more deregulated, which are less easy for consumers to have a direct line of sight into the kinds of protections and the kinds of bodies that they can turn to when things go wrong, that it is important to have that regime in place at the time, and we know we won’t be able to do that during this period in the lead up to the election. We know we don’t have enough House time; we know we don’t have enough time for the Public Service to respond to this. We are going to be left from 30 June with a regime, which does make sense with the mandatory insurance perspective, but does not make sense without that.

So we will just have to live with the situation as it stands, but we have to know as a Parliament that what we are passing here will put vulnerable consumers in a worse position—and that is part of it. That is part of the regime; it’s not a mistake. So we should continue to demand that legislation like this deals with the problem of risk-spreading for those vulnerable consumers or we will continue to see some of the things that have plagued us in New Zealand with our building industry consistently not spreading the risk appropriately, consistently landing the costs on central government and local government where it does not belong. We should have a regime in place, and it should have been in place at the same time as this legislation was introduced.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:35): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to acknowledge the member’s point that she—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Are you going to acknowledge Jenny?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ll acknowledge Jenny in a moment. But, for now, the member and her party and indeed members all across the Chamber have engaged in a constructive fashion regarding this legislation. We thank her and them for it. She makes a good point about consumer protections, except only that earlier in this committee of the whole House we talked about the fact that minimum standards for endorsement, as set out in the legislation but given effect to in the regulations, will include the ability to meet potential civil liability.

I have made it as clear as I can, I think, in this environment, that my expectation is that some sort of insurance will guarantee that other means of ensuring that a person who is conducting the work, whether or not they remain available to do any remedial work and whatever their own solvency situation might be, would still, nevertheless, be available to make good, or have someone else make good, any defects that would arise in the operation of the scheme.

So I think, with all due respect, that it is not a particularly fair criticism to suggest, by way of an amended title, that we have forgotten that. We’ve remembered it. We’ve contemplated it, and indeed we’ve taken active steps to ensure that’s the case.

As to the timing, though, I think the member is pessimistic when she sets out that she doesn’t think we’ll be able to make other proportionate liability - related changes in the system more generally, and, certainly, as I say, this is a self-licking ice cream to the extent that the regulations that are set out in the primary legislation will be able to provide the assurance that she’s seeking.

The last word, I think, must go to Jenny and her taps. I was thinking about a taps reference, but then I decided not to “faucet”.

Hon Members:Oh!

Hon CHRIS PENK: I think the Jennys of the world do deserve the confidence in a system that will enable them to be protected against poor-quality work. So that is why we are emphasising a system in which people who are duly registered, and strong occupational licensing mechanisms administered by a very sound board, and I do want to thank the board for its ongoing work, including in administering this new regime, to enable the work of the excellent plumbers and drainlayers that we have in this country to be conducted on a basis of trust, duly managed, and even audited, and we think it will be helpful for all the reasons that the member has quite rightly set out.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I think the Minister himself may have wanted to put forward an amendment—it’s not too late, Minister—around whether it’s a self-licking ice cream or a faucet sort of component to the title, but we’ll leave that to him.

I want to comment and ask about the commencement, because this is a very peculiar aspect of this bill, where the Act itself will come into force on 30 June 2026, which is just over a month away. Usually, that’s all we see in a commencement clause. But this one has the peculiar aspect of having specified sections that come into force at a different date and on this occasion, they come into force on the day after Royal assent. Now, I know that we, in supporting this bill, want this to be efficient, and also, as the Minister himself has said, to be effective, and that’s important. But one must just have a look at these different sections that are outlined to see why it is that they need to come into play a little bit earlier. So I am going to do that this evening, starting with section 16.

So section 16—the suggestion is that it would come in earlier. This is the provision that, effectively, allows for the board to prescribe terms and conditions around which endorsements are granted, and to set aside some standards that might relate around someone’s experience around the competency, the technical competency that they might have, the practices that would be involved. So I guess it does actually make some sense that that would come into play a little bit earlier.

Then I’m looking at section 38(1) and (2). Again, this is proposed to come in on the day after Royal assent, and when we get to the third reading, that might not be too far away. But this particular provision relates to the functions of the board around the standards that someone needs to meet in order to, effectively, be up for consideration for an endorsement, and it also allows that rationale, I guess, around the impact that it’s having on the wider sector to assist the chief executive in the exercise of their duty. So I guess that does make some sense, although the Minister might have a view about whether or not that could still wait a month. I mean, we’re talking effectively about a month away that all these other provisions would come into play.

We then go on to new sections 39 through to 41. And these are around, again, the prescription of fees and the endorsement of a levy that relates to what’s being sought here. And then I go to section 41, and the full match there is really just the provision of some editorial aspects, I guess. So, OK, that seems to make sense, but when we look at section 44, this is the definition of the self-certifiable plumbing and drainlaying and also identifying what information might be needed there. Again, Minister, is it appropriate that we’re only talking about a month in a sort of layby sense there?

Then we have section 45, which is about the requirements for making certain regulations. Again, that’s a heading. Now, the heading here is relating to self-contained vehicles, and vehicles are very important to get people from point A to point B. Look, I think you can either get yourself from point A to point B in a vehicle by yourself or indeed, perhaps, with someone else—a friend in that sense.

Then we move to section 18 as it relates to a specified section, section 87AI, of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006. Towards the end there, there are a whole range of different aspects that relate to this one—the chief executive is to implement and monitor endorsements. So, I guess, having identified all of those, Minister, it’s probably logical that some of those do predate the commencement, effectively, on 30 June but that does beg the question: given that we still have, if this bill passes this stage, a third reading—who knows? It might pop up in post-Budget urgency; you never know—and given the short period of time, is there sufficient need for those earlier parts to still come into force on the day after Royal assent?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (21:42): I thank the member for his dissertation on the different time frames. He’s right, of course, to point out that there’s a bit of a split in terms of the timing—30 June, thereby within the quarter, but just, in terms of most of the legislation, but the category of provision that he’s outlined to come into effect sooner—as it happens, about a month prior, depending on the Order Paper for the next few days—will be geared towards enabling the board to prepare for the introduction of the regime. There’s no reason to stop them having the benefit of an extra month or so to start gearing up for the kinds of policies, practices, and procedure, and advertise those to the world so that when the scheme comes in, there’s the maximum time possible for people to know what is required in order to be able to meet their obligations. I think it’s possible to achieve a lot in a month. I wouldn’t discount that they will be able to do a lot of work in that intervening month, and if the member doubts that, he might consider how much legislation can be passed in a single day—this Thursday, for example.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:44): I move that the debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to thank the Minister for his response.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (21:44): 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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Minister Penk’s amendment to Clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 632 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. Members, we come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 17A, “Amendments to Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021”. The question is that Part stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (21:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to make a contribution with regards to the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. Labour does support this amendment bill. However, we do have some questions that we’d still like to ask the Minister of Internal Affairs. So I begin with Part 1.

We understand that this is an omnibus regulatory systems amendment bill administered by Internal Affairs. In terms of Part 1—of births, death, marriages, and relationships—the provisions that are provided are in terms of the documentation rules, and there are some changes that have been provided here. The question that I want to check and ask the Minister, just in terms of a number of these changes in these provisions, was there are a number of amendments to do with birth certificates. It is important in terms of details, when members of the public, members of the community, are applying for the amendments or for the changes. I wanted to ask the Minister: in terms of standardising and reflecting the provisions, what advice did she receive from officials in terms of the changes and corrections to do with births, deaths, and, specifically, sometimes in adoptions? We did, as the Governance and Administration Committee, receive submissions—more on other provisions—and so I wanted to check in, in terms of officials’ advice by Internal Affairs, with regards to those specific changes that have been updated. In terms of efficiency and effectiveness, it’s helpful to understand the updating, because in this omnibus bill, the aim has been to modernise in terms of provisions. So I want to ask: was there any discussion or advice from the officials with regards to fee increases? It would be helpful to understand that, from the Minister.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask a couple of follow-up questions to my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s question around the births, deaths, and marriages part of this bill, under Part 1. There are a few changes that the Governance and Administration Committee made to this part; relatively substantive changes because, as I understand, the main thrust of it was really to allow changes to be made to birth certificates, if that had been requested. One of the things that we did do at the select committee was make sure that it was either the person listed on the birth certificate or their representative who was asking for the change on the birth certificate. Also, there were some further changes around making sure that there was a good reason for the change and that there was a good reason for it to be excluded from that part of the birth certificate.

I just want to ask the Minister of Internal Affairs around her reflections and feedback on the select committee’s changes in this regard because, compared to some of the other changes, they’re probably a little bit more substantive. So just quite a simple question around that and how she imagines, or if she’s had any advice about, that working in practice.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister of Internal Affairs regarding Part 1. As the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, mentioned, there were quite a few amendments when it comes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act. I guess the question I have is with one of the amendments that has been added which is around clause 5B, “New section 78A inserted”. Part of the rationale for that was around—that the good reasons are defined and give the Registrar-General discretion, with no criteria to guide decision making. So this part is added, but I think, as the Minister in charge of this bill and also in terms of the Department of Internal Affairs, I would be keen to know specifically when it comes to let’s say new section 78A subsection (2)(b). This is to do with if the “Registrar-General reasonably believes that inclusion of the information in the certificate would prejudice the personal safety or well-being of—” either the individual or the family of the individual. But considering that this certificate, I’m assuming, relates to birth, death, marriage, and relationship, I do wonder if there’s any scope or consideration or allowances for the Registrar-General to consider beyond what is considered “family”.

I guess, in this case, also just seeking the Minister’s guidance on the principal Act—because I haven’t had the chance to look at the principal Act—if the principal Act does define how broad we’re looking at in terms of the definition of “family”; whether “family” would consider close family only or more extended family members, which in some cases could also be in the situation where there may be prejudice in terms of the personal safety or wellbeing. So I think that’s my first question for the Minister regarding clause 5B, new section 78A(2)(b).

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:54): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly starting with the first contribution which talked about whether I had received advice on fee increases as part of this—no, I didn’t. One of the reasons behind this bill is that this is to do with minor technical changes. Things like fee increases would be part of a separate Cabinet process rather than a regulatory systems bill. So, I think that closes that one off.

When it comes to the specific changes that have been made to these provisions—from that second contribution—yes, I actually really like the way that select committees, in some ways, deal with regulatory systems bills because they are non-contentious. I think we all across this House should be striving for efficiency and effectiveness in making sure that the laws are up to date and modernised. I understand that this is the first time that the Department of Internal Affairs has ever had a regulatory systems bill, and there have been decades of changes that Internal Affairs, as a department, has been wanting. Of course, because so many of them have been minor or technical, it’s been very difficult to find a legislative process for them. This bill, in part, deals with quite a lot of those minor issues all together. I’m very happy as the Minister of Internal Affairs to be able to clear up a lot of these laws and I also support the changes that the Governance and Administration Committee has made. I thank the select committee for their contribution and taking this bill seriously because it’s for the betterment of all New Zealanders, really, that our department works efficiently and effectively.

When it comes to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question, he was specifically interested in clause 5B inserting new section 78A. Really, what this one here is about is ensuring that the Registrar-General has a very effective part of the service for New Zealanders, who may have been dealing with quite a lot of potential personal trauma in their own lives, to make sure that their birth certificate doesn’t reflect that part of the trauma. Things like incestuous relationships, for instance, could be listed on to their birth certificate and those could be now omitted by the Registrar-General—especially areas where people might have estrangement from parents and also I believe that causes a lot of trauma in their own lives. I don’t expect that this will be taken up quite regularly by people—it will be quite a minor area in terms of the legislative change and the effect on how many people will be captured by this. But for a small number of people, I think it will be a huge betterment for their mental wellbeing.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Extended Sitting

Wednesday, 27 May 2026

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, members. When we suspended last evening, we were considering Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. We’re on Part 1, “Amendments to Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021”, clauses 3 to 17A. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:00): Tēnā koe, good morning, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity. Yes, as I stated last night, Labour is supporting this bill, but we do still have questions we want to ask the Minister in terms of official advice.

Minister, with regards to Part 1, “Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021”, we did receive written submissions and also oral submissions, and a submission from Mr Rāti Sinclair asks a question in regard to the presentation of historical information. Mr Sinclair, through his submission, understands the significant regulatory changes in this bill in terms of tidy-up. He had a question in regard to Māori and in terms of Te Tiriti. What he was asking us is, in terms of whakapapa and historical information, what engagement or what advice from officials was sent through in terms of cultural assessment, in terms of when the changes happen through certification or citizenships regarding births, deaths, and marriages? We did touch on that very lightly in terms of the details that are recorded and changed.

What he was asking, overall, with Part 1, is the Māori cultural content that does not have iwi or hapū oversight or any engagement in regard to the new provisions—he understood the exercise, but through his submission was asking officials what kind of engagement has been held with iwi Māori or hapū in regard to the new changes and the new provisions. I put forward a question to the Minister in terms of officials’ advice: what engagement was held and were there any questions that were received in terms of the historical records and the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and particularly around the tino rangatiratanga over whakapapa, taonga, and data? That is a question that I have for the Minister. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the question is about historical information regarding Māori cultural content, and there was no specific engagement with Māori as that information was already available and because nothing within this part is any form of significant change that requires broad consultation.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:03): Thank you for that clarification, Minister. In terms of the new sections that are in these specific provisions, for health and safety reasons, Mr Sinclair pointed out that it was important to put forward his submission and raise his concerns. I just wanted to check that the specific tests in terms of the provisions that are being provided, the advice from the officials—and I know you’ve answered it, Minister, but I just wanted to put forward what Mr Sinclair had put in his written submission.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:04): Is it possible that the member could be a little bit more specific? I haven’t read Mr Sinclair’s submission, and I’m not sure which particular reference she is referring to.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:04): Yes—thank you, Minister. I’m happy to put that forward. As part of Mr Sinclair’s submission, he raises Māori cultural content that could be shared internationally without iwi and hapū oversight. One of the things that comes up through his submission is the importance of having the different conversations—which of course is the officials’ remit in terms of checking with communities when there is an overhaul, when there is a tidy-up of specific sections by way of Part 1.

It is important that we have recorded the engagement or that submitters have had the opportunity to raise their questions with regards to their concerns. One of the things he raises regards giving the chief executive the power to declare things like the changes to RealMe online identification. It is important for the iwi Māori members of our community that the personal data that is recorded or submitted by people like Mr Sinclair or iwi Māori representatives—that they have a clear understanding of what the bill is trying to achieve in terms of tidy-up and in terms of updating the information, if that would help?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:05): Yes—I’m very happy to help the member and the submitter. Look, when it comes to the information regarding historical information, I don’t believe that there is anything that required broad consultation in these parts of the amendment bill for the very reason that, currently, section 90 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act lets this information be published on a website run by the Registrar-General, but not on external sites.

Historical information under this Act is things like births or stillbirths that are more than 50 years ago; people born over 80 years ago; marriages, civil unions, notices of intended marriage that are more than 75 years old; name changes for people born outside New Zealand who were born more than 100 years ago; and deaths of people who died more than 50 years ago or who were born more than 80 years ago. All of this information is already available; it is simply a data-sharing arrangement so that people don’t have to scrub the internet for the information, but can just simply get it directly. It’s not providing more or new information, it’s simply making information sharing a bit more straightforward for people. It’s hardly a controversial changes—it’s just a minor tidy-up.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:07): Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the explanation that you have provided, and I don’t think Mr Sinclair is trying to be controversial, but it is helpful to understand his point of view.

For the next question I have—that’s Part 1—I wanted to go to Part 2, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, no, we’ll be voting on Part 1.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: OK—that’s all the questions that I have.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Repeal of Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981 and revocation of Boxing and Wrestling Regulations 1958, and Part 1 of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 18 to 21—“Repeal of Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981 and revocation of Boxing and Wrestling Regulations 1958”—and Part 1 of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really pleased to be able to take a call on the repeal of the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981. It was something that I didn’t get to mention when I last had a call on this in the second reading, and I was very regretful about it because I think it’s a really interesting look into New Zealand’s history to look at the Boxing and Wrestling Regulations. Obviously, you can see that the Act is older than me, and the Boxing and Wrestling Regulations are in 1958, which is certainly older than many of us in the House, Mr Chair. At select committee—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That may be out of order, actually, Ms Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH: At the Governance and Administration Committee, we did receive submissions on the Boxing and Wrestling Act revocation. The officials at the Department of Internal Affairs and many would see these as antiquated provisions, but the submissions that we received were that they did form a framework under which boxing and wrestling and related activities could occur.

There was a change made at select committee; it may not be obvious when you look at the bill, but if you go back to clause 2, you’ll see that under the Boxing and Wrestling Act provisions, we had recommended at select committee that these do not come into place until 1 April 2028. The reason for that is because there was quite strong advocacy that this particular area of, essentially, organised fighting or exercise which forms either boxing or wrestling—and we did have some advocacy from other martial arts as well—should not be left without a framework.

There is a review happening, and so we were pleased to hear at select committee that there was a review. The intention, really, with the change of the commencement date for this part was to mean that the review, hopefully, would have been able to have taken place and more up to date regulations could have been put in place. My question to the Minister is: does she have an update on the review that Internal Affairs—oh, sorry, I think it was the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, which I think is not the Minister’s department, but, obviously, is related to this legislation. I wondered if she could get an update from her colleagues on that review and whether it is, in fact, tracking that there could be different regulations in place by 1 April 2028.

I just want to acknowledge that this particular advocacy by people from this particular sport was really influential on the committee recommending—I think was unanimous—a later implementation date. So thanks to them for making this very compelling submissions, and it would be good to see if the Minister does have an update, because that will, obviously, let the House know whether this change is going to be workable.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to see the select committee took this part quite seriously, because I have to admit, when the officials originally said we’d like to repeal the boxing and wrestling provisions under the law, it did raise some questions in my mind. But I was told, with quite a lot of confidence, that there would be barely any impact on boxing and wrestling in New Zealand, given the fact that the legislation is so out of date and essentially obsolete that more up to date and stringent rules come from international federations that boxing and wrestling legislation doesn’t match up with. It’s really good to see that, outside of legislation, there is genuine concern for standards within boxing and wrestling that are happening internationally and here in New Zealand, even external to outdated regulations and rules like we have here.

However, I also do take the point that there is quite a lot of concern in our community about leaving a blank area and the fact that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is doing a review of all combat sports I think is a good thing, especially when we’re seeing some newer, scarier variants emerging in our community. I especially know this because I’ve been seeing it in Glen Innes, in my electorate, as well, so I’m really pleased to see that this review is taking place.

In terms of that review, I haven’t had an update myself on where it is at this point in time, but I’m very happy to inquire, and, potentially, the member might like to put in a written parliamentary questions to the relevant Minister herself, as well. Across this House, I think we’re probably all in agreement that we’d like to see the results of that review. I also do acknowledge—I agree with the time frame that the committee has put in place here about extending that repeal so it’s not just at the end of this bill going through the House, but that it does actually line up with that Ministry for Culture and Heritage review, which would give space for a potential new regulatory regime to be ready when this one is repealed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee can only be amazed that combat sports will be coming under culture and heritage, but that’s the Chairman’s prerogative to make that comment.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:13): Thank you, Minister, for making those comments, but also the relevance in terms of the provision in Part 2. We did hear from the New Zealand Mixed Martial Arts Federation, who made a written and an oral submission with regards to combat sport. What they raised, in terms of both of those submissions, was the importance that there needs to be an updated replacement—whichever Ministry—to really understand what those athletes and the organisations have to do in terms of a combat sports commission.

The issues that they did raise were to support, in terms of mixed martial arts—so I know I’ve heard the comments that it’s a sport, or a combat sport, that many citizens of our community don’t participate in, but it is important that once the regulations are covered, there are specific components such clear accountability, exemptions, integrity, and health and safety at various events that are held in the community. I just wanted to check—and I know the Minister’s already made some comments in terms of the officials’ advice—when that work takes that direction of travel, is there any clear direction for those in the sporting community, such as the New Zealand Mixed Martial Arts Federation, who did raise some safety concerns around training, around organising, and especially to have those issues raised around their concerns and the support. There are still people in our community that are interested in this sport and they made be looking at international bodies in other countries just to recognise how those processes are streamlined.

In terms of the repeal, what work will the officials carry out? I just wanted to check in in terms of when the Minister or the new culture and heritage gets official advice.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I do actually agree with the sentiment that the member is raising—that you’ve got different pockets of the community in society that are participating in different parts of sport, who are concerned about how they’re regulated here in New Zealand. The point that I would raise, though, is that the Boxing and Wrestling Act, which is being repealed here, sits outside of mixed martial arts. This doesn’t actually cover mixed martial arts—that’s a different part of our regulatory environment. This is simply boxing and wrestling, which is why I think it is important that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is actually doing a review of all of the combat sports.

If I may go so far to say that potentially the member might like to support the idea that is coming from this Government of having more amalgamation of Government departments, because it seems weird, I think, in some respects, that we’ve got Culture and Heritage looking into mixed martial arts and other combat sports, and the Department of Internal Affairs is being responsible for boxing and wrestling. If you were trying to establish a new form of combat sport, well, I would hope that in the future you have one Government department rather than having to figure out which one it even is.

To that point, I don’t specifically know where the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is up to in terms of that review, because that does sit outside the scope of the work that I am responsible for. I do hope that we see progress in that area, and this law and the time frames that have been put in place by the select committee allows for that work to progress before this one repeals, but it doesn’t actually touch mixed martial arts.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (09:18): I move, That debate on this question now close.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:18): Thank you, and, look, I appreciate the Minister’s reply with regards to the various combat sports and the understanding and the interpretation, but what this committee needs to go through is to hear from the parts of our community that are involved in combat sports. I don’t believe that we are at that point yet. We know that this Act is being repealed. However, there needs to be work in the community, whether the public sentiments are the same, and so that’s a conversation outside this bill. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:18): To that point, I think I did make it quite clear that this bill is quite specific about boxing and wrestling, rather than mixed martial arts. I can take the position that that is outside the scope, but I also acknowledge that there will be people within our community who are not necessarily seeing the specificity of this bill but looking at all of combat sports. They should be given an assurance that there is a review happening under a different ministerial branch, not this one. This is simply a repeal of an outdated law.

Part 2 agreed.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Amendments to Charities Act 2005 and regulations made under that Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (09:19): Members, we come now to Part 3, debate on clauses 22 to 27, “Amendments to the Charities Act 2005 and regulations made under that Act”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, sorry, you just got there in time.

Hon Member:What!

Hon Jenny Salesa: I’d like to ask the Minister some questions about—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Jenny Salesa.

Tim Costley: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No. If your point of order is—I’m going to continue.

Tim Costley: We’d started voting, sir.

Hon Members:No, we hadn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, I’ve made a decision. Sit down.

Tim Costley: That’s outrageous.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, who said that?

Tim Costley: I did.

Withdrawal from Chamber

Tim Costley

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (09:20): Out. Do not comment on Speakers’ rulings—height of arrogance.

Tim Costley withdrew from the Chamber.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Amendments to Charities Act 2005 and regulations made under that Act (continued)

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:20): Mr Chair, thank you for this opportunity to ask the Minister some questions on the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. This bill actually covers a whole lot of different primary legislation, but I do want to ask the Minister questions on clause 23, which amends section 27. This amendment changes the wording around searching the charities register, and it seems to me that it will remove references to broader regulatory controls. In my opinion—and this is actually from a person who didn’t sit through the select committee process and is just my reading of this legislation—the changes seem to narrow the statutory frameworks governing searches. Minister, are the substantive protections being moved out of primary legislation?

My concern is that the public transparency and privacy protections may become less explicit. As we know, in terms of charities, a lot of our NGOs and our charitable organisations—there are a lot of voluntary people that are the people that work through those charities. My concern here, Minister—and please alleviate those concerns—is does this mean that if there are less statutory controls around privacy of information, would people be able to search and get the detailed names, addresses, of our volunteers?

Another question I have is why is the Government or the Minister reducing statutory protections governing searches?

Another question is did the Minister or her agency consult the various NGOs and charitable organisations that will be affected by this particular change, and why move these protections from primary legislation into regulations or administrative practices, Minister? Those are my questions for now.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:22): I thank the member for her interest in the Charities Act. I believe I can go some way to alleviate the concern that the change here is to restrict access to information by changing parts of the Charities Act relating to the searching of the charities register. The regulations will no longer specify the purposes for which people can search the charities register. However, this is not to restrict search; it’s simply to make accessible searching easier for people and better align with how people are currently searching the register. It will enable better access rather than restricted access and meet people’s expectations of open data.

When it comes to things to do with privacy, this change does not change what information is available on the charities register. The Act itself has more important mechanisms for limiting privacy risks, such as section 24, which prescribes the set of information that must be available.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (09:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick question on clause 22A around the establishment, functions, duties, and powers of the board and the insertion of the section “The functions, duties, and powers of the Board are not affected by any vacancy in the membership of the Board”. Obviously, there’s five on the board, and I’m just curious what would happen if there were multiple vacancies at one time—whether that would actually have any impact. It just talks about “any vacancy”, and I’m assuming you can get away with one, but if you’ve got a board of five and you’re starting to see two and even three, there could be significant impacts, especially if—like, I’m not too sure what the quorum is, but I assume it would be three. I’m just wondering what would be the impact—is there an impact?—if there’s actually multiple vacancies at any one time on the board.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:25): I do want to follow up. The Minister, in answering the question that I posed, referred to clause 24, which actually repeals section 28. My concern for this particular repeal is: repealing the search purposes—would it actually make data mining easier to do? Would it make harassment campaigns of some of our NGOs—I’m actually concerned about particularly ethnic communities, as our ethnic communities spokesperson. I’m also associate Pacific peoples spokesperson. Would it make searches for ethnic communities or Pacific people easier to then harass them? Would it make religious minorities, in terms of doing some data searches—would it make it easier to then harass people for religious affiliations? What are the protections after this will be removed by this particular bill? Are those legislative protections still going to be there or would it make it much easier for people to be harassed in the future?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:26): Thank you very much for that very specific question. Look, I don’t believe that this would do this, because it’s only the names of officers that are available on the register rather than their contact details. There’s a lot of information online for people who would like to harass in any circumstance, but this I don’t believe would go any way to helping facilitate that, above and beyond what would already be available on the internet for people. It’s horrible that harassment happens at the best of times, but you’ve already got—and I won’t list them—a range of other areas where people can go to find that information, external to the charities register.

For Mike Davidson and his comment about what would happen with more than one vacancy on the board, the intention behind this is that it’s possible in future that when it comes to people being placed on the board or somebody has left the board unexpectedly due to their own personal circumstances, you could end up with a lack of members on the board or one fewer members than the law specifically stipulates, due to no fault of anybody’s—the circumstances for the board, but the board themselves finding themselves outside the law. It is meant as, I guess, a temporary measure to allow a new board member to take place, but that the board itself would not find itself outside the law because a member had to leave for their own personal circumstance.

Part 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, just before we move on to the next part, I just want to explain that when we are sitting in committee, often, because of the acoustics of the place, we don’t hear all the calls surrounded by people. That’s why, for the benefit of the doubt, often we’ll go to someone who we may have missed. That’s just to explain as to why the benefit of the doubt will go to those calling. On the other hand, there is no justification for any member who has been made a judgment by the Chair to make any comments, derogatory or otherwise. Just to explain what happened, just in case anyone is in any doubt for the future.

Committee of the whole House

Part 4 Amendments to Citizenship Act 1997, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 31, “Amendments to Citizenship Act 1997”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just with regards to clause 30 and the amendments to the Citizenship Act, I wanted to go to new section 24(3A), in terms of subsection (3), which, it explains, “does not apply to a New Zealand citizen by descent who later acquires New Zealand citizenship by grant in relation to the certificate that confirms their citizenship by descent”. I wanted to clarify: in terms of “by descent” and then “by grant”, have the officials confirmed that there have been a lot of queries in terms of those who receive citizenship by descent and then they are provided with citizenship by grant? I’m just thinking of scenarios in terms of officials’ advice.

My first question is: were there many cases that have come through in relation to that that prompted that change, or what other advice has been given to the Minister by the officials?

Secondly, can the officials confirm that there were many queries? I’m thinking of Pacific communities where there are different international arrangements that, when people receive New Zealand citizenship by descent and then they would apply or their circumstances change. I’m thinking of when a young person receives citizenship by descent through their parents, and then they marry another person who doesn’t have New Zealand citizenship, but then they go through the process and receive it by grant. Were there any of those scenarios explained to the Minister and prompt advice from the officials? That’s my question.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:31): Thank you very much. I cast my mind back to the original conversations. Look, I think in part this has less to do with how many cases there are of this occurring and more to do with the fact that, with modern technology, this part of the Citizenship Act is now, in some ways, out of date. If I walk you through what this means, there is a difference between citizenship by grant and citizenship by descent. If someone is eligible for citizenship by descent, they can then go on to claim citizenship by grant. However, under the current law, if you have that certificate of citizenship that says you’re a citizen of descent, and then you become a citizen by grant, you then have a different document to hold on to.

In the older days, those certificates were then requested by the department to be handed back because they were now null and void and you needed a new certificate. But now things are happening online. There’s not actually a certificate necessarily to give back. I don’t know how this is supposed to act out in the modern environment where someone is giving back an online version of an old document. This is really just to clear up the fact that that rule no longer applies; that if you were in the process of going through citizenship by descent to grant, you no longer have to give back the old document because it doesn’t really exist in a physical format.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (09:32): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for engaging with our questions on these matters. My question is going to be on clause 31 and Schedule 1, but I just first wanted to thank all of the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff and, of course, the public servants in all the different departments and agencies. This amendment bill goes across a very wide range and we have been given excellent advice, in general, to improve and modernise. I’d also like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee members.

However, I do have a question to the Minister about the amendments to the principal Act to update gender references. If I can draw the Minister’s attention to Schedule 1 where it talks about replacing “his or her” with “their”; replacing “he” with “the Minister”; replacing “he considers that he has” with “the Minister considers that they have”. We really support this removal of binary language, but I would just like to ask the Minister: how does she feel that this matches up with the more recent—and, in our view, egregious—attack on non-binary persons from the coalition Government?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll leave the Minister to choose whether she answers that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:34): Thank you very much. Look, I think these are very, very different things, but I’ll give you some form of clarity of why I support this. I stand before you as a woman, and this current law says that I am a man. I think by having a gender-neutral term, it allows a Minister in the future who is a man or a woman to appear in this Chair and both be responsible for the law.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:35): I just wanted to thank the Minister of Internal Affairs for her earlier comments just to my questions. What I understood is that we’ve gone from a previous system and now pretty much everything is online and there is no requirement to give that certification back—if I’ve got that correctly—because you’ve gone from descent, then you go over to grant.

I just wanted to check with the Minister that now that the departmental records have moved online, there is an assumption made that citizens in Aotearoa have access. My question is: what happens when the certification has changed, the communications are online—and I know that there’s a RealMe verification in all those things. I wanted to ask via the Minister to the officials: how easily have online communications been updated, but how easy is the access to our communities? What happens when you don’t have the RealMe identification? Because you have to go through quite different steps. Now, unless I’ve got that incorrect, I just wanted to check, because the communications of many departments—if not all departments—have shifted to online. I am just asking around the accessibility when individuals in the community—whatever their queries are under this provision of citizenship by descent moving to grant. I just wanted to check that that is easily accessible by community members.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:36): Yes, I would assume it is. Because anybody, at any point—no matter where they live in the world, if they have a phone, if they have access to a library computer—can create an email address and therefore have email contact with the department.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:37): Thank you. My last question on this matter—I just wanted to check: are there any fees attached with that in terms of when your online access, whatever certification you require, and you need to check that, are there any fees attached with that? Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (09:37): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:37): Yes, look, for the member—I’m actually getting really breathless standing up so often, so I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister’s welcome to remain on the seat. There’s no obligation to stand. Sorry, I should have been—

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: OK. Look, there’s no specific fee attached to that above and beyond the citizenship fees.

Part 4 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Amendments to Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012 and regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 32 to 43—“Amendments to Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012 and regulations made under that Act”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions around the electronic identity verification changes. Obviously this is something which I’m sure most people wouldn’t question needs to be updated in terms of the way that we are looking at electronic IDs, which is something I know is part of the Government’s policy programme and just follows a different way that we, I think, are moving to being able to have digital IDs. However, these changes are to an existing 2012 Act, the Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012, and I just had some specific questions. I’ll just go through those and I appreciate the Minister of Internal Affairs might want to take a moment or get some advice before responding straight away, and it may be that other members have questions to allow her to do that.

The first question I have is in relation to new section 52A, inserted by clause 36, when there are kind of substantive changes in terms of what a participating agency is. I wanted to ask the Minister in terms of these changes—because this is a relatively substantive new section which has been put into the Act—what is the impact of being a participating agency?

The second question I had was on new section 52A inserted, and it talks about the chief executive’s powers, and that is, essentially, for them to revoke a participating agency’s power—it seems a relatively powerful power that this amendment is giving to a chief executive. I just wondered if the Minister had had any advice on how that process would actually work in practice, in terms of revoking or replacing a participating agency with another participating agency, in terms of if there’s a process laid out. It may be that that’s policy work to come, but I thought I would ask if any had been done to date.

Two further questions: clause 5—so 52A(5)(b)—talks about publishing a list of the participating agencies. And I just wondered, in terms of the current practice, whether this was, in fact, happening at the moment, and this was, almost, putting into place the legislative tool to recognise that, or if this is actually going to be a new list that doesn’t exist at the moment. So that was that question.

And then the final question I had, at this stage, in relation to Part 5 was clause 39, which goes through and gets rid of sections 73 to 75 in the primary Act. When I had a look at these yesterday, I saw that they were mainly relating to pre-commencement electronic identity forms, I assumed, and I just wondered if the Minister could answer whether this is correct or not: that the reason we don’t need these pre-commencement provisions is because something that was pre-commencement would have been in prior to 2012, and, obviously, that’s a long time ago, so, potentially, those IDs are now defunct. I wasn’t sure as to why we were kind of getting rid of those transitional provisions and I was wondering if that, possibly, might be the reason, but the Minister may want to clarify that. Thank you.

Hon Brooke van Velden: Look—

Hon Jenny Salesa: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No—the honourable Minister. The Minister will be speaking from the seat, so just a slight change.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:42): Thank you. Look, in terms of the latter part of the member’s comment regarding clause 39, the member pretty much has it correct that the transitional provisions are no longer really needed because the agreements and credentials are no longer active for the older parts—for the electronic credentials that were issued or applied before the commencement of those sections. So that’s quite easy.

In terms of the overall changes to the Electronic Identity Verification Act, the rationale behind this is that there’s not actually any big policy shift here. It’s to do with the process that it takes to get through Cabinet. And, look, I don’t understand, really, why this was the case in past years that when the department had gone through quite a lot of thinking about whether or not a particular agency met the standards that the department thought were sufficient for a new organisation to be part of this Act and to be authorised, it then needed to go through, potentially, up to an eight-month Cabinet committee consideration and Cabinet in order for that process to happen. Now, this just allows that to happen at that department level where there was no additional information actually being sought by Cabinet or being required by Cabinet, but this just allows the system itself to happen more efficiently.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:43): Mr Chair, thank you for allowing me to ask the Minister a question about clause 34. So, Minister, it seems to me that this particular clause is about administrative efficiency and the changes that are being proposed will change the control of who accesses New Zealand’s verified identity information via RealMe. I think the main concern that I’d like to ask the Minister about is: are there safeguards to ensure that efficiency is not going to be at the cost of people’s privacy, public trust, Māori data rights, or democratic oversight? So my question to the Minister is: does the Minister agree that this change, in clause 34, is not just a technical change, but that it is a shift from democratic and regulatory oversight to departmental oversight? We have, in just the recent past as well as over the years, seen various data breaches occurring in various Government agencies, what does this change mean moving forward?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: should there be an approval process, but before the Minister decides which agency will be an agency that will be having the departmental oversight over RealMe - type data and private data; and how would she have oversight over all of these different agencies as a Minister, given that it will all be transferred to various Government agencies in the future?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:46): Look, Mr Chair, very happy to take this contribution. I believe I’m probably one of the strongest members within this Cabinet and Government who cares about people’s privacy and security and information security. So I take the point that it is something that this Government should be taking very seriously, especially when it comes to individuals who live and work within this country and how their information is secure, whether that’s in the Government or in third parties. I would love to have that sort of discussion outside of this forum because, unfortunately, that sort of policy is outside the scope of this bill, which is mainly dealing with minor and technical changes.

And to give the member a form of assurance about what is actually happening here: there is not any information that is being deleted in regards to what Cabinet had already been receiving as information to walk through the process. The department itself goes through quite a rigorous testing, which requires any participating agency or those who wish to participate, to ensure that they have an established privacy policy and that they are checked for any breaches under the Privacy Act over the previous five years before they are given approval. That information has been, at the moment, sent to Cabinet to be signed and ticked off. Whereas that is becoming an unnecessary, burdensome step. It is clear that we do need to take privacy and information security quite seriously, which I do as a Minister, however, this is simply a procedural step that is being removed, not a removal of a requirement of privacy policy.

Part 5 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 6 Amendments to Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 2A and Part 2 of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come to Part 6. This is a debate on clauses 44 to 80—“Amendments to Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act”—Schedule 2A, and Part 2 of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (09:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a relatively long part and covers, quite a few changes to the Film, Videos, and Publications Classification Act and the regulations made under the Act. I guess the thing I want to acknowledge at the top of that is the shift in the language away from “film and literature”, which sounds a little old-fashioned to a classifications review board. So, obviously, the intention through this part is to ensure that we are modernising some of the language and mechanisms that would have been relevant when they were finished back in 1993.

But there’s a couple of specific questions in here. The first—and excuse me, I’m going to be looking between two things here, so hopefully I can keep up—the first is under clause 47D, which is around the revocation of appointment of a labelling body and it talks here about the Minister having the ability, “at any time, by notice in the Gazette, to revoke the appointment of a body or an organisation as the labelling body”—that makes sense. The notice needing to “specify the date on which the revocation takes effect, which must be at least six months after the date on which the notice is published in the Gazette.” And then there’s a reference here too: “Before making a notice, the Minister must give the labelling body an opportunity to be heard.” That’s good intent and a good intention, but I guess the other two points are very specific about time frames, mechanisms, and identifying the parties. That third one is open to a lot more interpretation and is a lot more open-ended.

I’m wanting to get some clarification around exactly what “opportunity to be heard” means in this instance, just to ensure that whilst those first two parts are very clear in how they would function, that third part, like I say, a lot of interpretation potentially there, and that runs the risk that that labelling body either may not be sufficiently heard, may not be given the sufficient opportunity to be heard, or could feel that they had not been heard. The more open-ended description in this part of it could mean that gauging whether they had been given the opportunity to be heard or not was more difficult for somebody ultimately trying to make that decision, or if that person or entity was to raise an issue with that, it’s harder for people to decide whether they’ve had the opportunity to be heard or not. I’m just wanting to ensure that that point had been picked up on and that there’s a plan in place there to address any potential concerns around that third part of the process. Agreeing that Part 1 and Part 2 there make sense, but just the open-endedness of how it’s spelt out in Part 3, if the Minister could answer how that will be addressed.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:52): Yes, very happy to discuss this one. Look, thank you for the two comments. To the first part about the reference to the change of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, it’s really quite a useful change given that the Classifications Office is—and has been for quite some time—publicly facing going by the Classifications Office, so this is just updating it to be what it has been known colloquially and within professional circles in the law.

To what I believe the second part is really talking about is about the changes to the determining of the labelling body, and to give a little bit of comfort about what is actually happening here, I was made aware a very, very long time ago now that the official labelling body that has this role in New Zealand was actually hoping to shut down, and no longer wished to do this service for the Government. Because over the last few decades, the number of videos that are being published in a physical format has actually been significantly declining year on year, and so it’s not actually a full-time role for this operation, nor is it an increasing role. It’s actually diminishing over in time as we’ve got more streaming services coming online. People are simply looking at video format in a different form rather than in a physical environment.

This really is an update to the law so that we don’t end up with a regulatory gap; that once this body closes, the Classifications Office themselves can take it up. In the conversations and advice I’ve had from my officials thus far, there is no other body external to the Classifications Office in New Zealand that would be able and willing to take on this work or have the expertise to do so. The Classifications Office is actually used to doing forms of classification, whereas that is actually quite a targeted and niche skill in New Zealand, and so this fills that regulatory gap rather than having a legal requirement for videos to have a label and no one there to fulfil that function.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (09:54): Thank you, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for that answer. It definitely covers off the questions I had on that earlier point. I’m wanting to move down here to clause 51, replacing section 87 talking about the chief censor’s ability to delegate powers. It says here in section 87(1), “The Chief Censor may delegate any of their powers and functions under this Act to (a) the Deputy Chief Censor, except this power of delegation;”. But then when it goes on to speak to the specific ability of what the deputy chief censor then has, it doesn’t, in any place that I can see, explicitly prohibit the deputy chief censor being able to further delegate.

Potentially, what there could be here is a situation where the chief censor has a lesser power of delegation than the deputy chief censor, and so you sort of end up with a weird situation where the chief censor could delegate something, but the deputy chief censor could then delegate further than their superior was able to. I guess what you’re talking about there is the risk that there’s a watering down, and—to continue with the water analogies—a downstream effect or impact unintended, potentially, by the legislation, but more importantly, potentially unintended by the chief censor.

I’m just wanting to get the Minister’s views on whether she sees that as a potential risk or a potential unintended consequence of the bill in its current form, and whether that was something that was picked up on or discussed at any point through the process prior to now. Also if there were any thoughts from the Minister about how that could be addressed or mitigated if it is in fact a risk that the chief censor, ultimately, has less ability to delegate than their deputy, and therefore, that chain of delegation could end up with someone on a third tier able to do more under the instruction of the deputy chief censor than either the deputy chief censor was able to do under the instruction of the chief censor.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:57): Look, I’m happy to take this contribution. I don’t have concerns about the delegation and sub-delegation because I have actually spent a lot of time dealing with this particular office. I regularly have meetings with the chief censor and the deputy chief censor, as well as overseeing their administrative functions through my accountability function as a Minister. The office itself is not a big office, so the idea that we’ll have three tiers of management also then sub-delegating down administrative functions, I don’t think it’s a risk to the entity itself.

They are mainly a bunch of very highly skilled professionals who are dealing in a very, very difficult situation with very disturbing information most of the time. The conversations I’ve had with the chief censor is that this will help with the efficiency of the office in terms of the administrative functions. However, in terms of the actual information that they’ll be handling, that is all very sensitive and won’t be changing. In terms of this delegation, this is simply to help the chief censor do her work, and help the deputy chief censor help the chief censor do her work. In terms of the actual work that is being undertaken, I won’t go into that detail here today, but I have high faith in that particular entity and would like to give a shout-out to the team there who deal with such sensitive information, and I thank them very much for their service for keeping New Zealanders—and particularly children—across this country safe.

Part 6 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 7 Amendments to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 7. Part 7 is the debate on clauses 81 to 92—“Amendments to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and regulations made under that Act”—and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (09:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is on clause 83 inserting new section 81A, the meaning of a dwelling. Under subsection (3), it mentions “A building, or part of a building, that meets the criteria in subsection (1) or the criterion in subsection (2) is a dwelling even if it is used some of the time to provide temporary or transient accommodation.” Then, in subsection (7), “Clarifying uncertainty”, it says: “To avoid doubt, a building, or part of a building, is not a home or holiday home (and is therefore not a dwelling under subsection (1)) if (a) it is used to provide temporary or transient accommodation, being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time”. There’s a bit of a difference between “less than 28 days” and “some of the time” over in subsection (3). It does say “such as a hotel or motel” as an example.

My question is really around short-term accommodation like Airbnb, which is often used in this circumstance. It’s probably not used some of the time; it’s probably used more than that, and it’s most likely used for periods of less than 28 days at a time. Therefore, going by this “Clarifying uncertainty” subsection, that Airbnb or that short-term accommodation would not actually be defined as a dwelling. I find this is just actually quite interesting, because instead of actually clarifying uncertainty, I think it creates a bit more uncertainty.

What I’m also concerned about is that this is obviously taken directly from the Natural Hazards Insurance Act, and potentially the way this is written—not only does it affect anyone that uses their home as short-term accommodation solely for that purpose, and not only are they basically not deemed a dwelling under this bill, they’re also not deemed a dwelling Natural Hazards Insurance Act. That would be quite concerning when you look at the number of people who are buying properties for this type of investment in short-term accommodation and continue to buy that. I’m just wondering if we’ve created an issue here, but actually then potentially also a bigger issue sitting in the actual Natural Hazards Insurance Act. Thank you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:02): Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. In terms of Part 7, I wanted to raise a question with respect to—it’s quite clear in terms of the residential and non-residential—around the non-residential, in terms of commercial or industrial property, which contributes 60 percent of the total Fire and Emergency New Zealand levy revenue. We did receive a submission from Property Council New Zealand, and one of the issues that they raised, Minister, was in terms of the inequities of the levy regime because there are a number of broader costs facing the industry. For non-residential, they continue to have escalating costs, like local government rates, increasing development contributions, and rising insurance premiums.

Referring to clause 84, but also the provision in clause 92, the mixed-used properties, I wanted to understand, in terms of when the levies under the new provisions were being calculated and seeing what is payable, what considerations or what engagement was fed back through the submission process? Were any of those considerations taken into account, given the pressures of the cost of living rises, in terms of the visibility, but also in terms of the commercial and industrial non-residential section and the levy that has been calculated? I just wanted to understand more on that. What advice was given by the department in terms of landing on what is currently in the provision?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:04): I’m very happy to take these contributions. Look, I also sympathise with people who are facing increasing costs, not just within the fire and emergency system but across the board, and that’s seeing an increase year on year. Unfortunately, that is in some ways outside of the scope of this law change.

Just to bring people back to what is essentially happening here, I was not responsible for the overall law when it was formed and the particular provisions relating to the levy and how that would be defined within the law. However, what I have been responsible for is the fact that quite soon or close to the fact that the new levy would actually take place, rather than just the transitional levy, the Insurance Council reached out to me saying there were still some areas that they believed were missing within the original definitions of the law, which I’ve then sought to tidy up here.

My officials worked with the Insurance Council to identify the areas that were leaving them with concern about whether or not their contracts would be sufficient or whether or not there are still grey areas. I’m very happy to hear that—I believe through the select committee process—they were also brought on board. The Insurance Council and their submission was taken into account. It is really, here, about a technical tidy-up that should have happened the original way when the law was first created, but it’s not here to change any big policy shift or any particular major changes for the costs to households or commercial properties. It’s simply to make the definitions clearer so that anybody entering into a contract or an insurance company creating the contracts from this point forward will actually have clarity about which particular parts of a household property or a commercial property are captured and which parts are not.

To the point that my other colleague raised earlier, much of the language and approach to the definition here is derived from the Natural Hazards Insurance Act and is similar to the approach under the current transitional fire levy. Insurers and brokers are familiar with this terminology, and it avoids confusion and provides confidence that the processes can be streamlined for calculating both the Natural Hazards Commission levy and the Fire and Emergency levy. I believe that this, in some ways, goes to help the insurance industry as they are signing the contracts.

Part 7 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 8 Amendments to Gambling Act 2003 and revocation of regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 3A

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 8, the debate on clauses 93 to 117, “Amendments to Gambling Act 2003 and revocation of regulations made under that Act”, and Schedule 3A. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. This part did receive a certain amount of attention at the Governance and Administration Committee, and it almost is slightly like a bit of a plot of a TV series. It’s a situation where, at the moment—and I’d be interested to hear the Minister comment on this—we have a situation in New Zealand where under-18s, although they are prohibited from many other forms of gambling, can currently purchase New Zealand lottery tickets. The change that the select committee is making is to ensure that those under 18 cannot purchase Lotto tickets. There’s a definitional change here, which I think people will accept, because “instant games” is quite a difficult—I don’t really think people really know what “instant games” would mean in a colloquial sense, but New Zealand lottery or Lotto is obviously something that people do understand.

One of the things that we looked at at select committee was the transitional provisions in this, and it’s something that received quite a bit of attention at select committee. We were thinking, well what happens if someone has purchased a Lotto ticket, and they’re under 18, and then they win, and then they can’t bank their proceeds? It does sound like the plot of an episode of a TV series. What a terrible situation—you’ve finally won the Lotto but, unfortunately, because you’re under 18, you can’t claim the winnings, and the moral greyness around—

Todd Stephenson: Hope you know someone over 18!

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, well, that would be against the law. But, anyway, I think that was quite an interesting thing to look at. The transitional provisions do, as I understand it, make this a little bit fairer. So, at the moment, if you were to purchase—I actually don’t know how far ahead you can buy Lotto tickets; someone else might know that. Can you buy them for games in the future, or do you have to—

Todd Stephenson: That’s how it works.

CAMILLA BELICH: You can. OK. You can tell that I’m not the Lotto ticket purchaser in my household.

Todd Stephenson: You have to buy a ticket before the Lotto is drawn!

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, of course. That’s a key part of the lottery system. Yeah, it’s not a “back to the future” plot.

Todd Stephenson: No.

CAMILLA BELICH: No. So, anyway, the situation that we have is that I think the select committee very fair-mindedly said, “If you have purchased a ticket for a Lotto draw, the Lotto draw hasn’t taken place, and you’re under 18, we will not prevent you from having those winnings. That would be just too mean and retrospective law that would be extremely cruel.” However, we obviously—and I think we probably agree across the House—don’t want under-18s participating in gambling, even if you buy a Lotto ticket, and it’s not very likely that you will win—in fact, the odds are minuscule. Anyway, I thought that was an interesting insight into what is obviously a very important bill, but some aspects of the changes are perhaps not as interesting as others are.

Is the Minister happy with that change that has been made on transitional arrangements? I suppose a follow-up question is: is there going to be any public education or training or any note that’s sent out to lottery retailers about this change in policy, with terms and conditions updated? It may be that that exists and this is making it consistent with the current practice.

The other thing the select committee looked at, which I thought was really interesting, was—I can’t recall who it was but some very honourable member decided to look up the Lotto draw date to make sure that the changes come into effect on a date that isn’t the same day as the lottery draw, because obviously they were wanting to not have the situation where, I think, the original proposed date was on the same day as the lottery draw. Then, which law is going to apply and do the transitional details apply, and what time does it come into effect? I’m a former lawyer and I know that a lot of my colleagues in the profession could have made a decent fist of spending a lot of time arguing about that if the situation were to arise. But thanks to the scrutiny of the select committee, this has been addressed.

So I wanted to check with the Minister—hopefully, we made the right call in having that alignment. Anyway, it was an interesting area to look at. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on what was probably a slightly more substantive select committee deliberation and changes on this very interesting aspect of the bill.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:13): Thank you. I’m very happy to take this contribution. Yes, I thank the select committee for their scrutiny of these particular provisions. It’s very important work, and I do believe that the committee have ended up in the right area, and I also support the changes that the select committee has made to the question of whether there’s going to be any form of education for the change. Lotto will be updating their terms and conditions and providing updated information to retailers as well, but I do also just want to caution that it is quite a minor issue, and when talking with Lotto about how many young people are out there buying these products, they didn’t say it was a massive issue. Really, what we’re doing is changing the law, so for a retailer at the moment, some of Lotto’s products are accessible for anyone of any age and some Lotto products are restricted to those over the age of 18. So this is really to clear it up for the benefit of the retailers, so they don’t have to second-guess themselves as to which Lotto product was in or out and what is the age of the individual coming into the store. It’s really simple that it’s over 18 for all the games, but I do understand that there are some kids going out there and buying Lotto tickets. I’ve heard of instances where they’re buying them for their grandparents, and popping down to the store, but ultimately this is not something that we believe that children of any age should be participating in. But it’s also much more helpful for retailers themselves. So thank you for the select committee’s work.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:14): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your response. I do want to just follow up on, I guess, the divide we created when it comes to looking at instant games versus lottery for under-18s.

My assumption with the changes to this part is that with instant games, for example, changing to New Zealand lottery means that under-18s will no longer be able to purchase lottery tickets. That’s true, but what instant games like Instant Kiwi and all the other things that you could also get at the same kiosks as you would normally get a lottery ticket as well, and will they be able to be purchased by under-18-year-olds? That is my first question.

I guess the follow-up question is from a gambling and harm reduction perspective. Has the Department of Internal Affairs done any work around the impact that even those kinds of games like Instant Kiwi has? I know that previously in the online gambling bill, we talked Loot boxing, whether it’s the online version or even the physical thing, like trading card games, etc., and the impact that would have on gambling addiction and gambling harm reduction. Has that been a consideration when we were looking at the changes from the instant games to the New Zealand lottery?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:16): I’m happy to take this contribution. I think I can alleviate the member’s concerns quite quickly. Instant games are already illegal for under-18s. This law change brings everything in line for the twice weekly draws to be also illegal for under-18s, and so to the previous contribution I made, this is simply an alignment issue. Things like Loot and things online are outside the scope of this bill.

Part 8 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 9 Amendments to Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 9, the debate on clauses 118 to 120, “Amendments to Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003”.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two questions on this particular part. I guess the first question is: considering that we are seeing the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill coming through the House as well, was there a reason why this particular provision needed to be included as part of this bill as opposed to being a part of the changes that we’re going to be seeing anyway?

I also want to check—I guess both for clause 119 and also clause 120—on why the investigation is removed, because presumably if you’re looking at section 51(1), the definition of investigation, and repeal paragraph (a), which is around commission of inquiry—that will be continuing. Is there a reason why that is going to be removed from the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Act? Does that mean that under that Act, they are not going to be able to conduct the investigation that is pertaining or relating to the commission of inquiry? Those are the two questions I have for this particular part. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:18): Look, specifically to the first part of the question with regard to why this is happening when there might be other changes happening through Government, to make it quite simple, Justice overall is responsible for the policy when it comes to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. However, I understand that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is responsible for some operational part of this particular part of the law. So this is simply to amend something that helps with the operations of the department rather than the overall policy shift. And so, once again, I bring us back to the fact that these are minor and technical amendments to help DIA overall do their job. This is, ultimately, why this is occurring.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (10:19): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Minister, you stated earlier on today that a lot of the amendments to the primary legislation in this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, are presented as a technical clean-up, but Minister, can you just assure us—Part 9 is about amendments to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Can you let us know why this particular amendment is in this Department of Internal Affairs bill instead of a health amendment bill?

Following from that question, was there exchange of information between your agencies and the Health Committee about the proposals being made in this Part 9, and were health practitioners consulted?

Part 9 of this amendment also proposes the inclusion of quality assurance of information. Did you also and your agencies consider that quality assurance, serious offences, and inquiry access to various information is something that is taken into account, Minister, and are you able to guarantee and assure Parliament that no patient, no family, inquiry, prosecutor, or regulator will be left in a worse-off position because of this particular amendment that Part 9 makes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:20): Happy to take this, and in some ways it also aligns with the comment from Lawrence Xu-Nan before. Ultimately, this is a really minor tidy-up, because the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act itself is not being overall changed in terms of policy. What it is, really, is that within this health practitioners Act, there are references to the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, which was repealed, and the Department of Internal Affairs is now responsible for the Inquiries Act 2013. This is updating that law to be in line with what the Department of Internal Affairs is currently responsible for, which is the Inquiries Act 2013. That’s pretty much all that’s changing in this part.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—you look like you’re a little confused about—

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:21): No, no, no. I just have one final bit just on that. The change isn’t updating it to the new Act, as the Minister is mentioning. The change is repealing it or deleting it. For example, in clause 120, it says, “delete ‘a Royal Commission, or a commission of inquiry appointed by an Order in Council made under the Commissions of Inquiry Act’ ”. It doesn’t say for the purpose of inquiry under the Inquiries Act 20—the year that the Minister mentioned. Even if you’re looking at, for example, clause 120, which is section 61 amended, of the bill, does that mean that if the Minister is satisfied when it comes to disclosure of information, the Department of Internal Affairs can no longer disclose information for the investigation of any inquiry? Is that how we’re meant to interpret it? It’s not a change; it’s a removal.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:23): The note that I’ve received from my officials is that the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 is being repealed because it is redundant; it’s no longer in force. But since 2013, inquiries themselves have been established under the Inquiries Act, which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:23): Just to then clarify that the essence of these two sections that are being amended or having sections removed—the Department of Internal Affairs is still able to function under those, even though the original principal Act is no longer there? It is still able to conduct the operational elements of those two sections without that section?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:23): That is my understanding. All inquiries happen under the Inquiries Act 2013.

Part 9 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 10 Amendments to Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 10. This is the debate on clauses 121 to 123, “Amendments to Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004”. The question is that Part 10 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:24): Thanks, Madam Chair. It is helpful to understand in terms of this provision, in Part 10, the amendments to Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004. It’s helpful to understand, for donors who are involved in this process, that there has been an update, and it’s helpful to understand—and I was curious about the over-donation. I don’t know a lot about this. We did have discussion and kōrero on select committee. We also had submissions both written and oral to help us understand that better.

I wanted to understand, in terms of clause 122, “Section 47 amended”, in terms of the providers who must obtain and accept information about donors. I wanted to understand through the Minister, because it’s not a huge activity—that is, it’s quite a sensitive area, and the people that are involved. What type of questions or information came through the department when checking out the donors? Because of the sensitivity of this provision, when a donor—in New Zealand, obviously, it is important to have up-to-date information and accessibility. But it is also important, when people do go overseas—as I understand it, and hopefully I’ve understood this well—that there is a period of time that that donor’s specimen, or however you call it, is kept. If the donor is out of the country—for example; I’m just trying to elaborate my example. If the donor provides, and you can only hold that for 10 years, and then the donor comes back into New Zealand, given the information under this provision, is there any contact that is made with that donor because their time—basically, there’s an expiry date? Also, what kind of identification had been requested to improve that provision? I just wanted to ask that question.

My other question is in terms of—it says here in clause 123, “Section 52 amended”, that “Providers must keep track of donor offspring births”, which is another question around is there a level or a number that a donor can provide their specimen? For example, is it two, is it three, or is there a ceiling that the donor can only provide X amount—that information is sensitive and must be kept by the provider? I’m just curious to understand what advice was given from the department to the Minister to consider all of those elements.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re just waiting for the Minister to take some advice. Is there another question?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:27): Yes, I did have a question on this matter. When we were in the select committee process, we received a few submissions that were probably slightly outside the scope of the bill, which are being included in our select committee report. But one of the areas which I’m particularly interested in, if there’s any work ongoing—which, of course, we couldn’t make that particular change in the bill—was the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Currently, we heard, they don’t have discretion to consider applications for an extension of a storage limit. Often, from the submissions we heard, there isn’t a good scientific basis for that. We were advised we couldn’t make that particular change within the bill, which is why there isn’t a provision on that, but I did wonder, as a part of looking at this—I think we were of the view it should be looked at in the future—whether the Minister has been able to obtain any advice around that.

I think the other comments made by my colleague are also relevant. This is an area of law which does probably need a more substantive change. I think any update that the Minister is able to do within the confines of how this is related to the regulatory bill would be useful for the House in terms of the nature of the submissions that we did receive on this, which were, compared to other sections, quite extensive.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:29): I’ll do my best on this section. The advice that I’ve received is that the Department of Internal Affairs itself doesn’t have contact with donors directly, nor does it keep track of overseas donors. When it comes to specific information, I guess, regarding the amounts that people could donate and how that is captured, unfortunately, that would be outside of the scope of this bill, as this is making only small and non-controversial changes. To the point of my colleague who just took a call, if there were to be concerns about that sort of policy, then I suspect there would need to be a wider amendment bill rather than a regulatory systems bill.

This is really just providing a little bit of change in terms of what information people should be able to collect. I take the most basic one, here, about someone’s address being on file; being able to be an electronic address rather than a physical address. I think that’s just helpful, once again, for the modern world that we live in where you may end up with donors who are actually moving around. Not everybody lives in the same house for 30 years; some people who may be donating may, every six months to a year, move address. This makes it easier to keep hold of people who are in that donor system.

Part 10 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 11 Amendments to Inquiries Act 2013

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 11. This is the debate on clauses 124 to 126, “Amendments to the Inquiries Act 2013”. The question is that Part 11 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another section which applies to a slightly different area which is the Inquiries Act 2013. First question I had is: I was reading the definition of this yesterday and I wondered, because obviously we do inquiries as part of the select committee, whether the inquiries that are covered by this change would cover select committee inquiries. The key thing, I think, that might be determinative is the use of the word “government”. So, it might be that would mean that select committees aren’t part of the Government but then, of course, sometimes they are doing work that is supported and suggested by the Government. So I just wanted to have some clarity on that, just because if we are using that word, I think it’s important to know the exact subject area.

The other question I wanted to ask in Part 11 is in clause 125(4). I wasn’t really aware —and I don’t believe it came up in the select committee process—of the reasoning behind the need to change this information. Was there a specific incident that happened that meant that this change was needed and why these powers would be required? Apologies if it was advised by officials—they’ve much better memories than myself—but I couldn’t recall it and, when I was looking over it yesterday, I thought it would be good to know the context of why those new powers were requested.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:32): Yeah, thank you for that. Look, I think, taking the first part of the member’s contribution first, my understanding here is that this is specifically to do with inquiries under the executive or under the Government, rather than inquiries under the legislative. I would certainly hope that select committee inquiries stay away from being prescribed in law but, rather, are referred to in the Standing Orders. So, that is my understanding of how this falls.

In terms of the rationale for amending the Act, it is actually quite a sensitive issue. One of the reasons was the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. Now, as part of that report, the inquiry did have to deliver a series of case studies, some of which related to Lake Alice, and had information relevant to a criminal trial that was taking place at the exact same time as the inquiry. That did mean that parts of the report needed to be redacted, but at the time there was no power to redact parts of the report and Cabinet agreement was needed to amend the terms of reference to enable parts of the report to be redacted, to ensure comity between the criminal system or the court system, and the executive.

Now, I think there will be broad support here in this Chamber that this puts in place a procedure that addresses the situation if it were to arise in the future, and will enhance the efficiency of the process but also, I guess, the stress that comes by having such a niche issue play out in real time.

Part 11 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 12 Amendments to Land Drainage Act 1908, and Part 3 of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (10:34): Members, we come to Part 12. The is the debate on clauses 127 to 133—“Amendments to Land Drainage Act 1908”—and Part 3 of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 12 stand part.

Part 12 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 13 Amendment to Legal Services Act 2011

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 13. This is the debate on clauses 134 and 135, “Amendment to the Legal Services Act 2011”. The question is that Part 13 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. This is one of the shorter parts in the bill. I just wanted to understand from the Minister of Internal Affairs: is this codifying an existing right, or is this allowing legal aid to more easily be granted when there is a public inquiry? That’s under clause 135 of Part 13.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:35): Look, I think I can also tick this one off. This essentially is to promote access to justice by establishing a system that provides a legal service, or that is the purpose of the Legal Services Act. This in some ways is quite similar to a contribution that we had in other parts where it was that that law referenced the Commissions of Inquiries Act 1908 which was superseded by the Inquiries Act 2013, which made those references redundant. So, we are removing those redundant references but not touching the overall policy intent of the law.

Part 13 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 14 Amendment to Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 14. Part 14 is the debate on clauses 136 and 137, “Amendment to Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968”. The question is that Part 14 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m curious about this particular part and I think this bill, in particular, because looking at section 3 amended, I want to check with the Minister on why has there been a change and a significant increase in terms of the disqualified contract between local authorities and their members from $25,000 to $100,000, excluding goods and services tax? Because if you’re looking at clause 3(1) of the principal Act, it talks about: “except as provided … no person shall be capable of being elected … or appointed to be or of being a member of a local authority or of any committee of a local authority, if the total of all payments made or … made by … on behalf of the local authority in respect of all contracts made by … in which that person is concerned or interested exceeds $25,000 in any financial year.”

What is the rationale behind increasing that from $25,000 to $100,000? Can I just check: when was the last time there’s been an adjustment in that amount?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:38): Yes, very happy to answer this contribution. Look, you’re right that there is an increase from $25,000 to $100,000 without an exemption. The Department of Internal Affairs has put forward this change because the Office of the Auditor-General supports this change. It considers that having the same threshold since 1982—which answers your subsequent question of when was it last amended—the belief there is that it’s created unnecessary compliance costs for the legal authorities who are required to apply to the Auditor-General for approvals for councillors with interests in significant contracts, because the threshold is so low. These applications require time and resource from the Office of the Auditor-General. But overall, the Office of the Auditor-General does not consider that third party oversight of financial conflicts in local authorities is necessary or appropriate, given that local authorities are autonomous bodies with full legal capacity to manage their own affairs.

That falls outside of this law because this is simply making an update, I believe, with the Consumers Price Index since 1982, but it is to help the administrative efficiency of the Office of the Auditor-General.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:39): Just one follow-up. Thank you for that, Minister; that’s really helpful and really interesting to hear. Do you have any advice from the Auditor-General on how much initial efficiency, then, it would allow for? What proportion of existing exemptions etc. that the Auditor-General would need to do and how much of that would it remove off their books, as a result of this?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:39): Look, I don’t have any particular numbers with me, but if the member would like to inquire with the Office of the Auditor-General themselves, I’m sure they will get a fascinating insight to the cost reduction that we will be making within that office. But, look, it is mainly a technical change to update the law post-1982.

Part 14 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 14A Amendment to Local Electoral Act 2001

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 14A. This is the debate on clauses 137A and 137B—“Amendment to Local Electoral Act 2001”. The question is that Part 14A stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on this one. This is quite an important change, and it should, hopefully, make it easier for people to have their declarations witnessed as part of local elections.

The question I had, which, hopefully, can be quickly answered is we’ve made this change to mean that the electoral officer isn’t the only person who can take a declaration, also deputy electoral officers, but also a third category of people, which as people who are allowed to take an oath and declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act. I just wanted, for fullness, if we could find out who that is. I assume it would be JPs, lawyers; but would be good to know the extent of that, to know who is able to witness those declarations, if necessary, and, hopefully, speed up the process of voting.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:41): Yes. Look, very happy to give this one a go, in terms of what the fulsome list would be. So section 14 of the Local Electoral Act also allows, under section 9, a list of persons who are able to witness declarations, which include a justice of the peace, a notary public, a registrar, and an enrolled barrister or solicitor of the High Court.

Part 14A agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 15 Amendment to Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 15. This is the debate on clauses 138 and 139—“Amendment to Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009”. The question is that Part 15 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:42): Thank you. Madam Chair. This is a very quick question. I just wanted to understand: what prompted the change in terms of decision-making responsibilities of local boards under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:42): I would require my officials to help answer that. That’s going way back. Sorry, I don’t have that right front of me.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Do we have another question just while the Minister’s there?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:42): I had a minor question which, if it assists, I can ask, which was: in Part 15, clause 139, we have a situation where we have the Local Government Act 2009 then having a section or a clause replaced by a bill from 2002, and, obviously, the order is unusual. So I wanted to know when did section 150B come in? I imagine there would be a different piece of legislation that would allow section 150B to be in place—surely an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002? So just a question on the timing because the order is a little bit unusual.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:43): That level of specificity I would require some help with, but to the question that Lemauga Lydia Sosene had, this is a cross-reference error where that section referred to a section that no longer exists. But whereabouts it came from—it’s probably quite a few years old, but we’re clearing it all up now.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:44): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I just wanted to know, because when I looked it up, it didn’t exist anymore. So I just wanted to know—it must be a technicality being corrected. Thank you.

Part 15 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 15A Amendments to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 15A. This is the debate on clauses 139A to 139E—“Amendments to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987”. The question is that Part 15A stand part.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:44): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister—I’m just curious. Clause 139B, is to repeal the definition of “publicly notified”, but then it’s clear, within the Act, it still talks about publicly notified aspects. So I’m just wondering, if we’re repelling the definition, how do we then define what is “publicly notified” if we’ve just repealed it?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:45): Look, I think I can go some way to helping alleviate some concerns here. This is really just making a change to clarify that local authorities can meet their requirement for their agendas to be publicly available by allowing them to be publicly available online. Whereas, at the moment, the law requires them to be sending a physical copy of the meeting agenda to the public libraries under the authority’s control. I would suspect that a lot of people nowadays, who are interested in the meeting agendas of public officials, are probably going to get that information online. So this is clearing up the fact that you need to then send that to the local public library.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:46): Thank you and thank you for that answer. I guess, I accept that the way things have moved with technology that people don’t, obviously, get the publicly notified information from newspapers and are more likely to get it electronically, but if we were repealing the definition, I thought it would be, actually, wiser to replace the definition with something that is actually more up to date. I think it’s still important that we define what “publicly notified” is, seeing as it still remains in the Act.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:46): Yes, and very happy to answer that too. Very helpfully, my officials have let me know that this does actually rely on the Legislation Act definition of “public notice”, which is defined in section 13 of the Legislation Act, which is where you’ll find your definition

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. So just then on to clauses 139D and 139E, which also the Minister touched on a little bit, but can I just check if there has been any advice that the Minister received from the officials that, previously, if you’re looking at a meeting of local authority public notice for extraordinary emergency meetings or availability of agenda reports, since they need to be done either in newspapers or done in public libraries etc., there might be certain grace period that we are allowed in terms of what is defined as soon as practicable or when it is available—for example, in the previous section 46A. Has the Minister received any advice on what then would be the new expectation, now they can do things electronically, for things to be available for those, both in terms of the meetings of local authorities but also the availability of agenda reports?

Now, is there an expectation that local authorities would then need to have those, because they can now be done electronically, to be more prompt? What would that mean for certain areas that if they do have loss of internet connectivity, etc, where that online option may not be readily available, for the public perception of the update? Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:48): Look, to this, I think the public officials that are holding these meetings should be scrutinised in full in terms of when they are holding their meetings and when they’re making their information about them publicly accessible. I would suspect, having known people who do turn up to these public meetings, that if the public meetings were not being notified as soon as practicable, members of the community, for one, would be letting us know as soon as they were aware of this. But as far as I’m aware, there’s no specific issue that has been raised about the timing and the availability of this information. It is simply to clear up that no longer is it a requirement to make a physical copy available in the public library.

Part 15A agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 16 Amendments to Marriage Act 1955 and regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (10:49): Members, we come to Part 16. This is the debate on clause 140 to 148—“Amendments to Marriage Act 1955 and regulations made under that Act”—and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 16 stand part.

Part 16 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 17 Amendments to Passports Act 1992

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 17. This is the debate on clauses 149 to 151—“Amendments to Passports Act 1992”. The question is that Part 17 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:50): Thanks, Madam Chair. Just some quick questions on this as well. When I looked at this, I was wondering on what circumstances that this particular clause, specifically 151 with the new subsection (2A) would apply. I imagine that this is a delegated authority so the Minister of Internal Affairs doesn’t actually have to determine travel documents herself, but quite interested to know what the process would be in terms of managing that delegation alongside the Department of Internal Affairs in respect to passports. I know these are kind of technical procedural matters, but I suppose when people are in need of an emergency travel document of increasing importance to them, so just wanting to know in practical terms with these changes what the actual policy will look like in terms of engagement between the public and the State.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:51): Yes, absolutely. Look, in terms of clause 151, you’re absolutely right: I don’t personally sign off on emergency travel documents. That is delegated down to the Department of Internal Affairs itself. In terms of what the change actually does, the emergency travel documents are something that is currently available through the delegated authority of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the Department of Internal Affairs. What this really changes is that these emergency travel documents can be produced due to an equipment or a system failure that may occur at the department itself. Current legislation doesn’t allow these emergency travel documents to be issued for a production malfunction even when urgent travel is required. This amendment is really just clearing up that people who do need to travel immediately will not be prevented from doing so because a passport itself cannot be printed due to the department and a failure that might happen there.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for responding to the previous question which clarified my question for clause 151. But I want to check in terms of the replacement for—this is clause 150, section 9 amended. When we’re looking at section 9(1A) currently, it is a very short section of the bill which doesn’t actually detail any specificities around the process of how the Secretary of Internal Affairs could determine, or in a manner that the secretary could determine either the passport is lost, stolen, damaged, defaced, etc. etc.

Can I just check, without this particular amendment, what is the current process that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has been using to be able to undertake this particular section? I think, for example, section 9(1B), replaced by clause 150, that we’re seeing here is an additional part that we’re seeing, and particularly, I think, 9(1B)(b)(ii) and (iii)— it’s a new section compared to the existing part. Can I just check: does that mean that, currently, DIA is unable to apply to the Minister or done in a way that can cancel a passport if the information contained in the passport has been stolen or otherwise compromised, or otherwise request that the passport be cancelled? Currently in section 9(1A), it just says that the passport has been lost or stolen. Are those other two options currently not available to anyone who applied to the DIA to cancel their passport? Is that my understanding? Is that the correct understanding?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:54): Yes. At the moment—and I don’t want to go into too much of the technical detail of how the passport works in case someone who’s trying to get around the law figures out new things about passport security— the way that the law itself actually works is that there is already a process in the Act for cancellation on other grounds. A person themselves can apply to have their passport themselves cancelled, and they make a declaration before that decision is made.

What this is really changing is that, unfortunately, there have been some series of data breaches. A clear example of this is in 2022 when an Australian telecommunications company suffered a data breach that affected millions of customers, and passport numbers were illegally obtained through that data breach, which could have been quite harmful to New Zealand citizens with those sorts of passports and the specific numbers attached to them being used on fraudulent grounds. This allows the Minister, rather than the individual involved, to apply to have all of those passports cancelled.

Part 17 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 18 Amendments to Public Records Act 2005

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to Part 18, which is the debate on clauses 152 to 163—“Amendments to Public Records Act 2005”. The question is that Part 18 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:56): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions—there are not too many questions on clauses 153 and 154. In terms of amendments to the Public Records Act 2005 and wanting to just ask the Minister of Internal Affairs, in terms of this provision that is being updated, what safeguards have been put in place and what advice has the Minister received from officials when the means of destroying public archives—it would be helpful to understand, is there an annual report to monitor in terms of the public records? Are there also any records kept in describing the number of instances if that methodology or that method is used, and is there a register that has been maintained or that is maintained by officials that could be or is accessible to the public to understand? And, if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:57): Thank you. I hope my answers go some way to alleviate the concern that the member has. Clause 158 can only be used to destroy a public archive when the Chief Archivist considers that there are no reasonable ways to mitigate the risk of health and safety. The Chief Archivist needs written authority from the Minister to be able to do so. The Chief Archivist must also give at least 30 days’ notice of their intention to destroy that archive. Where the Chief Archivist authorises the immediate destruction of a public archive due to imminent danger to health and safety, they must notify the Minister and the Archives Council as soon as practicable, and any public archive destroyed under this new section must be noted in a register of destroyed public archives.

I don’t expect this to be used very often, but it is also the case that when we’re dealing with some very old materials, there is the possibility for chemical contamination or decay that becomes an actual health and safety risk, and we shouldn’t necessarily be holding on to archives that could actually cause a significant risk to the people working at the archive. But of course, it should be used in only the most immediate of circumstances.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from what the Minister of Internal Affairs said regarding—I’ve also got a couple of questions for clause 158, new sections 20A and 20B. Just in terms of new section 20A(2)(b), I understand the rationale with what the Minister is saying, but what’s unclear with this particular part is, when the Chief Archivist must give no less than 30 days’ notice in a manner the Chief Archivist considers appropriate, is that a 30-day public notice before doing anything in terms of the destruction of a public archive? And how would that public notice be done? Or is it that notice to the Minister before that happens? I just want some clarity around that section.

I did want to focus on new section 20B, which is “Sale of public records”, and this is also a new section. Can I check: does that mean that, under the current legislation, we cannot sell public records?

So it’s just a whole package of questions. Under the current legislation, can we sell public records? What is the reason for selling public records? Is it public records as pertaining to a particular person? I’m more concerned about something that becomes the property of the person to whom it is sold and ceases to have the status as a public record or be subject to this Act. What about if you’re selling a copy of a public record? I guess, in some ways, I mean, this might not be relevant to the Public Records Act, but let’s say you’ve got a land document, that’s technically considered about a particular property, etc.—CV, QV, and all of those—that is considered a public record, but if you’re able to sell that, it then no longer becomes a public record under this legislation. I just want to understand a bit more about this divide between public and private records, and what that would mean in terms of the selling. It depends on the Minister’s response; I may have just a few more questions on new section 20B.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:01): Yes, I’m happy to give this one a go. Look, this is not that dissimilar to what happens in practice now. The Chief Archivist, under the Public Records Act, can authorise the sale of public records under the current law; however, what is silent, at the moment, is what happens to the Public Records Act obligations associated with those records once they are solved. This means that the requirements of the Public Records Act remain in place after the sale of both the purchaser and the Chief Archivist, which creates an issue where sold records are then subject to both private property rights as well as Public Records Act obligations at the exact same time. This is clarifying that, once a public record is sold, it becomes the purchaser’s property and no longer falls under the Public Records Act.

In terms of the earlier contribution about “Would the 30-day notice be a public notice or a notice to the Minister?”, yes, it is for a public notice notified on a website, and the Minister will be updated of that public notice being made.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:02): Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Just to follow up on that, I understand what the Minister of Internal Affairs is saying, that there is now a bit of a grey area where something is both public and private at the same time after the sale, but, if now we no longer have that and if you sell a public record and it becomes private, are there also, then, certain guidelines for the Chief Archivist on what, then, should be sold? If the public archivist can sell any public record to any private person and then now, once it’s sold, it no longer is public but only private, surely there might be criteria on that, which currently may not exist, because currently they’re both public and private, but under this legislation they won’t be any more. I just want to check with the Minister on if there are any guidelines, then, on what could be sold as public record now.

I also just want to check—and I think for the interest of, potentially, maybe, someone from the National Party with a differing view also may want to contribute to their differing view and the questions they may have for the removed clause 162, if there is any interest.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:03): Yes, I believe my officials have an answer here for you, which is that clause 157 enables the Chief Archivist to require a public office to make copies of the records prior to their sale, which provides an additional safeguard to remove the risk of losing important public records.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to touch on quite a relatively significant part of this bill, under Part 18, “Amendments to Public Records Act”. The Minister of Internal Affairs will be aware that the original bill had, a new section 60A, inserted by clause 162, an overseas exemption to the maintenance of public records in the same way as it would be in New Zealand. We received quite a few submissions on this particular point, and there are some recent New Zealand examples of where public records have been particularly important in terms of determining exactly what has happened. In Operation Burnham, for example, it was particularly important.

You will see in the Governance and Administration Committee’s report that there is a differing view by the National Party in relation to this clause. I wanted to ask the Minister if she is supportive of the deletion of this provision, for the reasons outlined in the majority select committee report—and so, therefore, will this provision no longer be going forward? I’m sure the Minister’s been advised, but we did have a number of people who were concerned about these exemptions. Though I do understand the reasoning in the National Party differing view that, obviously, we don’t have jurisdiction in relation to what happens overseas, I think the majority of the committee did feel that it was important, where possible—and, obviously, our gold standard would still be to retain public records. I’m interested in the Minister’s reflection on that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:05): Thank you very much. Yes, and thank you to the Governance and Administration Committee. I do understand that there were differing opinions on this particular provision. One of the reasons why I support the removal of this particular clause that the select committee is also supporting the removal of, is the fact that it became a much more contentious clause in this bill than I ever anticipated in its introduction.

The purpose of this bill, overall, is to make minor and technical changes, rather than political changes under the law. For that purpose, I believe it is actually beneficial to remove it. If there was to be a larger debate, rather than using a clearing-up method, which is this bill, I think that would be the appropriate avenue to have that discussion on whether or not that exemption should move forward.

Part 18 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 19 Amendment to Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915, and Part 4 of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:06): Members, we come now to Part 19. This is the debate on clauses 164 to 167—“Amendment to Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915”—and Part 4 of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 19 stand part.

Part 19 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 20 Amendments to Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1917

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 20, the debate on clauses 168 to 172—“Amendments to Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1917”. The question is that Part 20 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:07): I have just a quick question on this. Readers of this bill will note that there are a number of geographical locations mentioned under the changes to the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act. We’ve got Evans Bay in Wellington, we’ve got the Hokianga, and also river protection in Taumarunui. These, at first glance, seem unrelated, and I just wondered if the Minister of Internal Affairs could give a very brief explanation as to, essentially, what these changes to these not very widely known pieces of legislation or provisions are actually doing in practice.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:08): Yes. Thank you. Like a couple of other parts of this bill that we have traversed, the majority of changes in this part are in reference to removing sections that refer to the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, which is now obsolete and has been superseded by the Inquiries Act 2013. That’s redundant and can be repealed. Section 61 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act relates to a dispute over a slip which is now resolved and doesn’t need to be specified in the law. Section 110 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act relates to boundary allocations that can now be made under the Local Government Act, rather than this particular Act. Section 129 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act is no longer required, as the entities it refers to no longer exist.

Part 20 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 21 Amendments to Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1920

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:09): Members, we come now to Part 21. This is the debate on clauses 173 to 175—“Amendments to Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1920”. The question is that Part 21 stand part.

Part 21 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 22 Amendment to River Boards Amendment Act 1913

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:09): Members, we are now at Part 22. This is the debate on clauses 176 and 177—“Amendment to River Boards Amendment Act 1913”. The question is that Part 22 stand part.

Part 22 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 23 Amendments to Rotorua Borough Act 1922, and Part 5 of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:10): We are now up to Part 23, the debate on clauses 178 to 182—“Amendments to Rotorua Borough Act 1922”—and Part 5 of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 23 stand part.

Part 23 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 24 Amendments to other Acts relating to public notice, and Part 4A of Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to Part 24, the debate on clauses 183 to 203—“Amendments to other Acts relating to public notice”—and Part 4A of Schedule 5. The question is that Part 24 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few quick questions. Part 24 covers a number of areas that will be particularly interesting to many members of the public, including dog control, which is a huge issue, and freedom camping, which has also been another issue, and also amendments in relation to impounding. But my specific question for the Minister is there seems to be some changes in relation to the Dog Control Act that remove publication in the newspaper, and I just wanted to asked the Minister what the effect of those changes will be, and obviously noting that I think these have been put in at the Governance and Administration Committee as well.

I was just wanting to know—obviously, newspapers, in terms of their physical publication, are being read less frequently than they were in the past, certainly less so than in 1996, when this Act came into place, but the change in relation to removing the requirement in relation to newspapers circulating in the district of the territorial authority, does that remove all notification requirements to be publicly notified, or is it simply removing the term “newspaper” and replacing it with something else? Apologies that I was unable to ascertain the answer to that question myself through going through that section. It was mainly in relation to dog control. I know dog owners are very passionate about making sure that they find their dogs when they’ve been unfortunately lost, and we do know that dog control is a really important part of many local authorities’ work, so just some reflections on what the change would actually do would be helpful. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:12): Thank you. I do note that this one was looked at at length by the select committee, but for everyone’s benefit here, this is really aligning the requirement for a public notice or a public notification with the Legislation Act 2019. Part of this is not reducing the fact that a public notification itself needs to occur, but the method in which it occurs could change. It’s really up to a local council to make an effective call on whether people within their jurisdiction engage with traditional news media or whether or not they would be better off putting their issue for public notice online or whether or not they did a mixture of both. But at the moment, the requirement for a public notice in the newspaper does pose an additional cost and burden on some jurisdictions where there’s not that much benefit to the publication in a newspaper.

Part 24 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 2A stand part.

Schedule 2A agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 3A stand part.

Schedule 3A agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 4 stand part.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 5 stand part.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:15): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, and Schedules 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:15): Members, we come now to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 49—“Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 505 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 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 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, and Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 50 to 59—“Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013”—and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:18): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister a few questions on this part, which is in the context of an Act which makes changes to not only the way that the regime for administering prudential conduct and conduct within financial institutions will work, but also the role of the Financial Markets Authority. This is an important part of the Act because it will maintain prudential oversight and oversight of actual conduct within those institutions which are meant to administer financial services and credit to consumers. My first question is really about the choices that have been made to move some of the conduct functions over to the Financial Markets Conduct Act. There is a considerable interest in this because it is going on alongside reorganisation of the Commerce Commission. It also walks back some of the consumer protections that were introduced by the Labour Government and then were further amended at the end of the Labour Government and then further amends those. That was in response to industry feedback that those prudential and conduct requirements had gone too far.

I want to ask the Minister about his overall view and whether the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration on these points was close and had taken on the feedback. There was also the context of many of the submissions to the select committee being directly about the issues that were related to the ASB and ANZ litigation. He will remember, in his time as chair of that committee, that many of those submissions were about that particular point, and we constantly had to ask officials and delve deeper into what the actual changes for the Financial Markets Conduct Act would mean. It put the committee in a difficult position, because it was very difficult to draw out some of the industry feedback and some of the consumer representative feedback about what those changes would mean.

At a high level, I want to start there. I particularly invite the Minister to make some comments around the changes from the last Government that were introduced in 2020, versus 2022 around these changes, and then how his changes perhaps go further than those 2022 walk-backs. Those 2022 changes were in response to pretty widespread and widely commented upon rules that the lenders at all levels of the financial markets said were getting in the way of making easy consumer loans. I’m interested in whether he can clarify for us the intention of further changing the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) power in responding to financial conduct in the market. We’ll also get onto some questions around the FMA’s powers of designation that arise in this part, but I’ll invite him to take that call first.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the transition of oversight for consumer credit, as the member has rightly said, moves from ComCom, the Commerce Commission, over to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). The FMA has for some years now had an expanding remit, and we believe that that is the appropriate place for this to be and that they’ve got greater tools and ability to get stuck into some of these issues around consumer credit and the likes.

Transitioning lenders to the FMA’s licensing model streamlines the approach to regulation for financial services and ensures that the FMA is able to supervise and regulate conduct effectively. Members have raised in the past, oh, will there be a lack of expertise? No, because the 35 or 40 staff from ComCom that are working in and around the consumer credit sector will largely be transferred over to the offices of FMA, so that expertise remains. FMA has more tools to deal with it, and that is the appropriate place for them to look at some of these issues and shortcomings around consumer credit.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:23): Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Camilla Belich.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair—Arena Williams—the question—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry! Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —I want to raise with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs just very briefly—he’s made the point that appointments and expertise are the key thing in the reorganisation of those two entities, and I’ll come back to that once we get to the designation powers. Just to move a bit more chronologically now, I’m at page 31 and at clause 51. I want to ask the Minister—one of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee worked on quite carefully with officials was the removal of clause 51(1)(c), which was the services acting as mobile traders. The advice that the committee received on this was that this wasn’t needed because this wasn’t a widely spread practice in the New Zealand market for credit.

But the Minister will recall that the law change in 2017 or 2018—the provisions that gave rise to the Conduct of Financial Institutions legislation—and the changes in the law that required responsible lending, many of those were directly linked to this issue. The public response to the idea that in South Auckland and West Auckland and in vulnerable communities there were trucks that would drive around neighbourhoods and offer goods for very, very high levels of interest—often poorly disclosed or not disclosed to vulnerable clients—gave rise to some of these responsible lending rules and a wider responsible lending regime.

As the committee understood it, this is not a practice in the New Zealand market currently, but how has he considered the need for regulation like this in the future? I ask him that because, even in the last year, with the changes that were made in 2022—and I’m not having a political go at him about this, because this was not his Government. The changes that have been made to responsible lending have changed the practice of neighbourhood lenders—small credit companies setting up shop in your local town square, perhaps next to the bakery, next to the hairdresser, next to small vegetable and fruit retailers—offering credit loans that are above 20 percent and much higher than the personal loan rate at a bank or, indeed, a credit card. I’m asking him about how he anticipates the change in the market for lending services if we remove this provision that sort of singled out and, indeed, was intended to single out, ring-fence, and highlight the conduct of mobile traders.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:26): Thank you to the member—thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important to keep in context when the member—and she rightly has, over the years, been a champion as far as more sunlight on the likes of mobile traders. We know through the Finance and Expenditure Committee that she was well exercised on that, and rightly so.

I suppose if we go back to the guiding principle of the fact that this regime will fall under the auspices of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)—as will all the wider remit of consumer credit and its oversight—and the FMA, with its expanding remit, will have a renewed energy and focus on these issues. If there are issues—which there are—that continue, particularly in vulnerable communities, the member and the House can take comfort that the FMA will take on this remit and these responsibilities with renewed vigour and with a big mandate.

They’ll also come in with a new chair and a new chief executive, so I think the member can have absolute confidence that as far as mobile traders and anything that’s questionable in the consumer credit space, the FMA will be over the top of it. It has a wide remit, and it will have the tools to implement those penalties as it sees fit.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. That is really helpful. It’s also helpful to hear the Minister’s intention to continue to monitor that with the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), and I have also heard them express their interest in meeting with not only mobile traders but to use their new powers under this Act to be able to take proactive investigations. That is a good thing that is widely called for by the sector who represent say the financial mentors. That is a good thing, and good for the House to take note of.

Can I then ask him about clause 51(2)? There is a lot in this section, because what the definition of “consumer credit contract” means is that some credit contracts can be defined by regulation, and some can be sort of called in by the FMA, but there is a provision that excludes buy now, pay later. This was extensively submitted upon; the Minister will not be surprised about this. It was something that organisations like Christians Against Poverty highlighted as something that the Minister needed to take note of personally and ensure that there were adequate protections around. Earlier in this term, the Government made a decision to exclude buy now, pay later products from unfair contracting terms. By including them in the definition for consumer credit more clearly, it would be clearer that some of the provisions that affect consumer credit contracts can apply to them.

Just to give you some context—what are we talking about here? Buy now, pay later products are a type of financial arrangement that allow consumers to access goods or services on the spot by paying for them at a future date. The issue at hand here—and it is one for the House because it is a political judgment—is whether that is a contract for consumer credit.

The system works by having the payment be made immediately, and then the person who has paid for that enters into an arrangement where they will pay that back. They don’t enter into a traditional credit arrangement. They’re not signing a credit contract and they’re not signing up for a credit card, but the question here really is whether his definition of consumer credit contract go far enough to enable Parliament to have a view on whether that is a consumer credit contract, because it’s being left to the Public Service to decide whether it should be, and if it is left to the Public Service, does it have the powers it needs to call in some of these products?

The products that we are talking about do seem to me, and to most of the people I talk to, to represent a form of credit. They’re a product which, when it was first marketed, was predominantly marketed as something for young people to buy things online with, but it has now vastly expanded from that sort of consumer credit to one that we would more often associate with ordinary bread and butter consumer credit, and it is bread and butter that they are buying. Groceries, liquor, and petrol are now all available on “buy now, pay later” products. That seems to be more like a consumer credit card, and so having some of the provisions around consumer credit contracts associated with those products would make sense.

I want to also ask the Minister about the October 2022 Cabinet decisions to bring “buy now, pay later” contracts within the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and whether that will be given effect to by this, because that was an important decision. There has been some back and forth, particularly around the status of the products offered by Zip after-pay, and particularly in the New Zealand market because they have a growing market share. I also seek his views on where the FMA’s temperature will be on those kinds of arrangements—that I think are credit arrangements—given that these are also products which are, helpfully, competing with the banks. They provide more competition for a market of credit for consumers, and perhaps there is more information available because of these new technological tools for the consumers who use them. But, obviously, if they are competing with banks, they should not then be subject to a completely different kind of competition regime making completely different kinds of regulations.

I was trying to bundle all of my questions about “buy now, pay later” that are relevant to consumer credit contracts into that question, just while the Minister takes advice. I’d just finish with this. The financial mentors’ association FinCap submitted really useful advice on this to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that they had prepared after the then Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Andrew Bayly had commented publicly that he would be keeping a watching eye on these products and their operation in the market. That advice is widely publicly available. Their finding is that this is being used by more and more vulnerable consumers for more and more everyday sorts of consumer-essential products, and it meets what they would consider to be the definition of a product which should be regulated.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Arena Williams does well to raise the issues around “buy now, pay later”, and she is right that that was the Cabinet paper that she quoted from, I think, October 2022. The primary question was, I think, why this bill doesn’t further improve protections. There are protections already in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and, as the member has indicated, the regulation of “buy now, pay later” has only taken effect since September 2024, and so the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and, eventually, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) will continue to monitor. I want to give every assurance that the effectiveness of the regulations that are in place around “buy now, pay later”, and whether the existing regulation that the previous Government put in place and that has been in effect since 2024 is having the intended outcomes—I suppose, to answer in short, “buy now, pay later” is regulated. It is under watch, and it will continue to be under a close watch thanks to MBIE, and it will also soon be thanks to the FMA.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:34): Thank you, that’s very helpful from the Minister, and it’s helpful to hear that he is also keeping a watch on that. That will provide some reassurance to those financial mentors and advocates who are seeing this every day.

I want to put to him, then, some of the findings of the report, given that he does have a watching brief on this. Minister, are you aware that consumer harm following the September 2024 regulation that you’ve roof-rinsed shows that hardship has continued to increase for users of “buy now, pay later”, and the level of consumer protection provided by the September 2024 regulation has been criticised by financial mentors in that it deals with the most significant harm that was caused, but it’s contributing further to consumers facing financial hardship and overcommitment?

The particular finding that I want to draw his attention to is the affordability exemption that is causing consumer harm. Essentially, what this is is financial mentors in the community—and all of us local MPs will know some of these people who operate in our main streets or at the citizens advice bureaus or at the library, depending on what day you’re there. They provide free or very, very cheap financial advice to people through trusts. Some of them receive funding from the Government, but some of them do not. They are raising this issue with the Government where they are seeing “buy now, pay later” representing more and more of a share of someone’s income—whether that’s wages, or payments from the Ministry of Social Development—because they are spending what they can get on “buy now, pay later” and preferencing the paying back of that kind of credit above other sorts of credit, which will be more damaging to, say, their financial scores or debt in the future because it will cost more because of the interest payments. But they will preference “buy now, pay later” products because of the way that the digital service works, where they lose that one lifeline for essential products if they don’t make the payment quickly.

The particular criticism is that the affordability exemption under the September 2024 regulation means that “buy now, pay later” providers can choose to be exempt from the obligation to undertake affordability assessments. Minister, if they were explicitly included in your new clause 51(2) as operators who are offering a consumer credit contract, then we would do away with that unfairness in the system. They would have an obligation to undertake affordability assessments on the condition that they engaged in credit checking and reporting, and “buy now, pay later” providers have currently chosen—some of them—to have some sort of system for dealing with hardship in the background digitally, but they are not required to.

My other question on this, which I think the Minister will be interested in, is not what you would expect from every Labour MP—it is more in line with his ideology. If we have “buy now, pay later” providers here who are competing with larger lenders and those larger lenders charge more and their prices for their products are higher, then should we make sure, as the Government, that there is an even playing field for these providers, too? They are rapidly gaining market share. There are, broadly, two of them that are doing that in the New Zealand market. Should they not be subject to the same requirements that other lenders providing the same sorts of services to other consumers are?

In other words, has he built a moat around two favoured providers of these services in the market and is he assisting them with a level of competitive conduct in the market because of these regulations—which is not fair to other providers. Is it fair that small lenders in the market—who deal with the very vulnerable consumers and are subject to the fairness checks and the affordability checks, and are doing everything, in their opinion, right—are competing with these online giants, who are largely multinational-owned and have a presence here in New Zealand, but are of a very different structure from them. Is there more that he should be doing with his competition hat on, and not his regulatory hat on, to ensure that there is a fairer distribution of conduct and prudential requirements, essentially, or not prudential requirements, but conduct requirements—prudential requirements in the old sense of what that used to mean with regard to the Reserve Bank—for the “buy now, pay later” providers? There are two questions in that.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:39): Just reflecting on the “buy now, pay later” issues that the member Arena Williams has rightly raised, they are not explicitly mapped out in this piece of legislation. That terminology is not part of this statute, but, as I’ve said, she and the committee can take every assurance that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—and it’s soon to be the Financial Markets Authority, as well—will continue to monitor their practices very closely.

If I can just take the committee back to where we were with consumer credit, I think we got to a situation where the rules were so tight that bankable young people—middle-aged people, even—were struggling to get credit and were having to show Netflix and KFC receipts and everything else. We think that we’ve hit the sweet spot here. As far as the obligation on lenders, there remain plenty of obligations on lenders around the affordability to the borrower, and they are also supported in the non-binding guidance that is the Responsible Lending Code, but we do not believe that regulations as such should tell lenders how they should meet this obligation in every case. So we believe that we’ve hit it right in the middle where access to credit for those that can afford it is there, but there are plenty of safeguards that we’ve ensured remain, and the watchful eye of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. For now, the Commerce Commission and, soon, the Financial Markets Authority will continue to watch over the practices of lenders.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:41): Thank you. Before I move on to section 53 at page 32, I just want to clarify with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: is it the Minister’s position that this is the right policy? This was sensitively discussed; I am not trying to make a political point here, but the difference between the October Cabinet decisions, the September Cabinet decisions, and the position at the beginning of this programme is vast. The change that was proposed for “buy now, pay later” initially was to bring them into the regime, and that is why I ask him about the competition part of his role, because when industry does submit on these rules, it doesn’t make sense to the traditional credit industry that they would be subject to these checks and an international service provided by two providers in New Zealand would not be.

There are different strokes for different folks on why you would change this. The industry’s concerns are not my concerns, but that is why I would suggest there was a change in position during that period, and I just want to clarify with the Minister whether it’s his ongoing position that he’s not revisiting the “buy now, pay later rules”, given that he said, “These are under a watching brief. We’re interested in what changes the consumers will face.” This does make a difference. There is some uncertainty in the market at the moment around how the unfair contracting terms and affordability provisions will continue to affect this, because it’s growing. More and more of us will experience using “buy now, pay later” services and non-traditional credit lines like this. It’s not just “buy now, pay later”; it’ll be the next thing in a minute, so we must make sure that our provisions are futureproof.

All right, I’ll move on to clause 53. I just want to clarify with the Minister: this was something that was back and forth, and we didn’t have the benefit of submissions on this point. Can he clarify for the committee how many operators of mobile trading businesses operate but don’t offer credit products? Were there businesses that weren’t offering credit under this business model, or were there parts of some businesses that weren’t operating under this business model but were still then subject to oversight? The oversight of these businesses was not just about the credit; the public interest in that sort of 2016-17 period was also about the very high prices. Regulation didn’t always used to sit with this kind of commercial arrangement between the provider of mobile services and the householder, they would drive up to their house and offer goods—was regulated by the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission was not only interested in the credit arrangements but was also interested in the prices and the conduct and in the sort of representations that were made by the sellers to people.

We’ve now taken out any licensing requirements here, but what exists in the gap? Is it now a complete lacuna where we have mobile traders who are trading without credit licences and do not have any oversight—in which case, we’re sort of back to where we were in 2016-2017 for those products that weren’t credit products. Or is there another regulatory mechanism that he can assure me to have faith in, because I do like his assurances. Go on.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:45): As has been established, mobile traders are subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), and that oversight that took effect about 18 months ago continues. Strengthening up that piece of legislation is not part of this, but, in saying that, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) already has a statutory duty to provide advice on the CCCFA as part of its regulatory stewardship. MBIE is also the statutory monitor for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), who will soon have oversight of consumer credit.

Talking about mobile traders, they remain a big part of CCCFA, the monitoring of them continues, and as I’ve said earlier, I believe that the sunlight that will go on to their practises and behaviour will be more pronounced with the transition of consumer credit and its oversight from CommComm—affectionately known as CommComm; the Commerce Commission—to the FMA with its broadening remit. We have every confidence that consumer credit is going to be more under the eye of the public and the regulators than ever before.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s really helpful. I just want to get the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to clarify. He said mobile traders are subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). That’s right insofar as they offer credit contracts, but my question is: this provision before it was amended seemed to say that they were still subject to licensing arrangements for their businesses and then they had some supervisor who was responsible for their conduct.

It also relates to my question at clause 54, inserting new section 389(4A), which is broader than the mobile traders. The mobile traders is one question for him, but the exemption of services that are outside of a licence—given that we’ve now made some changes at the Finance and Expenditure Committee which remove, say, mobile traders, are there other services which he anticipates will offer a service that is not within the regime of the CCCFA? So they’re not credit contracts but they are a service that is provided, or an insurance contract, because, say, a business like a vehicle seller will be subject to licensing arrangements both for its insurance and for its lending side of the business. But what is he thinking of when we’ve removed the mobile traders—what sort of businesses is he intending to have services that are exempted, or is that now superfluous now that mobile traders have been removed in their entirety from this part?

This was one of the things that didn’t have the benefit of being submitted on at the service level but is particularly important to, say, the financial mentors when they are seeing the effect of this from the market completely changing away from mobile traders but now the re-emergence of corner store lenders, and not only corner store lenders but businesses that have built in credit to their line of sales—like, say, the car sales, and particularly the small car saleyards, which use a range of different techniques to upsell credit to consumers alongside the things that they are actually buying, not just loans for the cars but also for particular services that give the whole transaction a much greater cost.

One example for the Minister was that very recently, I helped a constituent who, over the life cycle of her vehicle, were she to pay the entire cost of the vehicle, the car, that was a $7,000 car, would’ve cost her about $30,000. That, very simply, didn’t seem to meet the requirements. We were able to enlist the help of a financial mentor to help deal with that, but that’s lending products and insurance products being sold on top. Is there another sort of service that he is intending to exempt in new section 389(4A), inserted by clause 54?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:50): Just to reiterate, mobile traders continue to be subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and they will also be part of the licensing regime of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), as well, given that they will be treated formally as lenders.

The mobile traders that we know of provide credit contracts, and so when one provides credit contracts, they are regulated. I, again, want to give every assurance to the member that my role is a double-edged sword: it’s Minister—some see it as contradictory, almost, but Minister of Commerce and of Consumer Affairs, and the member in the House can take every assurance that we, this administration, are all about finding a sweet spot when it comes to lending and borrowing where those that can afford to borrow and are bankable can access credit, but those that are out there in the marketplace and exerting predatory behaviour—that we have got the tools required and the oversight required to unleash fury on them if they are caught breaching their responsibilities.

The FMA, under a new chair and under a new chief executive in 2027, will be looking at this widely, and they have every intent—they tell me—to be taking their consumer credit watchdog responsibilities very, very seriously. You will see the profile of consumer credit under FMA and the resource of consumer credit oversight only grow as we continue in this difficult post-Iranian war—well, current Iranian war—environment, and all the inflation and all the pressures, cost of living pressures, that many have found themselves under. So we have every confidence that these people will continue to be protected as they should be.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (11:52): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there’s a couple more clauses to cover. Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just moving to clause 56A—I’m at page 33, middle of the page—just the repeal of section 506(4). The Minister made an announcement recently at the competition conference in Auckland about increasing penalties for conduct of interest, which was the conduct around section 36 of the Commerce Act, but I want to ask him about how this interacts with that.

The principle here is that nothing in this Act should give rise to where you have two regulators, the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), looking at a particular set of conduct—that there should be one pecuniary penalty for that conduct, but that also relies on criminal penalties also being available. I want to ask him whether this provision in this bill that’s before the House now was considered in light of proposed changes to other pecuniary penalties. Stacking penalties—which our regime doesn’t do and didn’t do at this time, when he repealed this—is a feature of other law, like, say, the EU competition law, where penalties are much higher, which we could have used as a model and, indeed, much of his vision for fair trading penalties seems to draw on.

Is this the right temperature? Is this in line with his temperature now, where we don’t have stacking penalties and have explicitly changed the way that penalties will work? Stacking penalties, just for clarification, is where a corporate entity has engaged in antitrust conduct; they’ve been found to be liable for both civil penalties and for criminal penalties, or for pecuniary penalties that are payable to the State. In jurisdictions like Europe and the UK, they stack up. You might be liable for one antitrust offence, for a number of different penalties that will result in the tens of millions of dollars of penalties—or, in the case of Google in Ireland, US$6 billion payable to the State, which was more than their corporate tax take over several years. So the size of the penalties and the stacking is an important question here. That seemed to be where the Minister was going, so I wanted to clarify whether this provision is in line with that, and whether he considered the penalties that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act gives rise to in this Act, which was drafted before his time as a Minister; whether he had advice and whether he could increase the penalties in line with his other increases in the penalties in the Fair Trading Act.

I’m also interested in the procedural requirements at clause 53. These just change the requirements relating to the exemptions and exclusions in the Act. I just want him to comment on how this will affect penalties when a group is excluded for one sort of conduct—so for one sort of credit contract—and, say, a neighbourhood lender is offering one sort of product and won’t be liable for penalties in that context, but whether they will be liable for other penalties in another context. Minister.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (11:56): Well, I’m reliably informed by my officials that what Ms Williams just raised—we are repealing section 446N of the Financial Markets Conduct Act. This requires, currently, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) to obtain the Commerce Commission’s consent before commencing proceedings, and given that the ComCom will be handing over its consumer credit responsibilities to FMA, it makes no sense, and hence the repeal.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (11:56): 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

Hon Members:No.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is agreed. The question is that Part 2—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Noes have it; party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’d already put the next question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair. I’d like the vote to be recorded accurately. We called for a party vote. We can do this now or we can do it later, retrospectively. Either way, the vote will be recorded accurately.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yeah, there’s no need to get threatening, Mr Kieran McAnulty. I did not hear you. I heard something. If you are going to call for a party vote, I need to be able to hear it. I’m just asking for a bit more volume, that’s all. Mr Clerk, a party vote is called for.

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.

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.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Other amendments, and Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 60 to 70—“Other amendments”—and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll bring the Minister to clause 61(1). The definition of “financial markets participant” is a policy choice and a political choice. Throughout this bill, it is about who is subject to the terms of the regime to ensure that people behind the scenes of any lender are subject to the right kind of professional client care, the right kind of professional standards, the right kind of record keeping, the right kind of safety requirements. So this isn’t just about those people who offer contracts for credit to consumers, but it is also then seeking to further define those people who have some role in that. This is particularly important for larger financial institutions, because we’re not interested in the cleaner and the office ladies, but we are definitely interested in people who are one step behind the people making the arrangements between the consumer and the person offering credit contract—

Hon James Meager: What about the office boys?

ARENA WILLIAMS: James Meager wants to include the cleaner and the cleaning lady. OK, we are interested in them too, but we do not want them subject to financial market conduct regulation. OK, clause 61(1)—I’m on page 34 at the top. So the group of people in between—there are values and judgments to be made here, and there are also different people involved in different parts of the transaction. So we’ve aimed to go on both sides of the transaction: the credit contract is entered into by the offer of the credit contract and by the person taking out the credit contract. But then, on the back end of the arrangement, we have those people who are responsible for training, assessing, and making sure that the standards within, say, the bank, are upheld and that the appropriate kinds of checks and balances on the person offering the credit contract are in place.

Then, on this side of the contract, post contract, we also have people like the debt collector, the repossession agent, people who are involved when things go wrong, or when those people involved with things that go right and the debt is resold for a different reason, or different people enter into the arrangement because they have bought, say, the business that took on the credit arrangement that was entered into by a different person. All of those people are intended to be captured by the Minister’s definition. But I want to ask him: this is a reasonably significant policy choice, what did he consider in removing, say, some of those people within larger financial institutions who might not have a directly customer facing role but might have a very significant role in assurance for, say, the board who are involved in oversight of quality and safety within the system. Those people are excluded. Also, the people on this end in, say, a repossession context, you have a number of people who might be considered to be involved in the life cycle of the consumer credit contract who don’t seem to be captured by this definition. What about them?

This was one of the things that fell by the wayside in the committee room because the committee was very much taken up with the litigation question. But this is still really relevant because it is a different sort of position than you might expect from the original Conduct of Financial Institutions Act regime which was designed to keep to everyone, which was a much broader-brush definition which was designed to capture any participant in the process. Minister, really welcome your assurance on how far you intended to cast the net there.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to—for those that are joining on their crystal sets this morning, this afternoon now—give some context as to where this bill has come from, what it intends to do, and how far reaching it will be. As the chair of Finance and Expenditure Committee, Ryan Hamilton has said this Government is engaging on a “Holy Trinity” of financial service reform, and this Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is a key part of that. It is an omnibus bill, which of course amends the 2003 Act, which was under the Clark Government. In fact, every Government since then has amended the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA).

Hon James Meager: Good speech.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I think, Mr Meager, this is one of the most amended pieces of legislation outside a couple of others that we’ve seen. As part of an omnibus bill, it also amends the Financial Markets Authority Act. So it amends—given that the transition of credit oversight and credit watch will go from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) from 1 July, all things being equal, it amends the definitions, clause 51, to extend the coverage of the FMA Act to all CCCFA activities; so that FMA has access to all of the regulatory powers and procedures under the FMA Act. So this is very much a functionary outcome of transitioning those powers and oversights from the Commerce Commission to the FMA, and then that includes adding CCCFA to the definition on financial markets legislation. So as far as a catch-all and everything else, this—clause 51—is all about ensuring that the FMA has the tools required to get the job done.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. That is helpful. Moving on to clause 64—I’m at the top of page 35. The question that I have for the Minister again relates to this insertion of interpretation provision of a credit contract—the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will have an interest in this because it vastly changes the sorts of discussions the previous Government was having about what is a contract for credit. This provision that is being inserted here, particularly at clause 64(d)(ii), is an exclusion, which is a different sort of approach than what case law has provided us so far, because it excludes what most New Zealanders would see as credit arrangements if they don’t have an interest charge and if they don’t have credit fees. So that, on the face of it, does include, say, buy now, pay later.

It also includes things like arrangements for paying later for essential goods and services, which now some businesses do and it’s becoming a more prevalent retail practice, where stores will have an in-house credit arrangement—little “c” credit, not defined credit arrangement—with consumers to buy products that remain valuable for a period of their life cycle, like, say, whiteware. It also applies to some arrangements for the sale of phones and televisions through phone plans. So with this exclusion, is the Minister confident that excluding not only—you know, having this exclusion is the reason why you need it deliberate call-in power for buy now, pay later, but what is the next thing? What is the next arrangement where digital technology changes the market for consumer credit and makes it easier to market a new product to young people, that first starts out as a way that you can buy make-up and vapes and phones, but then turns into a very large, very widely used consumer product like buy now, pay later. Because these products will evolve and emerge, and they are unlikely to have the traditional kind of interest charges and contractual arrangements on paper that our generation are used to.

But they will continue to have terms which ensure that people are constantly paying them back, and paying them back in a very timely way, in the way that some buy now, pay later providers have been criticised for almost gamifying the way that they present their credit information to people. Essentially, it’s the first thing that you pay off because the way it pops up in your eyeballs when you use your phone means that people prefer that sense of being able to pay it off and gamifying and using it regularly. Have we just created a provision which we will need to come back to and constantly create these exemptions as new products emerge? That is the opposite of ordinary competition and consumer law, because competition and consumer law is meant to prove to us—we the Government, “us”— prove to the regulator that you are a useful, responsible, and ordinary kind of credit product, and that you exist in the market along the same terms as other products—that you are subject to the same sorts of real issue requirements of the products—and then exemptions come if there is a particular case for doing that. This seems to be going the other way, and the other way to most jurisdictions, which are now looking at these products and saying, “Actually, we have an emerging trend here, where more and more people are getting into personal debt.”

Is the Minister concerned about the level of personal debt in New Zealand being increased by this sort of provision where more people can take on these ad hoc credit arrangements alongside their credit card debt, alongside their personal lending, and alongside their car loan? None of those things are married up under a provision like this and are unable to take each other into account even if you wanted to, and even if you developed the digital tools, you still wouldn’t have any sort of requirement to consider some of those ad hoc arrangements for whiteware, for phones, alongside other sorts of lending. Until you get to the financial mentor stage and then they’re going through your bank receipts, and they are telling me, they’re telling local MPs that for many of the earners in the lowest quartile, up to 30 percent of their income is going straight to debt servicing—much of that to products like buy now, pay later and ad hoc arrangements with retailers for whiteware.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to wait for an answer from the honourable Minister, but I was going to just say there was a lot in that question.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:11): I won’t ask you to repeat it, Madam Chair. Look, she rightly raises, if we stand back a bit: will this increase unscrupulous lenders and lending, and will it increase unaffordable borrowing? I’ve got news for the member: there’s a new sheriff in town and—it’s not me—that is the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and they will take oversight with a new chair and a new chief executive of these consumer credit responsibilities from 1 July. They will have a watchful eye and all the tools in their extensive tool kit, and those being transitioned over with this omnibus bill to ensure the job can be done. So sunlight is on this.

As far as her concerns around definitions, this is all about aligning definitions in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and aligning them with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill (CCCFA). As per clause 64 that she referred to, what that amendment does is the replaced part of this definition irons out some inconsistencies with how credit contracts are defined under the CCCFA. So we see this as legislative hygiene and, again, another consequence of moving that credit consumer responsibility from the Commerce Commission to the FMA.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:12): Short question—Minister, will you duel me at dusk? No, that’s not my question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s not a question. No, the Minister doesn’t need to answer that question.

ARENA WILLIAMS: My question is about the consequential amendments—I’m at clause 70—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hang on, I’m struggling to hear the actual question now.

Tom Rutherford: There hasn’t been one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s coming.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I am at page 35, clause 70. I just want to ask him about the consequential amendments to do with this part. The arrangements between the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) mean, as was rightly pointed out, that licensing will fall to the FMA; I just want to ask him, for those holders of licensing arrangements with another regulator who falls under the ambit now of FMA, what is the status of the licences? What is the status of their other arrangements? Do they fall away? Are they still in operation? What is the mechanism by which the Minister intends to notify people who are moving to FMA as their primary regulator? There will only be one licence under his new regime, which is a good thing. So how will it be clear to holders of old licences that they have new provisions that apply to them?

The consequential amendments set out in this clause don’t have any specific arrangements for the applicability of licences going forward. So this must be something which is going to be dealt with in regulations, because licences are a creature of secondary legislation. So could he just confirm what is the status as soon as this bill comes into law for those licences that no longer apply and no longer have legal effect.

Just while the Minister is taking some advice, the relevance of this is because a move to a single licensing regime is also a part of the wider reforms here. It is quite a big change for some of these providers of services. The biggest change will be for some of the smallest providers, though. People who offer these types of credit contracts as one-man-band car dealerships will be some of the ones that go from having five licences to one. So a regime where a piece of legal documentation which was duly enforced ceases to be enforced is something that will be relevant to those holders, especially because many of them are small-business owners who are not going to be checking their messages from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member needs to—and also the committee—have every assurance when she talks about car lenders and the issues that we continue to see in that sector around our car finance; not everyone, but there are some practices that continue to raise concern and raise eyebrows, that the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) as a priority will have a spotlight on that particular part of the market, i.e. car financing. So watch this space, and those that are practising unscrupulous behaviour: be mindful and be on notice because the watchdog is going to have their sights fairly and clearly on you.

Those lenders that the member raised in clause 70 as we near this other amendments section, those that are certified now by the Commerce Commission will be granted an FMA licence. So that comes across, and FMA is engaging the sector already and has been for some weeks and months as this transition has had some inevitability about it and they are helping lenders with that transition. But their certification comes across the Commerce Commission to the FMA.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams. I believe there is one more clarification here—really, really briefly.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:16): Yes, just a brief clarification. So is it the case that people who were licenced under the Commerce Commission for services that are outside the remit of the Financial Markets Authority will just no longer have any licensing for that thing? Is that a lacuna? Is there no regulation that applies to, say, a trader who was trading with vulnerable consumers as part of their business but was not offering a credit contract or an insurance contract? I think that’s what he’s saying. I think it’s empowered by the regulations rather than this bill, but it would be helpful if he could clarify that.

The reason why that is important is because in the example of a mobile trader, they still provide whiteware to consumers that is worth $300 at the shop in Manurewa, but having driven up the road to their home, also in Manurewa, it will be valued at $1,200 over the life of the contract. Part of that is the price; part of what is being regulated there is the price, not just the credit arrangement.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:18): I suppose I will just reiterate what I said last time: anyone, any lender that’s certified now, they will be granted a Financial Markets Authority (FMA) licence. So if they are certified now, that moves across to the FMA.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 505 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 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 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 505 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.

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

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 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 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 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 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 505 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 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.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill has had many ways of referring to it, and so I want to propose to the Minister some different ways that he might consider renaming it. The title, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, speaks to the original intent of the bill, which was cross-partisan, to ensure that stricter protections were in place for consumers in their credit arrangements, that ordinary people getting lending from then corner-store lenders knew that they were getting a fair deal and that their contracts would be relatively pro forma, and that the same sort of trading and professional requirements would be in place whoever they went to, whether it was there, whether it was the bank, whether it was the car lender.

This bill is a departure from that. Not only does it step back a number of key provisions, but it also had a role in undermining New Zealanders’ sense of trust in what the Government was willing to do to accommodate the wishes of some of the biggest lenders in New Zealand, who are meant to, and do profess to, have consumers’ best interests at heart. The decisions around this walk back things like directors’ liabilities and duties to ensure fair conduct within their institutions. It removes the penalties for directors and senior managers trying to take due diligence, to ensure that lender compliance with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and attendant personal liability are walked back. These are changes that will have a long-lasting impact and go beyond the sensationalist part of what this bill intended to do in the first place, and let me remind you, because my intention is to change the bill’s name to the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Forgiveness of ANZ and ASB Debt) Amendment Bill.”

This was a bill that was introduced to the House with the intention of reaching back in time, in the period 2015 to 2019 when lenders had gotten it wrong and were now in the position of owing thousands of customers, who were ordinary New Zealanders, debts which had accrued at that time—crystallised debts that existed between customers and their lenders. And this bill made it explicit that it applied to a live litigation between ANZ and ASB, which is now, for the most part, with the first hurdle being decided, and in one case, settled. It only backed away after significant public pressure and legal criticism. That legal criticism was that when we undermine the rule of law in this way, consumers do not benefit, and that everyone should have the consistent ability to know the law and for it to be knowable, and anyone should be able to follow it in the same way.

What was changed during that 2015 to 2019 period was that the banking association—I have it here: the submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the discussion paper, section 99(1)(a) of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, that began to seek to change the Government’s mind. This is dated December 2016, and they said, “These penalties are too harsh. They will result in thousands of dollars being owed to consumers.” But the reason for that law at the time was because the Key Government had decided in 2014 that it was fair to do so, that you needed strict penalties to be in place for the banks to ensure that they kept their records very clear and that their disclosures were—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re having a history lesson here. We are on title and commencement, and I think the member has mentioned the title once.

ARENA WILLIAMS: That’s right, Madam Chair, and I’m trying to find my Speakers’ rulings which ensure that the debate on the title and commencement is a wide-ranging debate. And the only provision—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s getting a little wide-ranging—OK?

ARENA WILLIAMS: It’s important that we are able to have this wide-ranging debate because this is the context and indeed exactly what the law said was the forgiveness of that debt. That has been changed. This bill will go down in history as the bill in which Christopher Luxon’s Government attempted to forgive the debts of ASB and ANZ. It is known widely in the market and in industry as the ANZ and ASB debacle that has been managed by two commerce Ministers and now a third, and will be a stain on this Government’s record for consumers—a Government that professes to be able to have harsher penalties, just a few weeks ago, for credit and for offerors of consumer services when they get things wrong. And yet this flies in the face of that. This was a bill that was designed to forgive those debts when they actually mattered and when they had actually crystallised.

Will we be back here in 10 years again debating a very similar thing? I hope we have learned our lesson. This is why we should rename the bill “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Forgiveness of ANZ-ASB)”, so we never forget what exactly this cost New Zealanders in terms of their trust in Government.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (12:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call or two here in this part of the debate. As my colleague noted, this is the title and commencement, and it is the time to stand back and say what this bill actually does and how can we give it a title which appropriately and accurately reflects that. Certainly, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is not a particularly descriptive title.

It could be, with the allusion to the New Zealand Banking Association’s advice to the Minister of Commerce, the “Lobbyists Writing the Law Bill”, which seems to happen a bit around here. Luckily for them, the Government changed, because no Labour Government would ever let a lobbyist simply hand them the draft of how they would like to law to be changed, and for it to then be done and appropriately put into law.

Now, the public outrage around that was entirely appropriate, when you’ve got litigation for hundreds of millions of dollars halfway through, and to have a piece of legislation which then purports to put a halt to that litigation is absolutely in breach of the law. So maybe we should call it the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (This Government Doesn’t Care about the Rule of Law) Bill”. We might not get away with that, so I have tabled some amendments on this matter. My suggestion that I’ve tabled is that clause 1 be deleted and replaced with “This Act is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Letting Big Banks Off the Hook) Act”.

Tom Rutherford: Frivolous, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you might say that, but the fact is that’s still what you’re doing, because whilst the ANZ-ASB litigation, which was already filed, can now continue, the fact is that this bill does stop people bringing legitimate claims against banks that haven’t already been filed. And we know—because I saw the analysis—that there are likely other banks out there that have fallen foul, but they haven’t had lawyers to arm up and file a class action. Well, they now can’t, so there are people out there who have been essentially excluded from bringing their claim, because that’s a Government that looks after big banks and doesn’t look after consumers and ordinary people whilst this country is facing a cost of living crisis.

Tough on some things, but not tough on banks—soft on banks. Maybe it should be the “Soft on Banks Bill”, because that’s what this Government is. Or perhaps we should call it—because this is the other offensive thing about this bill, and my other amendment suggests that we delete cause 1 and replace it with, “This bill is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumers) Bill”, because that’s what it does: they are stealing the rights of consumers. They are depriving them of rights, which are vested, where a wrong has occurred, where they have a right of action and the banks owe them money. Now, they might not have gone up to the banks and said, “Repay the interest you wrongly deducted.”, but now, once this bill passes, they can’t.

Look, once more, this is changing history. This is not changing the law in the future; this is changing the law as it applied in the past, and that is why it is a breach of the rule of law. The National Party used to pride itself on following the rules. Now, it doesn’t care about the rules. It’s ruled by that party, by the National Party, and not ruled by a responsible Government. That is, retrospective changes absolutely undermine the idea that people can live their lives in a predictable way and rely on the fact that the law is fixed and that if they have rights, they can go to the court and vindicate them. But no, this is a Government that says, “If we don’t like that, we’ll just change it. We don’t actually care.” So that’s why we should call this bill the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumers) Amendment Bill”.

That is the kind of thing that this Government does, because it really doesn’t care about consumers. It cares about looking after its big mates. We’ve seen that across the House, where we’ve got climate change looking after Fonterra and Z Energy, we’ve got banking and finance legislation looking after the big banks—and that’s exactly where this Government looks to its friends: not the friends of consumers; the friends of big business. That’s why we should change the title of this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the amendments on the Table, I want to further invite the Minister to consider the title “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Buy Now, Pay Later) Amendment Bill”. This is a serious amendment which I am proposing to him, given that the peppered history of decisions made by his Government in 2022 related to the status of “buy now, pay later”—

Hon James Meager: 2022?

ARENA WILLIAMS: —2024, related to “buy now, pay later”. “Buy now, pay later” is an important part of this bill. This was an opportunity to get, at least, greater clarity around the arrangements for “buy now, pay later”. When I refer back to the September 2024 Cabinet paper, the Minister wrote to Cabinet: “I [have] heard concerns from BNPL providers that complying with [the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act’s devolved fee provisions, which are in sections 41 and 44A, would constrain] how they calculate and charge default fees to an extent that could put their businesses in jeopardy.”

This was a Minister who was concerned and had heard from two players in the market who tried to compete with other lenders, particularly those lenders who focus on more vulnerable consumers, so have higher interest rates. He was worried that this would cost them their business, and so the exemptions around “buy now, pay later” and the provision in the bill, which basically removes them and then requires some calling-in power for the Financial Markets Authority to regulate them at all, is a move to make widespread changes to the “buy now, pay later” regime in New Zealand. This is different from Australia. It is different from European jurisdictions. It’s different from the UK. We are an outlier in the way that we are treating this kind of lending simply because it was a decision which was made, policy wise, frankly, around a Cabinet table which was divided on this.

One of the biggest contributions that this bill will make is a legacy of cheap lending to young people that was not even showing up in their credit score until it was too late—until it was a big, scary debt that had been sold to Baycorp or another kind of provider, or was being weighed up in the family accounts by a financial mentor, who was giving advice on how to choose between Weet-Bix and the rent. This is a serious problem for young people in New Zealand, and this bill is, frankly, peppered throughout it with decisions about policy which change the “buy now, pay later” provisions. “The CCCFA’s default fee provisions limit default fees to reasonable amounts directly related to costs incurred by the provider due to the default.”—that is a provision which this Minister has chosen to exclude from “buy now, pay later” providers. “Buy now, pay later” providers don’t have to play by the same rules. They are excluded by this Government’s policy decisions, and it is peppered within this bill. There is no other place in the world where they have this much free rein. I am not suggesting that this bill will be called the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Buy Now, Pay Later - Free Ride) Amendment Bill”. I am suggesting that we be clear that this bill makes serious changes to this regime which will have long lasting effects.

Let me be clear: we will be back here debating fairer rules for “buy now, pay later”—under a National Government or a Labour Government. This is a fringe view that Ministers on that side of the House are barracking me about that the ACT Party campaigned on and held your Ministers to. This is not what you believe, let alone what most New Zealanders believe. This is unfair and we should be clear that “buy now, pay later” will have an impact intergenerationally. More and more young people are using this product, which, frankly, is a credit contract, but this Government doesn’t have the guts to say it’s going to cost us all.

Personal lending in New Zealand is greater than Government debt. If we are worried about the debts that we owe, we should be worried about the personal debt that is accumulating at the household level. Household resilience and debt is an intergenerational crisis. It will affect all of us. We all owe more because of bills like this, which make it easy for internationals to come here and lend cheap credit to vulnerable young people. This Minister hasn’t taken a stand. His party hasn’t taken a stand, but this is not what they believe in. They should have done it in this bill. They have failed to do so. We have given them amendments, which they should have done. The Minister should respond.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:40): What we are seeing here is a relitigation, particularly around us rightfully fixing the retrospectivity aspect of this legislation. We are seeing a relitigation of Part 1, which we missed out in this committee of the whole House because there was no one in the Opposition to take a call. And so we’re relitigating Part 1, that didn’t happen, and that was 31 pages of a 46-page bill, so they missed two-thirds of it just like that. Just on the title, this is a piece of legislation from 2003, the principal piece of legislation that has remained with its full title through successive Governments as the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill through three major overhauls by successive Governments. The name has always remained the same, and it will continue to. On the commencement, 1 July, as the most effective commencement date, was nominated by the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority as the most pragmatic commencement date—1 July 2026. Let’s get on with it.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (12:41): 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 Dr Duncan Webb’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are both out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, that’s rubbish!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Be careful, Mr—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can make a point of order, but saying, “Oh, that’s rubbish!”—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, I thought I should make a point of order to perhaps give some more content to a, perhaps, slightly intemperate remark.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I think you should withdraw the remark—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —but I don’t need any further context. This has been discussed, and the two bills are both out of order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, Madam Chair, I’m entitled to put it to you that they are not out of order, and in particular, I would take issue with the clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Webb, I’ve ruled your two tabled amendments out of order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, I don’t want to ask to recall the Speaker on the matter of a title, but I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That is totally up to you, but, Dr Duncan Webb, I’ve ruled that your two tabled amendments are out of order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Could you enlighten me as to why calling a bill the “Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumer) Amendment” is out of order and is not an accurate description of the bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I have ruled your two tabled amendments out of order, Dr Webb, and I’m going to carry on with the voting. Thank you.

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 505 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 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.

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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (12:48): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Building and Construction Sector (Self-Certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Vote Correction

Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:49): I seek leave of the House to alter votes cast on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, Tākuta Ferris, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi on the Instruction to Select Committee on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

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

STEVE ABEL: Those votes were cast in favour of the instruction, but should have been against.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The record will be corrected accordingly.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you very much.

Bills

Public Service Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (12:50): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to finally get to speak on this. I think it was getting close to being the third time of being the next speaker up and having an interrupted debate. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee to speak to this bill.

Our Public Service has a proud heritage of being internationally highly regarded, and we want to keep it that way. Being a public servant should be the noblest of titles because it’s about serving your community, your public, and looking after the collective and individual wellbeing of our fellow citizens, but our hard-working taxpayers want to see value and high-quality service. They expect advice to be professional, knowledgeable, considered, and balanced—and behaviour, likewise. Every day, we as MPs are privileged to work with many outstanding public servants: the whole team at Parliamentary Service, the Office of the Clerk, and our fantastic advisers.

There’s been a bit of focus recently on reducing the size of the public sector, but I do want to remind you that under the last administration, the Labour Government, the core Public Service ballooned from 48,000 to 63,000, so even with whatever cuts have been proposed, it will still be larger than it was at that stage, by some margin. The wage cost a couple of years ago was $6.1 billion, so it’s material. We’re not talking here about teachers, health professionals, police, etc., we are talking about the people who work in the offices and so on. The thing is that services under the last administration got worse despite the increase in services. More people doesn’t necessarily make for better services, sometimes they can get in each other’s way.

There are three particular changes in the bill that I wanted to talk about. The first one of them is the removal of the diversity and inclusion requirement. Now, diversity is important. It’s important we often hear that our Public Service looks like us, but discrimination is not acceptable. The bill is quite clear. We focus on the best person for the job, and the public servants themselves say this is critical. The 2024 survey of core Public Service workers had an extraordinary return: 44,737 respondents. That’s a 68.5 percent return rate. Only 44 percent of public servants are confident that their own colleagues are appointed on merit. That’s condemning. That needs to change. Hopefully, with this bill passing, over time, we will see that number changing and improving. That will be important.

The second thing that’s really important in setting the culture of the Public Service is the appointment of Public Service chief executives. The legislation here removes clause 4 of Schedule 7, which currently means that the Public Service Commissioner can actually recommend not going to the market again, and say, “Look, just reappoint this person for a further period of time, maybe five years plus five years.” We can currently just reappoint; this bill will mean that that is no longer possible. You’ll have to go to the market through a process. The problem is that we have this bill here that is saying this in one direction—“You must go to the market.”—but we’ve got another bill, which will be considered today, in local government, where we’re doing the exact opposite. At the moment, in local government, you’ve got five years, plus you can add another two without going to the market; we’re going to be saying five years plus another five years without going to the market. The question really is: why is the public sector so different to the local government sector? There is a real issue there and it’s complete inconsistency between these two bills, and we will be looking to address that.

The third thing I wanted to mention is long-term insights briefings (LTIBs). Long-term thinking is really important. We heard very, very clearly, from all the advice we had, that regardless of whether you have LTIBs, the public sector is thinking about the long-term issues. It’s really, really important, but it’s also really important for us as governors, as parliamentarians, to be exposed to that long-term thinking and to be able to debate that and to respond to the LTIBs that are brought to our attention.

The first one of those that I ever read was from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it was in the days before the current occupant of the White House arrived. They warned about a less stable, changing world, the need for greater resilience, and questioned, perhaps, the way in which the market and the rules-based order had been operating and whether it was always going to be that way. I think that has been prescient.

Now, currently, every single agency is required to—or a large number of agencies are required to—produce an LTIB. Some of those are excellent, some of those have got big things to think about, but some of them don’t have as many major issues, and they kind of feel like they’re a little bit of makeweights. It’s also a two-stage process, which is quite expensive. The bill will now be requiring only one LTIB, to be done by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). We had quite a lot of discussion about this in the select committee and we are really encouraging DPMC to consult all the agencies widely, to see which agencies have really important things that need to be brought to the attention of Parliament and to the attention of the public, that they believe need discussing. That’s really important. There is real value, potentially, in bringing all these together and trying to work out what the connections between them are, but it’s really important also that we don’t lose the important bits of these things.

The select committee also recommended monitoring the value of that single LTIB, and I think that is very, very important. So, Madam Speaker, those were the three things I particularly wanted to draw your attention to. One of those will be followed up with by the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill later on today. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m.