Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Tuesday, 30 June 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.

Motions

Venezuela—Earthquakes

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:01): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding the Venezuelan earthquakes.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move, That this House send its condolences, on behalf of the New Zealand people, to all those who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in Venezuela as a result of the recent earthquakes; note the New Zealand Government’s contribution to international humanitarian efforts to respond to the earthquakes; and note that the New Zealand Government stands ready to consider any further requests for assistance from affected countries, as the full impacts become clear.

Motion agreed to.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:02): Three petitions have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Petition of Caitlin Hoy requesting that the House urge the Government to require Pharmac to allow Sodium Valproate to be prescribed for 12 months and dispensed for 3 months for long-term, stable epileptic patients

petition of Tony Gore requesting that the House allow pensioners to keep more of their New Zealand superannuation, accommodation supplement, and other supplementary benefits when family members reside with them

petition of Valencia Ngadi requesting that the House increase penalties for offending by children under 14 and urge the Government to provide better support for victims of youth crime.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

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

CLERK (14:02):

Crown Infrastructure Delivery statement of intent for 2027-30

2026-27 statement of performance expectations for:

Crown Infrastructure Delivery

Natural Hazards Commission

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Real Estate Authority, and

Takeovers Panel.

SPEAKER: I present the following reports of the Audit Office: 2026-27 annual plan, and the inquiry into the Healthy School Lunches Programme. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

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

CLERK (14:03):

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Accreditation Council

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Broadcasting Standards Authority

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the External Reporting Board, and

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Retirement Commissioner

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Arms Bill

English Language Bill

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2025.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The review briefings and briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

Bills

Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

Post-settlement Governance Entities (Exemption from Jurisdiction of Māori Land Court) Bill

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill

Building Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:04): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of five bills.

CLERK (14:04):

Courts Remote Participation Bill, introduction.

Post-settlement Governance Entities (Exemption from Jurisdiction of Māori Land Court) Bill, introduction.

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction.

Building Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. The House comes to oral questions.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:04) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:04): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s claim that it “will champion the hospitality sector and support it to grow” when hospitality company liquidations are at their highest level on record?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and that’s why we’ve got a major events fund, and that’s why tourism’s up 9.2 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does sending $6.3 million of taxpayers’ money to a French tire company help the cafes and takeaway shops that are going under in record numbers under his Government’s leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I know the Labour Party’s never really cared about tourism, but, actually, on this side of the House, we do. What we discover is that there’s a whole bunch of people out there in the world of 8 billion people who are foodies. They like to come and travel the Michelin Guide. Isn’t it fantastic that New Zealand has a Michelin Guide and Australia doesn’t? And that’s driving more tourists to New Zealand, who are spending more money in our bars and restaurants. That’s a great thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will it be Kiwis filling the tables at the restaurants his Government is paying to promote when four out of 10 households have cut back on eating out over the past year—the biggest drop ever recorded—because they can’t afford to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it will be Kiwis working in hospitality because of the efforts of this Government to make sure we drive tourism and hospitality. That’s why we have a Minister for Tourism and Hospitality. It’s the first time ever that’s ever happened. But that’s actually going to be Kiwis working in those places, able to drive their incomes up, and able to have jobs. That’s great stuff.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if all that’s working so well, why are a record number of hospitality businesses being liquidated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just would note: the member may not have caught up with the latest outstanding news, which is the ANZ business confidence is up 27 points, just as we were coming into this House, up to a high of 37. That just means fantastic things. The business confidence is up, and good times are ahead for New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name a single struggling cafe saved from closure by the $1.4 million his Government has spent on its crayfish stargrazing campaign?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to the member: we are very proud of the progress we are making on tourism and building it back from pre-COVID levels. The other thing I just say to that member is: just remember who locked down hospitality businesses in Auckland for longer than they needed.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister looking forward to the Ministry for Regulation’s recommendations to cut red tape after consulting hundreds in the hospitality industry who say that with less compliance costs, they can spend more time building their businesses and less time tied up with stupid rules?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, and I appreciate the work of the member on making sure we deregulate the economy so we can get growth back into it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why is he proud of a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation and four out of 10 Kiwis saying they can’t afford to go out to a restaurant?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of the efforts of this Government to restore tourism and hospitality, as a sector, as a driver of growth. One in four of our jobs are tied to trade. Tourism is probably about our second-biggest export earner. It’s fantastic that we’re getting out in the world. We’re promoting New Zealand. We’re talking up New Zealand, not talking it down like that member, and we actually see tourism up over 9 percent. We see international education up over 11 percent. We see export growth to the world up over 9 percent, and services exports to the world are up over 10 percent. Isn’t it great that we now have a trading surplus for the first time in five years, where we export more to the world than we import in? In April, in the middle of a fuel crisis, we had a record in New Zealand of $2 billion in April. Those are great things, and the member should just lose the sad-sack appetite and actually celebrate what’s a great success.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Prime Minister: why are you not paying far more attention to the questioner, who, after all, knows something about shutting down business for four long months in Auckland?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s exactly a good point the Minister raises, which is that it was that member’s Government that actually kept Auckland hospitality businesses—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s it—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: out of operation—

SPEAKER: No—that’s it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —for months longer than they needed to be.

SPEAKER: Hang on! That’s enough. Thank you.

Hon Nicola Willis: To the Prime Minister: can he confirm that the latest ANZ New Zealand business outlook today shows that business confidence has jumped 27 points in the previous month, with employment intentions positive across multiple sectors, including hospitality, and that these figures preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid-month, and does this tell us that we are building a better future?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. I’d also say to the member that we just have to look at the 0.8 percent growth in the last quarter in the GDP growth numbers, because we had growth in nine of our 16 sectors. We had manufacturing up almost 2 percent. We had business services up over 1.1, retail and accommodation up over 1.2 percent, wholesale trade up 2.4, and exports up 3.1. They are all job-rich sectors. That’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if it’s all going so well—for the third time—why are a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this Government is doing all it can to actually help hospitality businesses get off the floor after that member locked them up four weeks longer than they needed to be.

Education

Question No. 2

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:10) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on school attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:10): A wonderful report, from these numbers: since this Government’s been in place, we have been, actually, reporting, every day, the number of children that went to school. This stands in stark contrast to earlier times, when a Minister of Education was actually hauled before the Privileges Committee for not revealing that information, and, in the end, was actually let off on the grounds that the Minister didn’t actually know what the facts were. We are now, every day, reporting the number of students that show up. Members might be interested to know that, this term—term 2, 2026—so far, on every day bar two, which were on either side of King’s Birthday, we have seen better attendance than term 2 in 2025. This fits a pattern where every term bar one since this Government has been in place, we have had better attendance than the term before. This is for a number of reasons, but, more than anything, it is about the value that New Zealanders put on education and their willingness to get to school, even when we are told by some that high fuel prices will prevent them doing so.

SPEAKER: That was a very long answer. I’m sure that the Minister will be a little more concise.

Laura McClure: Will the Government reach its goal of 80 percent of children attending school for more than 90 percent of the term by 2030?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I am confident that the Government will reach that goal, based on the progress, year on year, term on term, that has been made so far. It’s particularly interesting to look at the level of data that we have now, which is showing us much greater insights into attendance than we previously had. For example, there are 54,245 children who if they had attended just one more day last term, would have reached regular attendance, or 90 percent of the time. Now, if they’d done that, then we actually would have reached not 68.8 percent of children regularly attending but 75.5 percent—very close to the 80 percent. The reason I highlight this is that we have so many children—54,000 - plus—who are right on the cusp of regular attendance, and that is a good example of why every day counts.

Laura McClure: What steps are being taken to improve attendance?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Break school lunches!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon?

Hon Ginny Andersen: School lunches.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it is absolutely true that school lunches are a good reason to go to school—

SPEAKER: Just wait on. Don’t respond in question time, while you’ve got a question in front of you, to an interjection over here. I’m sure—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Can I just have a little go?

Hon Chris Bishop: That was a patsy question. He’s allowed to answer patsies from the Opposition.

SPEAKER: I’m sure you can work it in, but if they really want an answer, they should be asking a question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, just going back to the question I was initially asked—

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, no, no—deal with the patsy!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha, ha! I think her name’s Ginny, but anyway. The Government has increased expenditure on school attendance by $140 million over four years. That has allowed us to significantly increase the investment in the attendance service. But we don’t believe, on this side of the House, that simply throwing money at a problem is the same as actually solving it. We have also recontracted the attendance services after the Education Review Office’s review found that they were not performing, in many cases. We have also legislated for attendance action plans at every school, and put in place the Stepped Attendance Response scheme, in order that every school has a plan to get every student at school, and back to school if they’re not attending.

Laura McClure: Why is it important for kids to keep going to school in the last week of term?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve heard, anecdotally, that there’s been some very busy days of late at Auckland Airport. It is tempting for people to take advantage of the last week of school and go somewhere sunnier—or perhaps somewhere where there might be a world cup on—that is not a good enough reason to miss a day of school. There are people who need to be there every day because every day of lost learning is a lost opportunity for their future and a lost opportunity to be able to do those sorts of things more in the future. There’s 365 days a year, school is barely open 180 days a year, that leaves another 185 days to do everything else you want to do in life. And so people should be at school in this last week of term, because, as we saw in Vancouver just this Saturday, you can be doing pretty well for most of the time, you don’t want to let it slip through your fingers in the last minutes.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:15) 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) (14:15): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister read the recent Ministry of Housing and Urban Development report that states, “Across most areas, the number of people living without shelter was reported to be increasing over the last six months.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m aware of is that we have a good record in housing, where we see housing affordability the best it’s been in a long time; we see rents stable and decreasing; we see the housing wait-list that went up four times under Labour now down about 6,000; we see, I think, about 2,400 kids out of emergency motel accommodation; and we see a Government that’s doing a lot of effort—a lot of investment going into homelessness.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Record homelessness.

Hon Chris Bishop: They’ve moved into housing—2,000 kids are in houses.

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. The Hon Chris Bishop, questions are heard in silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister visited a city mission or social service on the front lines of homelessness since he became Prime Minister; and if so, when and who?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If you put the question in writing, I will give you an answer that way. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Chlöe Swarbrick and no one else.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, will the Prime Minister respond to my multiple invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his policies have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think it’s a bit rich from that member, whose colleague was the Minister for homelessness, and it went up 37 percent, and you spent a billion dollars on emergency housing, to stand up now and actually talk and pretend that you care about it, because you don’t—it was one of your biggest policy failures in the previous Government. This Government is cleaning it up. Homeownership: more affordable than it’s ever been; rents: more stable; people off the social housing wait-list, which these clowns—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—woah.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —drove up four times.

SPEAKER: I just suggest to—[Interruption] Hang on. I’m speaking; no one else. I just suggest that members answering questions need to consider Speakers’ ruling 205/5—well worth a quick look at it—because answers to questions that begin like the last one do lead to disorder.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What would the Prime Minister say to the woman who turned up to my electorate office last week, who the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had turned away knowing that she was therefore likely to sleep rough over the weekend?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d say that I’m sorry to hear about that, but I am very determined, as a Government, to make sure we are doing everything we can to deal with the issue of homelessness. I just ask the member to stop and reflect on what we have done. Since we saw the issue in October, we have put $10 million of additional funding in place; we’ve had 177 enter new transitional housing; we’ve had 1,500 support activities. By Auckland Council’s own count, from September 2025, there were 940 people across the whole of Auckland they considered homeless; by January it had fallen to 706; and, in March, it’s 586. If people need assistance, are in genuine need and need assistance, MSD and our support services are there to assist and to help. That’s why this Government spends $550 million a year with agencies; that’s why we spend $5.5 billion on the accommodation supplement.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that in the most recent homelessness insights report, now on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development website, Auckland Council and reputable community housing providers like Kāhui Tū Kaha have all confirmed that the number of people sleeping rough in Auckland has come down considerably over nine months, correlated with the time we announced those 300 Housing First places?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. We made 300 social houses available through Housing First; 289 of them are actually filled. We have transitional housing to the tune, I think, of over 5,800, and we’ve got 91 percent utilisation rates. We have transitional housing available. People who actually apply for emergency housing—MSD may well assess that they are better off in a social house, in a transitional house, in a private rental with rent arrears payments, and other mechanisms as well. It just may not be that a motel is the best place for someone to end up in. If we can get them into housing, that’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to not rushing through the move-on orders law in the two weeks when it returns from the select committee and the House rises before the election, given that none of the parties of Government campaigned on this policy and the overwhelming expert, social services, business associations, and public opposition?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re going to carry on with move-on orders, because they deal with a public safety issue; they deal with disorderly behaviour and antisocial behaviour. We want to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe going into their cities across this country. We don’t want them being intimidated. We don’t want people blocking doorways. We don’t want threatening behaviour. That’s what move-on orders are about. As I’ve said to the member before, in the same way we were criticised by the Opposition over gang patches—that it wouldn’t work—our police are plugged into the social services. Every single homeless situation is different. It is complex, as that Government found out last time, driving up homelessness 37 percent. I just say to the member: we will continue to support people who are rough sleeping, and I’m proud of the fact we put $10 million in, the initiatives are working, and, as a result, we’ve got another $14.5 million rolling out in the last month to expand it to six other locations across New Zealand.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister expect that the onset of move-on orders will make it safer to move about the Auckland Central electorate, particularly after dark, when people want to enjoy the many good things it has to offer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. This is about public safety and public security; making sure disorderly, disruptive, threatening behaviour isn’t happening, and that’s important. We want all New Zealanders to be able to get into their cities and feel safe doing so.

Finance

Question No. 4

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:22) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government planning to lift economic growth and productivity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:22): New Zealand’s economy was recovering and growth reforms were beginning to gain traction before recent events in the Middle East. Since coming into office, the Government has delivered or progressed more than 100 actions across the five pillars of Going For Growth. Those include Investment Boost, rewarding firms for capital investment in growth; fast-track approvals, supporting thousands of jobs and developments across the country; the India free-trade agreement (FTA), supporting growing exports; reforms to vocational education; and major investment and infrastructure and advanced technology. Recent GDP figures show the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter—more than twice Treasury’s Budget forecast, and faster than growth in Australia or the US—while business investment rose by 3.7 percent and exports increased by 3.1 percent. Those results show the Government’s growth agenda is unlocking economic momentum, with New Zealanders now beginning to see their hard work translate into stronger growth, higher investments, and more job opportunities.

Ryan Hamilton: What actions has the Government taken to make it easier for businesses to invest and grow?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has moved quickly to remove barriers holding back investment and economic activity. That includes passing fast-track legislation, introducing Investment Boost to lower the cost of capital investment, extending 90-day trials to all employers, repealing mandated sector-wide employment agreements, and progressing reforms to the Holidays Act and health and safety laws. We’ve also strengthened competition settings in the banking and electricity sectors, because more competitive markets help lower costs and drive innovation. These changes are about making it easier to build, invest, hire, and grow in New Zealand.

Ryan Hamilton: What progress has the Government made on trade and investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has prioritised reconnecting New Zealand with global markets and capital. Since taking office, we’ve signed a free-trade agreement with India, concluded an FTA with the Gulf States, advanced implementation of the UAE trade agreement, and strengthened trade relationships across Asia and Europe. We’ve also introduced newer Active Investor Plus settings to attract more international capital into productive New Zealand investments. That matters because export growth, capital investment, and international connections are critical to lifting productivity and wages over the long term. It’s also worth noting that the latest ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook showed a 27-point positive jump in business confidence, and, notably, most of the lift actually preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid month.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the Government doing to lift long-term productivity and skills?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is focused on creating the conditions for business and workers to become more productive over time. That includes investing in job-rich infrastructure; strengthening capital markets; encouraging greater business investment in technology, plant, and machinery; and improving education and workforce skills. We’re reforming vocational education through new polytechs and industry skills boards, introducing an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths in schools, backing advanced technologies and science and innovation through initiatives like New Zealand’s first AI strategy. Recent GDP figures showed strong growth in manufacturing, wholesale trade, and business investment—all positive signs that more productive parts of the economy are beginning to recover and expand. The Government’s view is simple: stronger productivity is the key to higher wages, more resilient businesses, and a more prosperous country with more opportunities for every Kiwi.

Finance

Question No. 5

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:26) to the Minister of Finance: Kam na mauri, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:26): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is unemployment better or worse compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member knows very well that the New Zealand economy has been through a very difficult recovery in which unemployment has increased.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are growth forecasts better or worse compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The most recent forecasts which the Treasury provided at the Budget and Economic Fiscal Update show growth accelerating through the forecast period, reaching a high of over 3 percent, and averaging 2.3 percent over the forecast period.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals higher or lower compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: While there was an increase in those withdrawals, I’m very pleased to report to the House that the latest data shows the first drop in hardship withdrawals in the most recent data.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are business liquidations higher or lower compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Business liquidations obviously relate to a number of factors. One of the factors that has driven many businesses into liquidation is the fact that the last Government during its COVID response chose to defer tax payments that eventually became due, and it is IRD’s advice that that approach was ultimately harmful.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis better or worse off in real terms compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s a fact that people’s circumstances vary, and it is of course the case that some New Zealanders are suffering from worse circumstances than they were three years ago. It’s also the case that some New Zealanders are facing much better circumstances. I think of the families whose children are going to school now and getting a programme of structured literacy and numeracy, and getting real reports about what their children are achieving at school; I think about the people who are waiting less time for their elective surgery or emergency operations; I think of the New Zealand police, who are stronger in numbers and are better equipped with better sentencing laws to ensure that criminals go to court; and I think of the New Zealanders who suffered double-digit inflation in food prices under the last Government’s watch who’ve watched those numbers come down. I could go on but question time is not a time for lists, but thank you for the patsy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the finance Minister got any historic evidence that business or workers’ futures would be better off if Labour was in office?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something that she can reasonably speculate on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry, I said historic—

SPEAKER: Wait on, don’t argue. I’m just saying it needs to be a brief response.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The evidence is clear they would be a lot worse off. Inflation would be higher, interest rates—

SPEAKER: No, no. See, there’s the problem—there’s the problem. A simple answer would have been “yes”.

Infrastructure

Question No. 6

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (14:29) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What updates has he seen on the fast-track approvals scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:30): The Government’s fast-track regime is delivering. I’m pleased to inform the House that we’re on track to see around 50 decisions from expert panels by the end of the year. Fast track was designed to get important projects moving faster, create jobs, boost growth, and help tackle our infrastructure, housing, and energy challenges. Twenty-two projects are currently before expert panels, with decisions due over the coming months; another seven projects are undergoing pre-panel checks; and 55 projects are currently progressing through fast track at various stages.

Grant McCallum: What evidence has he seen that fast track is delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Around 8,900 homes have been approved for fast track so far. In terms of renewable energy, 400 megawatts of new generation capacity has been consented—that’s equivalent to almost 5 percent of New Zealand’s current generation—and that powers around 160,000 homes. Fast track is helping us deliver more homes, more renewable energy, more infrastructure, and, indeed, more opportunities for New Zealanders, helping us to build the future.

Grant McCallum: What evidence has he seen that fast track is not a short cut around proper planning?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, fast track has never been something that short-cuts things. The scaremongering has been quite interesting. Projects have been approved, with robust decisions, and projects that have not met the threshold have not received approval. I’ll give you one example, and this is Rangitoopuni, an iwi-led housing development in north-west Auckland. It has received the 2026 New Zealand Planning Institute Best Practice Award for statutory planning. It was also a listed project in the fast track Act. It moved from concept design to a consent approval within 10 months. It just shows that the naysayers are wrong: we can balance the economy and the environment.

Grant McCallum: What other pieces of feedback has the Minister seen showing the robustness of the fast-track process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let me point the House to two examples. Dentons made the point last year—it’s a leading law firm—that fast track is operating and decisions are being made quickly, “but the front-end work is still intensive”, but the front-end work pays off in the end because the average time to make a decision is 117 working days, which is far quicker than traditional consenting processes. Law firm Cooney Lees Morgan also noted, “The Act offers a fast track through standard consenting processes, but it’s not a short cut.” Fast track is delivering for New Zealanders, and long may that continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has Rachel Brooking from Dunedin—who’s very high up on the list—who’s been shouting out during all your answers, produced one fast-track idea since she’s been here?

SPEAKER: No, that’s—[Minister Bishop rises to his feet] No, no, no, let it go—thank you. No answer there—you’ve got absolutely no responsibility for anything that some other politician here in the House does.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:33) 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) (14:33): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is the purpose of the Conservation Act?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we know the purpose. It’s to make sure we look after our iconic conservation across this great country of ours, but we also need to balance it with doing the right thing economically, because that’s ultimately also how we preserve that conservation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines “conservation” as “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, why did you ask the last question, then?

Hon Marama Davidson: —“intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did you ask the last question?

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll just wait till the dude stops talking.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That questioner, in her last question, asked about the purpose of the Act and then got up and explained what the question was in the first place, and she’s just wasting Parliament’s time.

SPEAKER: She’s ultimately wasting her own time and her own questions.

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll start again. Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines “conservation” as “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations”; and if so, can he explain how giving greater weight to economic use is consistent with this definition?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the deputy leader of New Zealand First that “there are a host of projects beyond Schedule 4 lands that can be and should be opened up for industry” and, if so, can he confirm that these lands include conservation parks and ecological areas?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not responsible for what the Minister for Resources says. What I’d just say to the member here is that we are making sure that we actually engage with the sector, we engage with the NGOs, and we make sure that we get the balance right between the environmental outcomes—we want strong and enduring conservation outcomes—as well as making sure we also support greater economic development in the estate too.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it an appropriate response for the Prime Minister to claim to the House that he is not responsible for comments made by his own Ministers?

SPEAKER: I think, in the context of the question that was asked, I personally understood what the Prime Minister was trying to say, but it is reality that the Prime Minister is responsible for all actions of the Government.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The question was about the deputy leader of New Zealand First.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You said, “the Minister”.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, whoop-de-doo!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Do your job.

Hon Marama Davidson: All right—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. One person has the floor at the moment—the Hon Marama Davidson.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that our precious places are safe by maintaining their protection in legislation instead of just asking us to trust him?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: What is the purpose of the public conservation estate; to generate revenue for the Crown or to protect the precious places that New Zealanders love?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to make sure we can do both. We can actually have strong and enduring conservation outcomes while also supporting greater economic development, and that’s why the Minister is in conversation with the NGOs, with sector leaders, and with iwi as well.

Housing

Question No. 8

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:37) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his response to being asked if he was comfortable with managers being individually assessed on whether or not emergency housing targets were met in their region, “No. That would be something that I’d ask the chief executive at MSD about”; if so, has he had that conversation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:37): I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, and noting that the CEO of Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), has the operational responsibility for human resources (HR) and performance management at the department. I’ve spoken with the CEO—

Hon Willie Jackson: Stop using Māori words.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —to confirm that she has—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just stop there. This is a fairly important question. The member asking the question knows how important it is. His own colleagues should at least be quiet to hear the answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, that the CEO of MSD has the operational responsibility for HR and performance management at the Ministry of Social Development Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora.

Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t use those Māori words.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve spoken with the CEO to confirm that she has that operational responsibility.

Hon Willie Jackson: Winston doesn’t like those words.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice while the Minister was answering the question, we heard the Opposition calling out “Don’t use Māori words”. The exact people who would be offended if anyone didn’t use Māori words are now taking offence at people speaking te reo Māori. What’s the problem?

Hon Members: What’s your point of order?

SPEAKER: His point of order is a valid one, in actual fact, and it touches a nerve with me because after once being very publicly criticised for using te reo Māori, apart from what I’ve just said, I’ve never used it again. We’ll move on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When did that conversation occur?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That conversation occurred yesterday by way of phone call.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did he request the CEO of MSD to remove the threat of performance management if MSD staff admit people in need into emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, we confirmed who has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. Shortly thereafter Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora also confirmed the massive reduction in the numbers of children living in emergency housing from over 3,000 in December 2023 to circa 400 today. I call that progress.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, when he has stated he is not comfortable with Ministry of Social Development staff being threatened with performance management if they admit people into emergency housing, did he not ask for that criteria to be removed?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In the context of the full and comprehensive kōrero in which this statement was taken, I am clear that the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management sits squarely with the CEO, the tumu kaimahi, of the Ministry of Social Development.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, Speakers’ Ruling 181/5 makes it very clear that even where there is no legal responsibility on a Minister, they are responsible to the House to answer to the actions and decisions of Government departments they are responsible for.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true, but I don’t think that the answer that was given by Hon Tama Potaka in any way stepped aside from that. He said in a conversation that he had established with the chief executive what the various roles were.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission wrong when she said there is a “perverse incentive to actually keep people out of emergency housing.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Jill Hawkey from this Methodist Mission in Christchurch is entitled to her own opinions. What I can observe from a range of commentaries and observations is that there has been a significant decline in those people in households—and children living in emergency housing—and also a significant decline in people sleeping rough in various cities around New Zealand, particularly in Auckland.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he now admit that front-line providers were right all along when they’ve said that people in genuine need are being denied emergency housing just so the Government can claim that it’s met its target?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of front-line providers have absolutely been energised by the type of support that this Government has given, particularly around immediate access to transitional housing. The Housing First 300 kaupapa that Minister Bishop and I recently announced in September 2025, which has resulted in 694 people coming out of a very difficult rough sleeping situation and into the Housing First places. I call that progress.

Housing

Question No. 9

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (14:42) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the Ministry of Social Development’s use of performance measures that assess managers against emergency housing grant targets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:42): I agree with the statement that I’ve given in a previous answer: the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) CEO, the tumu kaimahi of Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues at that agency.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. This is the same point I made earlier: this was a question on notice, and simply having the Minister respond saying that the CEO of MSD has operational responsibility is neither meeting the requirements for a response to a primary question nor meeting the requirements under Speakers’ ruling 181/5.

SPEAKER: Well, look, Ministers are answerable to the House for operational matters, even when there’s no legal control over them, because only a Minister can answer to the House. If they don’t have the details on hand, then they should say they have those details on hand. In this case, the Minister did say that he was comfortable with the operational arrangements that he then went on to speak of, and that’s a statement about his position in all of that. If a Minister does not have the information about an operational matter, they should just say so because they do remain the only voice to answer that question in the House.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What response has he received from the chief executive of MSD regarding whether managers are individually assessed against emergency housing grant targets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development has confirmed that she has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. I’m also aware of some reports that have said that people do not lose their job on the basis of one particular matter that’s used in the performance management arrangements.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Has he received any advice that assessing managers against emergency housing grant targets could discourage emergency housing grants for eligible people?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not aware of that.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What evidence does he have that these performance measures have improved outcomes for the 525 people, including 102 children, who were homeless in the Far North in 2025?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I want to acknowledge those hard-working, diligent, and professional kaimahi at the Ministry of Social Development for the work that they have been doing to support New Zealanders, particularly those in housing need. There are some severe and challenging situations with people in Northland and, indeed, in a range of rohe, regions, places, and towns in New Zealand, and this Government has sought to make sure that there’s adequate financial and other support in place to support those people with housing need. For example, the many hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into transitional housing, rapid rehousing, Housing First, and a range of other pathways to support those in housing need. And, of course, just recently, the $14.5 million that has been provided for outreach in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, Tauranga, Whakatāne, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Wanganui, and Waimakariri.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the Far North is specifically identified by the Government’s housing investment plan as an area for future growth, reflecting the real housing need in the Far North?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that over the last 10 years, nearly half a billion dollars has been committed to the building of social housing, transitional housing, and a range of Māori housing providers, including Te Aupōuri, which the member opposite recently was the kaiwhakahaere of; Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, Te Hau Ora O Ngāpuhi, Te Pouahi, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, and a range of other providers.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Therefore, how does he reconcile those performance measures with Housing First reporting that around half of unhoused people in Te Tai Tokerau have already waited between two and three years for permanent housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That’s exactly why I’m absolutely committed to supporting those Māori housing providers and others who have been contracted to deliver literally hundreds of homes in the Tai Tokerau region. We acknowledge those efforts of people like Te Hau Ora O Ngāpuhi up at Bisset Road in Kaikohe, one of the most impoverished places in the entire country, who are currently building 100 homes to ensure that we have the accountability across those providers who have been given contractual commitments, who have been given money to deliver in a timely and appropriate manner for those whānau—Māori, Pākehā; all New Zealanders—in need.

Health

Question No. 10

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:48) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding funding uplifts for primary and community services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:48): This Government is backing front-line health services across New Zealand with funding uplifts for the providers who care for patients in our communities every day. In recent weeks, we have announced a major $120 million funding uplift for general practice, which has received overwhelming support from the sector with 86 percent of GP clinics voting in favour; a $33 million boost for community pharmacies to strengthen access to healthcare closer to home; a $12 million funding uplift for hospices to support end-of-life care services across New Zealand; and a funding increase worth approximately $79 million for the aged residential care sector, to support the care of older New Zealanders. Together, these investments demonstrate this Government’s commitment to strengthening healthcare, improving access to services, and ensuring front-line providers have the certainty and support they need to deliver for their patients.

Katie Nimon: Why is the Government investing in primary care and community pharmacies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we understand that strong healthcare in the community forms the foundation of our health system, and that is why we’ve delivered a major funding uplift for general practice and a further funding increase for community pharmacies. Local doctors and pharmacists are often the first people New Zealanders turn to when they need healthcare. They help diagnose illnesses earlier, manage long-term conditions, provide treatment closer to home. The uplift will also continue funding to treat common conditions in the community for children and their families, for pain and fever management, oral rehydration, and common conditions such as scabies, head lice, and conjunctivitis. By investing in primary care and pharmacies, we’re making it easier for New Zealanders to get timely care in the community.

Katie Nimon: What support is the Government providing for hospices and aged residential care providers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is also backing the providers who care for some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Recently, we announced a major funding uplift for hospices across the country. That’s because every family deserves access to compassionate, high-quality care during some of life’s most difficult moments. This funding will support hospice staff and volunteers to continue doing their extraordinary work supporting patients and their loved ones with dignity and compassion at the end of life. This uplift sits alongside a separate investment to establish a nationally consistent specialist paediatric palliative care service for children with serious illnesses. We’ve also agreed to funding uplift for aged residential care providers. This uplift will help providers meet growing demand, support weekend admissions, and continue delivering the care that tens of thousands of New Zealanders and their families rely on every day.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has he received on these funding uplifts?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There has been positive feedback to these announcements. The general practice uplift was supported by 86 percent of GP clinics across New Zealand, with General Practice NZ acknowledging this as a “substantial investment in general practice”, and the General Practice Owners Association seeing this as a “historic moment for general practice”. Hospice New Zealand has also welcomed their sector’s uplift, stating that “This isn’t simply more money being allocated based on existing Government investment, which we’ve seen in the past. It is targeted investment designed to improve sustainability, strengthen access, and move us toward more consistent services for Hospice patients.” Whether it is GPs, hospices, aged residential care providers, or community pharmacies, this Government is backing the front-line health services that New Zealanders rely on.

Tertiary Education

Question No. 11

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (14:52) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by her statement, “Having the confidence to build and strengthen your team is important, especially when many businesses are doing it tough right now”; if so, why did she limit the Apprenticeship Boost?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (14:52): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Which is precisely why this Government is focused on growing the economy to create more jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. In answer to the second part of the question, Apprenticeship Boost was among the many funding gaps left by the previous Government. In the 2024 Budget, this Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost; we made it permanent and we targeted towards high-growth economic areas and to address skill shortages. Early-stage apprentices were identified as having a higher risk of unemployment during challenging economic conditions, and changes were designed to better target support to those most in need.

Shanan Halbert: How does the reduction in the number of apprentices help set New Zealand up for the future?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Under the previous Government, Apprenticeship Boost did increase apprentice numbers. However, many of those additional learners have now withdrawn. We saw, during those years, a significant decline in credit completion rates. Credit completion rate rates were down at 67 percent; they are now up at 86 percent. Retention rates have also increased under this Government. So simply pouring more money in and getting worse results is not good use of public funding.

Shanan Halbert: How did cutting Apprenticeship Boost in half help reduce workforce shortages?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I have noted already that this Government did not cut Apprenticeship Boost. This Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost.

Shanan Halbert: Is she surprised that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training reached 100,000 under her watch, given that her answer to everything is to reduce opportunities for young people?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, there are a number of initiatives, across a range of portfolios, including the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education, things like Youth Guarantee, things like Apprenticeship Boost, which we saved, and a number of other initiatives that support young NEETs for getting into employment. And, of course, the wonderful work that has been done by the Minister of Education, ensuring there are vocational pathways, will have that pipeline of young people to go into apprenticeships.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that Budget 2023 cut off funding for Apprenticeship Boost, with zero dollars provided for the scheme in the 2025 and 2026 fiscal years, and that, therefore, Budget 2024 rescued Apprenticeship Boost by providing funds to continue it into the out years and ensure that it was baseline funded for the future?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Of course, it was it incredibly disturbing to find that no funding had been allocated for beyond the end of the 2024 year, and so I was very proud of the fact that this Government reinstated the funding, made it permanent, and made it targeted to those in need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can you, as the question asks, inspire confidence to build and strengthen your team if you just stare blankly into the television and bobble head next to your party leader, as Shanan Halbert did over the weekend on TV?

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that might be terrifically amusing for the member, but it’s not the sort of thing that we should have taking up time in question time.

Shanan Halbert: Does the Minister agree that having a young person in an apprenticeship is better than them not being engaged in education, employment, or training, and if so, why did she cut the Apprenticeship Boost scheme?

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a very clear requirement on members of this House that we not make statements that are misleading or intended to mislead. That member has had repeated opportunities to correct his statement that this Government cut funding for Apprenticeship Boost. I have two documents with me, which I am happy to table for that member because he is misleading the House. This Government reinstated funding for the Apprenticeship Boost scheme that his previous finance Minister had cut funding for—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. It is an unfortunate point that, in the nature of these things, a member can make incorrect statements, but if there is a problem with that, there are remedies for the member to pursue through the privileges arrangement. Does the member wish to table some documents?

Hon Nicola Willis: Yes, I seek leave to table some documents

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When leave is sought to table documents, a brief description of the documents should be provided.

SPEAKER: They were provided before. That’s why I didn’t say it. [Interruption] Whoa, listen—for a start, can I just say to Government members that, when a very good answer was being given before, it was practically drowned out by what you might think was helpful commentary from behind. Similar, to the other side of the House, there was no attempt, really, to hear how the question was being answered. I will now ask the member, please, to describe very fully exactly what’s in those bits of paper.

Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, I am happy to do so. Listen up: the first is an excerpt from Budget 2023, which details the initiatives and the funding, and clearly shows funding for Apprenticeship Boost—

Hon Members: It’s publicly available.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’ll hear this fist.

Hon Nicola Willis: —ceasing in the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fiscal years. The second is a document from Budget 2024, delivered by this finance Minister, which shows the Apprenticeship Boost being rescued, with funding being provided in the 2024-2025, 2025-2026, 2026-2027, and 2027-2028 fiscal years. This Government boosted Apprenticeship Boost. You cut it.

SPEAKER: And all of that is already publicly available. We’ll go to question 12—Suze Redmayne. [Interruption] Suze Redmayne and only Suze Redmayne.

Shanan Halbert: Supplementary, sir. Sorry, point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, make up your mind!

SPEAKER: I know. It’s the season we’re in. Everyone’s very jumpy. Control it!

Shanan Halbert: Does she accept the number of apprentices in this country supported by Apprenticeship Boost dropped by over 10,000 as a result of her underfunding?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We are certainly focused on ensuring that we have a strong economy. The economy is growing. We have brought discipline back to Government spending. We have got inflation down, which has brought interest rates down. It is a growing economy that provides jobs for apprentices, and we are very proud that we are growing the economy.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have another question.

SPEAKER: You can’t seek leave on behalf of another member.

Agriculture

Question No. 12

SUZE REDMAYNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait. Your own side are making so much noise. It’s unbelievable.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

SPEAKER: I haven’t said go yet. I haven’t called you. We’re going to have quiet.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:01) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen on the forecast for New Zealand’s food and fibre sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (15:02): The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries June 2026 release has forecast the food and fibre sector to break new records over the next year. Export revenue is forecast at $64.3 billion for the first time; dairy is up 5 percent to $28.6 billion; meat and wool, $14.1 billion, a new record; horticulture, $9.5 billion, of which kiwifruit is a stand-out—a 16 percent increase, to be near 5 percent exports for the first time. The primary sector is forecast to be 82 percent of our goods exports, 12.4 percent of employment in New Zealand, and 15.3 percent of GDP. On behalf of every member of the House, including the Green Party, can I thank our farmers for their hard work.

Suze Redmayne: How has the sector been performing over the last four years?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, exceptionally well—more production as they feed the world. Exports overall are up $17 billion in the last three years. We are on track as a nation to double the value of exports in 10 years, and the primary sector, this year, exported $60 billion for the first time. Our UK free-trade agreement (FTA) has seen an increase of 79 percent over the three years, predominantly through the primary sector—meat up 38 percent and dairy a significant 58 percent. The EU FTA has been worth $3 billion extra of exports to New Zealand in the last two years—again, from the primary sector—and we will hit $23 billion of exports to China this year, with $19.2 billion from the primary sector. We’re even seeing an increase in beef exports to the US. There are 360,000 jobs or one in seven people employed by the primary sector as a result of the hard work of our farmers and growers.

Suze Redmayne: What has the Government been doing to back the sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the EU FTA entered into force more quickly than we had predicted or were told it would. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) FTA: 98.5 percent of our exports were tariff-free on day one, and we’ve seen almost a 37 percent increase in exports to the UAE in that period of time. Of course, the India FTA will have 95 percent tariff reduction or elimination and be very good for New Zealand exporters across the board, particularly many primary sector exporters. In regulatory reform, we have restricted full farm-to-forest conversions, with $109 million announced in the Budget to combat wilding pines. We’re replacing the Resource Management Act with better intensive winter grazing rules and better rules when it comes to farm water storage, and, in particular, we announced $40.5 million over four years of certainty of funding for rural catchment groups, as we back the sector to produce more, meet their environmental and climate obligations, and to feed the world.

Suze Redmayne: How has farmers’ confidence changed over the past two years?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Three years ago, when we came to Government, a Federated Farmers survey showed that confidence levels amongst our farmers were at a record low of minus 66 percent. Over the three years since then, we’ve seen it increase to plus 38 percent, a significant achievement. Some of this is because, two or three years ago, the primary industry sector was facing unworkable He Waka Eke Noa rules—a ute tax; costly and unnecessary red tape. Many of them were being called villains. The National - New Zealand First - ACT Government has been good for the primary sector, and, I reflect, a Labour - Green - Māori Party Government would be a disaster for all of New Zealand.

SPEAKER: That’s not appropriate, so just withdraw the last part of that answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I withdraw the bit that’s inappropriate.

Hon Mark Patterson: Is the Minister aware of the continuing surge in the strong white wool prices—the new white gold—and has he made any recent announcements around further supporting growing value for New Zealand wool?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, I am aware of the significant improvement for wool growers in New Zealand in their returns. The member who just spoke, Associate Minister of Agriculture Mark Patterson, has responsibility in that area. We are seeing farmers who grow wool now making money, whereas three years ago most of them were losing money. We are seeing the use of wool not only in buildings in New Zealand—for instance, in State homes that we’re building, and parts of this building itself, and towards rural schools: Mr Speaker, did you know that the Parliament of India has carpet in it and that carpet, the wool, comes from New Zealand? The announcement the member mentioned is about the Fieldays: with the Hon Mark Patterson, we announced $8 million for the sector to find new and higher-value uses for wool so that not only can it be resilient but those farmers who work very hard on behalf of all New Zealanders themselves will remain resilient.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

Debates

Ministry of Social Development—Staff Performance Measured on the Number of People in Their Region who Receive Emergency Housing Grants

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (15:07): Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 information that the Ministry of Social Development staff performance is measured on the number of people in their region who receive emergency housing grants. This is a matter of particular recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Emergency housing is an important matter. However, it is not a new matter. For as long as I’ve been here, this has been a matter that regularly comes up. I’ve listened very carefully to the two questions that were asked in the House today, and answered by the Associate Minister of Housing, and concluded I do not think it’s reached the point of urgency that warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it. The application is declined.

Speaker's Rulings

Amendments in Committee of the whole House

SPEAKER (15:08): Before we proceed further, I want to raise the issue of amendments in committee of the whole House. At present, members are free to lodge as many amendments as they wish. Presiding officers rule on whether they are relevant, serious, in the proper form of legislation, and on their relationship to previously-agreed positions.

Recently, we have seen numerous amendments on some bills, which has led to hours of voting. Parliament’s time is limited and best spent on debate, rather than voting. We already have a very fast party-voting system, but hundreds of amendments take hours to deal with. They place considerable pressure on the presiding officers and clerks to check they are in order. I would encourage members to produce amendments that propose important amendments that they wish to see in legislation. If the House is overwhelmed by amendments, it is likely that we will see some Standing Order changes, and I would not like to see undoubted right of members to propose amendments curtailed.

Having said that, committee stages are always going to proceed slowly when substantive Government amendments are released on the day that the bill is in committee. Members need time to analyse the proposed changes and, when they wish to move amendments, are likely to present them clause by clause. They do not have time do anything else.

I encourage Governments to release amendments as soon as they are drafted. That is likely to lead to more constructive engagement in the committee of the whole House process.

Substantive amendments late in the legislative process, where there is no select committee scrutiny of them, is not desirable. It suggests the policy process was not completed before the bill was introduced or the select committee was not given sufficient time to consider the bill. To be clear, these types of amendments will always lead to longer committee stages as members deal with new material they’ve only just seen.

I occasionally hear members discussing notional time limits for committee stages. That has never been a rule or practice of this House. The size and content of a part, the willing engagement of Ministers in answering questions, and the factors I’ve mentioned previously determine how much time will be spent on a part.

I encourage all members to take a reasonable approach in committee of the whole House, with a view to focusing on the bill and serious amendments to it in a way that gives all members time to consider the legislation in front of them.

We’ll take a short break while those who have to leave the House can do so.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:11): Point of order. Thank you, sir. I raise a point of order in regards to the guidance you’ve just provided the House, and waited for the time period for members to leave in order to raise it. Quite a substantive piece of guidance here, but a couple of questions that I have for clarity. First of all, it seems to me the content of that does not lend itself to a new Speaker’s ruling but just simply what already existed and guidance to the House. Is that correct?

SPEAKER (15:12): That is correct. There’s a number of Standing Orders that can be referred to. I would particularly suggest members look at 315, which I think was largely introduced post the legislation that was put through around Auckland governance some time ago. What I had intended in that was not to do anything other than remind members that the point of being here is debate, not voting. I’m hoping that people will see that, take it on board. Certainly, I would not want to see any curtailing of the right that members have to introduce amendments. By the same token, that right, particularly with some of the tools that are available to members these days, needs to be balanced against the rights of every other member in this House to participate in the legislative process through debate rather than hours in here voting.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:13): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you for that, and you’ll note we—well, I haven’t challenged the content of it. I think it is entirely reasonable and, as has now been pointed out, consistent with Speakers’ rulings. I just thought it was important to note that it is guidance that already exists. For clarity, in future committee stages, if presiding officers were to refer to this in that vein, rather than pointing to it as a new ruling—that is important. We will take on board your guidance around the number and scope of amendments and also linking that to your guidance to the Government around when their amendments are lodged.

SPEAKER (15:13): Yeah, that was a fairly important aspect of what I had to say today. I think also you can expect that presiding officers, guided by the Office of the Clerk, will be perhaps a little more willing to go down the letter of—I don’t want to say “the law”—the intended Standing Order.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:14): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow up from the previous speaker, just looking to seek some additional clarifications from you. I do believe that in terms of what you mentioned, as we note in Standing Order 315, particularly paragraph (3), there are already mechanisms for the House to be able to group amendments as well, or judge the amendments based on relevance to the bill. I particularly note what you mentioned earlier on in terms of that balance between the ability for any Opposition to be able to scrutinise a bill fully versus the Government side releasing an Amendment Paper during committee stage.

However, I do want to seek your guidance that, when we do look at—and this is something that has been traversed in the House. When the Government is able to unilaterally, essentially, decide when things go under urgency or an extended sitting and is able to take up more of the House’s time, as Opposition MPs there are very few to no opportunities for us to be able to fully scrutinise and to be able to challenge the Government on that ability to use urgency and extended sittings. I just want to seek your guidance in terms of what you think the balance would be there, in terms of the ability for any Opposition parties, present and future, to be able to hold any executive members accountable, as is our right as a legislature, versus the way that the Government has been able to, I guess, sometimes bypass that good will to trigger urgency and extended sittings.

SPEAKER (15:16): Well, in the case of your assertions around the way in which urgency is taken, I disagree with you, because it is the legislature, this House, that decides on urgency. Now, our democratic process might determine how members are likely to vote on a motion like that, but, in the end, it is the House that determines that time will be granted to urgently consider the bills that might be in any urgency motion.

The second point is that the right of the Opposition—or the role of the Opposition, in fact—to question and to hold it to account is not being challenged. What I am making clear is that the Standing Orders do protect the integrity of bills that are before the House and that amendments must be consistent with the purpose of the bill, and there is also the issue around effect. There are two words that will be most prominent in the consideration of presiding officers on future occasions, and those will be both the word “effect” and the word “grouping”. None of that will be about trying to stop people doing things, but, by the same token, it might be ruling on the admissibility of a particular set of amendments.

Debates

Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014

Parole Act 2002

Report of Attorney-General on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (15:18): I move, That the House take note of the declarations of inconsistency: Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002 and Public Protection Orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014.

We are here to debate the declarations of inconsistency relating to the Extended Supervision Order (ESO) and Public Protection Order (PPO), as well as the Justice Committee report on the declarations and the Government’s response.

It is important for us to recognise the critical public safety role that these regimes have. Both PPO and ESO are preventative measures designed to manage the risk of reoffending from serious sexual or violent offenders when they reside in the community. The orders are put in place once the offender finishes a prison sentence or returns from overseas. They are only applied to offenders with a high or very high risk of serious reoffending. An ESO can be similar to parole conditions, and ESO can restrict where the offender lives or require that they are monitored in person 24/7. A PPO is more restrictive; it authorises detention in a secure facility on prison grounds, potentially for life.

Right now, officials are reviewing the legislation in response to multiple reviews of it, not just the Supreme Court’s declarations, but also, in September last year, the Government tabled its response to a Law Commission review on ESO and PPO. That review proposed fundamental reform, including repeal and replacement of the current measures because they do not capture all the public safety risks that these offenders pose and do not fully address rehabilitative and other rights.

The two declarations that we’re debating here today were also issued by the Supreme Court in September last year. In its first declaration, the Supreme Court found that PPOs are inconsistent with the freedom from a second penalty for the same crime, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In its second declaration, the Supreme Court found that the parts of an ESO that amount to detention, such as restrictions on living conditions, are also inconsistent with the right to freedom from a second penalty.

The court also said that if either orders applied based on offences committed before the orders existed—-in other words, retrospectively—the inconsistency could never be justified. A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement by the court that an act is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It does not affect the validity of an Act. What it does is signal that the court considers the Act infringes on fundamental human rights in a way that is not justified in a free and democratic society.

I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its report on the declarations, and members of the public who made submissions during the process. The committee recommends repeal and replacement of ESOs and PPOs with a single-tiered preventative regime. This was based on the Law Commission’s report on preventative measures.

The committee provided principles to guide that work, including the central principle that ESOs and PPOs should protect the community from further harm. The committee also recognised the value of any substantive response to the declarations being part of the existing work responding to the Law Commission’s report.

Following the committee’s report, the Minister of Justice and I tabled the Government response to the declarations in the House on 8 June 2026. As stated in the response, the Government agrees with the Justice Committee that more work is needed to be done so we can decide how to react to the declarations. I acknowledge that measures that detain offenders beyond their finite sentence are a significant intrusion on a person’s liberty, but there is no doubt that ESOs and PPOs are necessary to protect the public from serious sexual and violent offending. As I’ve said, the offenders subject to them have high or very high risks of reoffending but can no longer be held in prison.

The Supreme Court, the Justice Committee, and the Law Commission pointed out—and I agree—that preventive measures are an important part of the justice system, given its objective of protecting the public. The legislation governing PPOs and ESOs is complex and multifaceted, and, as it is worked through, I expect it will consider the declarations and the recommendations of the Justice Committee and the Law Commission’s report. I support the legislative change to get these public safety measures right. I recognise that to get it right, it will take time and we will need to be sure that any changes we make do not compromise public safety.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I’ve just been advised that there is a split call on this particular call. The honourable Vanushi Walters.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to rise in the House today and speak in what is a very constitutionally significant debate. This is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency brought to the House, and I had the great privilege of speaking on the first one, which came to the House last term courtesy of Make It 16, who brought their case to the High Court. So it is a pleasure to speak to it.

I did also just want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his work in terms of shepherding the legislative change and the changes to the Standing Orders to essentially create this bridge between the courts and the House, and ensure that where there’s a finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the House is actively turning its mind to whether we want to retain those provisions in law or not. The mechanisms here are that the select committee considers the issue and reports back. That’s what we’re debating today. As the Minister mentioned, the executive also responded, and I have read through the executive response, which was tabled in the House on 8 June.

I did just want to flag my nervousness about the executive response in that it does signal, as does the select committee report, that there is need for change and an overhaul of the entirety of the system, bringing it together into one Act but retaining, largely, those powers. There just doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in terms of the need to do it, and let’s remember we had a Law Commission report that was released publicly last year in April. The Government has had plenty of time to look into, in my view, what is a serious finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and in a serious context: we’re talking about people who have served their sentences, and now are being held and/or monitored in terms of the preventative approach. So, comparatively, if you look at the two declarations, my view is that this one requires a more urgent response from the Government than the one we considered last term, because of the nature of the circumstances and the individuals who are affected on a day-to-day basis.

Going to the decision, this is a fascinating decision in that the decision itself, by a majority, was in four parts. The first part was in relation to the non-detention aspects of the extended supervision order (ESO), and on that front, the court actually found that both the prospective and retrospective application of non-detention prevention mechanisms was justified. So it’s not the retrospectivity on its own that the court had issues with. However, they did find with the public protection order regime and detention authorising part of the ESO that the prospective use of that was currently not justified because of the way in which it was being used. So it’s possible for the Government to address that. But interestingly, the part that the Minister referenced as well is that the retrospective aspects of that detention could never be justified in law. And so that is a space where if the executive wish to maintain that, they will, in essence, be saying that while this can’t be justified in law, it can be justified via the political will of the executive in Parliament as it is, which is an important distinction to make.

In terms of the recommendations that the Law Commission put forward, there are about 149 of them, but they sat within four parts, and the select committee really echoed a need for us to move those forward. And that includes a three-tiered model that the court could impose, ensuring that the least restrictive measure is used to manage risk first, and that it is preventative, not punitive; that there’s access to therapeutic justice for those individuals; that the court gives notification at sentencing that a post-sentencing order may follow—so that indication is there as well—and, finally, that the court, not the Parole Board, sets the measures and conditions that are relevant. So we agree with those.

Just as a final thought, I do wonder whether the House is giving sufficient attention to an issue of such importance, and whether, going forward, the House may consider something like a human rights select committee to both consider these declarations as well as section 7 reports themselves.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure, obviously, to take a call in this House, but this particular debate is on a relatively unusual point of law. I just want to acknowledge, to start with, that the reason we are debating this is because of legal action taken by Mark Chisnall. This is an individual who was convicted of very serious offences. Often when we are discussing issues like this, I think it’s important to note that we are discussing a balance of rights here. But the reason that this individual came to the attention of the courts was because of some very serious offending against children and the very serious risk of his reoffending.

I think it’s important to note that when the Parliament initially passed the bill in question that became law, there were serious concerns around, issues around, reoffending for some of these serious offenders. So I think it’s important to note, and I don’t think anyone in this debate would minimise the seriousness of that individual’s offending, and obviously when we’re discussing this bill, we will be also looking at other serious offenders who have committed very, very serious acts against many innocent people. That’s at the forefront of our mind as we discuss what is a very unusual set of facts.

It does go back some time, and I do want to echo the points made by my colleague Vanushi Walters, who was our shadow Attorney-General on this side of the House for the Labour Party. This issue has arisen some time ago and has been decided in 2018, and it’s only really now that we’re getting to the end of this process. I want to also acknowledge our former colleague David Parker, for allowing this process to take place. This is a very slow way of recognising very important significant constitutional rights. And, as has been previously mentioned by both the Minister and Vanushi Walters, this is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency come to the House, so it is important that we recognise that this, in many ways, shows that our systems of upholding important fundamental rights, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, are upheld.

At the same time, the amount of time and the difficulty that it has taken to get to the stage does not indicate a system which is recognising those clashes of rights in a timely manner, and is, perhaps, something that we need to look at. I do also echo comments—this is an issue that has crossed Parliaments, but it is now incumbent on the current Government to respond to this, and I do wish that they do so in in a timely manner.

I think the important issue here, and the facts have been traversed by others, so I won’t go over them again, is that we do have these important fundamental rights enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act 2022 did allow us this particular process for it to be referred to select committee. I am a member of the Justice Committee; I wasn’t there the entire time, but I do want to commend the work of the Justice Committee, and if those listening want to understand this issue, which is a complex legal issue, I commend them to report of the Justice Committee—I’ll just see if I can see the date; I can’t—anyway, it’s the report into the Notice of declarations of inconsistency into the Public Protection Orders in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders )Act 2014 and Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002. The clerks at the Justice Committee have done a tremendous job in making sure that this is all set out. For the record of this Parliament, this is where you will see not only the history of when this first came to the New Zealand Parliament, but when the law was changed in 2018 and then, in 2022, the new law was passed and then the change to the Standing Orders in the 53^rd Parliament.

That sets out all of the issues. They are serious issues, and I want to commend the recommendations of the select committee moving forward, and that a new regime is established in order to make sure that we’re in a position to not only seek to impose restrictions on those we know cause a risk, but also not to put individuals in a position where there is a clash of rights and they are punished twice for the same crime. That’s, fundamentally, at the heart of this matter. It is the fundamental right of everyone to suffer one punishment for one crime, and when that is, of course, doubled, then we do have issues of rights there.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also endorse the report from the Justice Committee around the declaration of inconsistency. I think it is important to give some context around this. And, like the previous speakers and the Minister stated, this is only the second time, since the introduction of this process around declarations of inconsistency, that we have seen something like this being brought to the House.

The first time was under the previous Government around Make It 16, particularly around lowering the voting age to 16, which is something that the Green Party, to this day, still supports and champions. But for this particular case, one of the, I guess, contexts around it is, when the Supreme Court essentially makes a declaration of inconsistency, that then gets referred to, sort of, two aspects: one part is the Government, and particularly, in this case, the Attorney-General; and the other half to Parliament. Under Standing Orders 269A, as well as the process laid out in Appendix F of the Standing Orders, we see the Parliament going through that process, which is what we’re doing now. It could have, concurrently, as the Government through the Attorney-General, gone through their process of determining how to respond to such a declaration of inconsistency.

Now, I do want to, obviously, spend my time discussing the Parliament’s response to the declaration of inconsistency, but I want to acknowledge one of the previous speakers, Vanushi Walters, around the general concern that we may have, in terms of the Government’s response, and particularly the lack of urgency around how we do deal with such a declaration. I note that no resolution has yet come about, in terms of the previous declaration of inconsistency, around lowering the general election voting age to 16.

Now, for this particular one, which came from the 2024 ruling in the case of Attorney-General v Chisnall, essentially, it comes down to one main part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is how we make such declaration of inconsistencies. The declaration of inconsistency, essentially, is to say that a rule or a particular legislation that’s been made is inconsistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which has a far greater history beyond 1990—going all the way to the 1688 bill of rights. But, in this case, one of the particular clauses that’s relevant to this consideration is section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is, essentially, the right against double jeopardy as well as retrospectivity.

One of the things we’re looking at here, which is around public protection orders (PPOs), as well as extended supervision orders (ESOs), is around the fact that when you have committed a crime, we all understand that there are accountabilities, there are responsibilities, but it’s a generally understood rule—and I think this is something that we can all acknowledge and accept—that you shouldn’t be charged more than one penalty for that one particular crime. In this case, the idea of double jeopardy, when it comes to the PPO and ESO, is the fact that once a person has served their sentence in relation to that crime, then they are, essentially, being charged again for the same crime through a public protection order or extended supervision order. That is, fundamentally, where this comes from.

Now, from the select committee’s analysis of this—this was referred to the Justice Committee, which I am also a member of. I do want to commend the Justice Committee for giving this an incredibly thorough and nuanced investigation. We worked through it as a committee and came to the recommendations of the committee as a committee in its entirety—unanimously, essentially. With that, I do want to thank, in particular, the members of the Justice Committee, but also the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Hon Andrew Bayly, on the way that we have approached this particular declaration of inconsistency, as a select committee, methodologically.

One of the things that is really important, as a part of this—I mentioned before that this is something that the Law Commission has already been working on. In April 2025, they published Here ora: Preventative measures in a reformed law, which essentially says that when we’re looking at PPOs and ESOs, it needs to have a fundamental overhaul of the law that governs the preventative detention and extended supervision order system. The current system doesn’t really allow for that or to be done in a way that is rights consistent. Essentially, in that report, it’s asking for a single statutory regime that will prevent a cohesive, gradual approach to prevent serious reoffending. I think this is something that we, as a committee, also agreed that it is important for us to strike that balance between public safety, rehabilitation, and also on something that is rights consistent.

I think, as a select committee, through our recommendations, we recommend that there is a way for us to do that that achieves all of these particular outcomes, and in particular being guided by some fundamental principles that the Justice Committee has come up with. The guiding principles are that any such order should prevent communities from further harm; it should be preventative in nature and not punitive; it should foster wellbeing and promote the independence of the person subject to the order as much as practicable; the making of orders should be subject to court oversight and periodic review; and restrictions imposed should be proportional to the level of risk to the public’s safety.

With those principles, the Justice Committee has suggested four different components, and this is through consultation, both in terms of taking advice from the Law Commission’s report in 2025 but also in terms of what we’ve heard from officials on the feasibility and workability of implementing something like this. The first bit is around having that three-level, gradual approach depending on the seriousness or the potential of reoffending, and a lot of that has to do with public safety and, essentially, working from a perspective of having community supervision, to residential supervision, to secure supervision based on those levels of severity.

It is also important, as part of this component, that when we are looking at anything that is beyond the sentencing that the person is serving for that particular crime, or for that particular penalty—anything beyond that, to the best of its ability, should be preventative in nature, rather than punitive. The whole point of our justice system, theoretically, should have been about restorative justice as opposed to simply punitive justice.

One of the other components that we considered as potentially an interim measure—which possibly also requires a legislative component—is how we can look at notification at sentencing so that when a person is being sentenced there is a notification to the person of a possible post-sentencing order. This is also something that potentially would have the possibility of avoiding some of that double jeopardy. That way, we’re looking at essentially one long sentencing process as opposed to the person being sentenced and, after serving their sentence, then coming back for essentially a second sentence through the existing public protection order and extended supervision order process and structure.

Finally, in terms of what I mentioned about courts being able to oversee some of that and have that periodic review, the types and conditions of preventative measures can also be determined by the court as part of this. Finally, just to add that from a select committee perspective, we have recommended that the Government look at this new, singular statute that is rights consistent. We believe, through the Law Commission and what we heard from officials, that it can be done should the Government or any Government have the appetite for it, but also urge future Justice Committees to monitor the progress that the Department of Corrections, for example, has mentioned on any of the proposed changes to post-sentence regimes.

I think, as a final sort of 20 seconds, I want to raise the importance of something like this in terms of declarations of inconsistency and fundamentally what it means in Aotearoa New Zealand when we’re looking at the rule of law and the principle of comity—the ability for the legislature, executive, and judiciary to hold each other accountable, and it’s something that we forget about in our current system.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a danger going after Dr Xu-Nan, because he’s covered quite a lot of material that I was going to cover. I do want to just speak briefly in this debate on these declarations of inconsistency, because it is an important topic, and we have traversed a lot of material already.

Just to say, I’m probably not so concerned, maybe, as some of the other speakers since this only the second time that this process has been used. I think we probably need to have a few more declarations of inconsistency and work through the process before we decide whether it needs refined. Again, I also just want to acknowledge the Minister, who has, on behalf of the Government, said that work is going to be undertaken in this area, and in fact has responded to the report of the Justice Committee, which has been referenced a couple of times already in this debate, and which committee I am also a member of.

We are talking about people who have been convicted of very serious sexual and violent offending—I think we need to remember that. Again, it’s already been referred to: the report of the Justice Committee does set out the issues in quite a lot of detail. As has been said, it was a very thoughtfully done inquiry into these issues. The whole committee really was engaged in it, and we did actually come up with a unanimous report, as has already been highlighted.

I was going to reference, I think, the five principles; Dr Xu-Nan’s actually already outlined all five of them in detail, so I’m not going to go over them again, but I think they are worth looking at, if people are interested, because it does actually outline the balance of rights we’re having to kind of weigh up here, which is that we need to protect the community from harm but we also need to make sure that if we’re imposing these orders on people, they aren’t punitive. They need to be preventative in nature, and it needs to have some oversight. Again, I’m not going to go through those again in detail, but I do think that they really do provide a framework for the work that, as the Minister said, is going to be happening in this area so that we can actually get to a regime that everyone is happy with, that balances all those rights, but that, importantly, upholds public safety and protection. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the declaration of inconsistency. As we’ve heard from a number of speakers, it’s a very rare occurrence—just the second time in the House that we’ve had to do this. Obviously, as a new member as well, and a member of the Justice Committee, it was a very complex issue—quite difficult to get the understanding of the Supreme Court and what we were trying to achieve.

As the other speakers have highlighted, the members on the committee worked really, really, well together. Obviously, some members had some experience from the first inconsistency debate, which was done in the last term. The Hon Andrew Bayly—again, just the way he handled and chaired the committee gave everyone a really good opportunity. I think, as you hear today in the House, the majority—everyone, actually—is on the same page in trying to fix this inconsistency going forward.

As we hear, around the PPOs—and I know acronyms aren’t that great, using those in the House—public protection orders are the most severe use of restriction. That’s mainly detention on a prison precinct, in the case of PPOs, so it’s quite restrictive. ESOs—extended supervision orders—often by the Department of Corrections, would be the kind of things like check-ups and that on people who have come out of prison after their sentence.

Really, the main part of this was around the post-sentence requirements on prisoners who have obviously gone through the system and have come out. There’s that thing I think most New Zealanders, Kiwis, would understand around double jeopardy—that you shouldn’t be tried twice for a crime—and punishment; once you’ve gone through the system you should basically have a clear run at a new life. As we know, and that’s been touched on, we’re talking here about the most serious sexual and violent offenders, and we know the principle about public safety is something this House has to take into consideration. With some of those people who have gone through their sentence, there are still high risks to the general public.

We did hear about the Supreme Court—in September last year, when they issued the inconsistency—and the Law Commission. What was really helpful was their report that they’d issued and a way of resolving the issue; the Justice Committee then has picked up many of the things that were raised in the Law Commission’s report. As has been mentioned by the last number of speakers, the guiding principles are what the Justice Committee has tried to work on to give the Government a way forward. The most, probably, important principle, going forward, is to prevent further harm. Without repeating all five principles, I think that one of preventing further harm is the one that is the golden issue here.

The Government also has issued its report back, and New Zealand First supports, obviously, the recommendations and, if I say, the line of travel here. Going forward, we see there is that way. Public safety: we know that, as prisoners go through their sentence, rehabilitation is a major part, but once they come out—again, highlighting the most serious sexual and violent offenders—there then needs to be those preventative measures in place. That’s where the Supreme Court spoke about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but then there needs to be the balance, again, to public safety.

We do support that single statute that basically looks to repeal the current legislation around extended supervision orders and public protection orders. We do realise it’s going to take a period of time. It’s not going to be something that’s done in months. It’s probably going to be more likely to go into the next Parliament and may take a couple of years, but it needs to be replaced with a single statute that establishes a three-tiered regime for post-sentence orders, and that’s the main part of this. New Zealand First supports the work on this into the next Parliament, and it will take some time, as I say, to implement, but we look forward to that work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call will be a split call—Dr Tracey McLellan.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (15:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also add a few words to this debate. There’s broad agreement across the House. This report that we’re dealing with today, obviously, as has been noted, deals with a difficult but very important balance, and that balance is the need to protect people from others who pose what is a really high risk of serious sexual and violent reoffending whilst also upholding the fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As has been noted, this is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency before us, so I’d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee for the work that they’ve done on this but also note that the Government really does need to respond in a timely manner. I appreciate the fact that, whenever balance is required, that can be a challenge, and there are certainly challenges before us, but it’s really important that this isn’t stalled and that there is some timely application—or some timely implementation—of the recommendations and the work that is before us.

The Supreme Court has been really clear that the PPO—public protection order—regime and the detention aspects of the extended supervision orders (ESOs) are, in fact, inconsistent with the right not to be punished twice for the same offence. That is something that Parliament simply can’t ignore. It is up to us to ensure that we act lawfully, and that’s important no matter what the domain we may be referring to but particularly in the criminal justice domain. It’s a big deal when the State deprives someone of their liberty. Regardless of the circumstances, that regimen in place and the process in place has to be absolutely lawful.

As I said, the Supreme Court has been very clear that the PPOs and the ESOs are inconsistent, and, at the same time, the answer simply can’t be to remove all preventative measures. We know that that’s not going to work. Communities, victims, and potential victims in the future are entitled to protection from serious harm, and we all agree with that. The challenge, the one before us, is to design something that actually is lawful, that is able to operate in an effective way, and is also rights consistent. The committee’s recommendations for a single new statute are sensible. It’s a three-tier model that has been discussed already where there’s community supervision, where there’s residential supervision, and where there’s secure, preventative supervision. It would allow courts to impose the least restrictive options necessary to manage the actual risk. I think that that’s really important, and it’s important for both public safety and for human rights.

We’ve also talked, previously, about the need for rehabilitation and reintegration to be at the centre of what this new regime should and could look like. If these orders are genuinely preventative, rather than punitive, then it is absolutely important that people have real opportunities to enter into a rehabilitative or a reintegrated process as well. The court oversight and regular review, as we can see through this report process, are also incredibly essential to what the new regime needs to look like. There are significant restrictions, as I’ve said, on liberty, and any conditions imposed must be proportionate, evidence based, appealable, and subject to proper scrutiny. We should also be clear, not only just whilst having this the debate but through the remainder of this process when the Government does respond to this declaration, that victims’ rights and dignity do matter. I want to reiterate in the final few seconds that the Government, now, does need to move with some urgency. Corrections has indicated that the policy work on this could take up to two years. The rights issues—we’ve known about this for quite a long time, and Parliament does need a clear timetable for the reform that they intend to bring forward. Labour supports the regime and acknowledges that keeping communities safe and respecting victims is paramount.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A lot has been said about this framework and why this declaration of inconsistency occurred. I want to really just do one thing, and that is to go to the part of the select committee report which indicated the direction of travel for any new policies in respect of public protection orders (PPOs) and extended supervision orders (ESOs), and that is the section headed “Principles”. It’s a very short part of the report—only about a paragraph. I just want to identify those principles that the select committee all agreed should direct any further work in this space.

The first principle is obvious, and that is that the only reason for these orders is to protect the community from further harm. Obviously, these protection orders and supervision orders are only there because the risk posed to the communities by these individuals reaches a particular threshold. That feeds into the second principle, and that is that there is zero punitive element to these orders. They are protective only, and they are not punitive. Of course, the reason that this fell foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was that it was seen as a second punishment after the first punishment for the crime had essentially expired. With whatever we do here, there can be no linking of the orders with retribution for the crime caused. It’s linked to the crime only insofar as the crime is indicative of future risk.

I think the third principle set out there is one of the most important. What it states there is that “the regime should foster wellbeing and promote independence of the person subject to the order.” One of the challenges here has been that there’s been a kind of reaction, because it’s within a corrections framework, to unduly limit the life of the people subject to the order—including where they live, how they live, and the choices they make.

Given that there is no punitive element here, the autonomy of this individual should be upheld and they should have, in so far as is consistent with the first principle, which is public protection, as many choices, as much self-determination, as possible, because that’s what it is to respect the human rights of an individual, regardless of their former wrongdoing, particularly when their punishment has, essentially, expired.

As Dr McLellan said, this is not an administrative decision. We live in a society ruled by law, and these orders should be subject to governance by law. That’s why they should be subject to the oversight of the courts. The people subject to the orders should be able to appeal them, and they should be periodically reviewed; they can’t last for ever. We don’t want these to be, essentially, at the discretion of the administrative body that makes them, whoever that turns out to be.

The last principle is really important, as well, and that is proportionality. We’ve talked about a tiered arrangement: community, residential, and, essentially, one where you’re detained. Where on that scale someone sits should be carefully curated depending on the risk that they pose. There should be the least intervention that is consistent with community safety. Now, that’s a challenging task, but it’s a task, in fact, which the justice system does when it sentences people, when the Parole Board releases people, and it goes on throughout our justice system and, indeed, in our mental health system, as well, in terms of compulsory treatment.

So those principles are really important, because it’s a massive signal to the Government that has carriage of this piece of work to say, “Here are the values that the legislature has said this work should be imbued with.” So, you know, what I guess I’m saying is go forward; do this work; have a right, consistent outcome; but anchor it in those principles and the guidance the select committee has given. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:02): We know that serious violent and sexual crimes have lifelong consequences for the victims of those crimes and their families. It’s why we’ve made victims our priority in everything that we’ve done in the justice sector. The interests of victims underpin all our work to fix the basics in law and order and to build a future where all New Zealanders can feel safe in the community.

Now, for the highest-risk offenders, the current law provides a range of options, including indeterminate prison sentences of preventive detention; extended supervision orders—ESOs—which are a post-prison court order; and the public protection orders—PPOs—which are civil orders that allow for the ongoing indefinite confinement of the most high-risk individuals.

Now, as we’ve heard in all the debates—and I don’t need to go over everything, but some issues with the current law have been raised both here in New Zealand and overseas by international human rights bodies. Most recently, on 25 September, the Supreme Court issued its declaration of inconsistency, holding that aspects of the current regime—a regime that has been in place for some time—breached the protection against punishing a person twice. That is why we’re having this debate, responding to that.

Now, the Government, of course, has been considering some of these issues for a lengthy period. In 2021, the previous Government requested that the Law Commission examine the laws protecting the public from high-risk repeat sexual offenders. The Law Commission report was tabled in April 2025 last year and found that the current law is fragmented, inconsistent, and does not adequately protect the risks to public safety, and proposed reforming the law in a way that continues to protect public safety while managing high-risk offenders more humanely. It recommended replacing three current measures with a single post-sentence statutory regime of varying degrees of restrictiveness, from supervision in the community through to secure detention. The commission considered that this single regime would improve rehabilitation and address the issues identified by the courts. The Government acknowledged that the Law Commission findings and recommendations for change were not surprising. However, the Law Commission’s reports, unfortunately, are not a fully formed piece of legislation ready to go. There are still a number of decisions that need to be made and law to be crafted.

Some of the commission’s recommendations were examined by the Justice Committee, and I want to thank the Justice Committee for its work and the serious undertakings that it took, identifying the principles, as the previous speaker, bar one, indicated, in terms of the guiding principles that we should protect the community from further harm and other principles that should be absolutely preventative in nature rather than punitive. All of that seems to us to be sensible, and we very much see this as an important part of our work programme for the people of New Zealand, if they see fit to return this Government.

We’ve had a strong focus on restoring law and order and restoring real consequences for crime, but there are issues that do need to be resolved, as have been identified by the Supreme Court’s actions, also by the Law Commission’s work, and, most lately, by the Justice Committee. We do hope—I certainly personally hope I get the opportunity to rectify this matter in the years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Urgency

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (16:06): I move, That urgency be accorded the remaining stages of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Building Amendment Bill and the Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member just read the name of the climate change bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, I’ve got Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill here, but we’ll check that—we’ll make sure.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —thank you, Madam Speaker—the second reading of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, and the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill and the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2); the first reading and referral to select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2); the discharge and recommittal to a select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, the Mental Health Bill, the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, and the Constitution Amendment Bill.

Today, we are according urgency to 22 pieces of legislation, and I note that none are bypassing scrutiny: none are skipping select committee. However, with only nine sitting weeks left in this parliamentary term, the Government has significantly more legislation on its agenda than it has the time to pass prior to this year’s general election. Urgency is therefore being accorded today for overtime purposes. Each bill is a Government priority to pass or send to select committee before the dissolution of Parliament, and it is for that reason that we accord urgency today, to progress them to ease the pressure on the remaining months of this parliamentary term.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.

Bills

Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed from 25 March 2026.

Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998, and Schedules 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good afternoon, members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1, the debate on clauses 8 to 23, “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) (16:11): I thank members. The Minister won’t be too far away, so I hope I will just cover off some of the opening remarks he was going to make. I assume he’s still going to make them. Basically, I just want to recap or repeat what was said during the second reading. Submitters have made it clear that antisocial road use events are disruptive and often involve destruction of property, excessive alcohol consumption, and intimidating behaviour. Submitters supported greater deterrents and highlighted the need for proportionate penalties.

The bill has four parts. The first part amends the Land Transport Act 1998. The second part amends the Sentencing Act 2002. The third part makes amendments to the Policing Act 2008, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. The schedules make minor inconsequential amendments and insert transitional and savings provisions.

The bill we’re debating has five key features. It introduces a presumptive sentence of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles involved in street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, and the extended identifying drivers offence in intimidating convoys. It creates a new offence for intimidating convoys to penalise those who are trying to intimidate the public whilst driving dangerously. It gives the police greater powers to identify drivers who participate in street racing, burnouts, and intimidating convoys. It gives the police greater powers to close off areas where antisocial road events are happening or might happen. It increases the fine for excessive noise from an infringement fee of $50 to $300 and a court-ordered fine of $1,000 to $3,000.

The Minister is also introducing a Government Amendment Paper that makes a minor and technical amendment to ensure that the policy intent of the bill is delivered. Currently, section 98A of the Land Transport Act 1998 enables police to prohibit the sale or disposal of vehicles where the owner is charged with an offence that could result in confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle. We want this power to apply where an owner is charged with an offence that would, in the event of conviction, trigger a presumptive sentence of vehicle forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction introduced by this bill. This will address submitter concerns that offenders will sell their vehicle following impoundment, before sentencing takes place, to avoid forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction of their vehicle. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:15): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for kicking things off and acknowledge the transport Minister currently in the chair.

I have a few questions in relation to this part, and I want to start with clause 10. Clause 10 is looking at new section 39A, which really is the crux of the nature of the convoys that exist and the behaviour that might be considered as dangerous or reckless. I think it would be helpful to just get an understanding from the Minister around whether he thinks the definition of a convoy—which is, in this instance, “2 or more motor vehicles”—is appropriate. In the circumstance where there might be one larger motor vehicle that doesn’t meet the definition of a convoy but still might, with other folk around it, lead to something that might be reckless or dangerous activity or conduct—whether there are other avenues available for the police to utilise powers or otherwise. One assumes that, obviously, “motor vehicles”, in terms of a convoy as being two or more, includes cars and larger vehicles but also motorcycles, as well.

The question that I also have is just around how the police will ensure that there is a clear distinction between what might be perceived as an antisocial convoy versus what might be a legitimate procession. Minister, it might be that you say, well, a procession, actually, unless it was “frightening or intimidating”, it doesn’t fit the criteria. But there is a view out there that “frightening”—which it might be that someone’s frightened because of the noise coming or emanating from a convoy—is an issue of perception or how one sees that. I’m just interested in the Minister’s response around that clear distinction between what might be seen as genuine antisocial convoys, but, also, we don’t want to capture some of those, perhaps, noisy club events, which some might see as legitimate, happening down the street or in areas, and how that distinction is able to be captured.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:17): Yeah, I mean, the member raises a series of interesting points, and, ultimately, these are going to be questions for charging and, potentially, the courts in the future. They’re questions of fact, ultimately.

The bill establishes the offence. The important point is “convoy” is defined as “2 or more motor vehicles”. I mean, that is a convoy. Clearly, when people think about a convoy, they maybe think about four or five vehicles in a line, but, actually, by definition—it’s a bit circular in some ways—it’s two or more. But the point is that any convoy of vehicles, by itself, is not committing an offence. To commit an offence for participating in an intimidating convoy, an individual driver must commit illegal street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, or otherwise driving in a reckless, careless, or dangerous manner, and they have to be travelling in a convoy—so two or more vehicles—and they have to be operating the vehicle in a manner that is either frightening or could cause intimidation.

That is actually a relatively high bar to meet, to be honest. The factual nature of the offence is inclusive rather than exclusive, so you have to meet those limbs, and then, ultimately, it will be over to the courts around the specific judgment as to whether or not someone has met those offences or not. But what Parliament is doing is setting down a very clear marker that intimidating convoys, as defined in the bill, are not appropriate, and we’re giving the police and the courts greater powers to crack down on those.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, before all of that around convoys, I want to start even before that. Madam Chair, can I just get your clarification, because when the previous Chair was there and was reading out Part 1, he said Part 1 is—unless I heard it incorrectly—clause 8. Can I just check that Part 1, indeed, goes back to clauses 3 and 4?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s the debate on clauses 3 to 23, and Schedules 1 and 2.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Awesome, thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Madam Chair. The first question is around clause 4, “Section 2 amended”, and this is to do with the interpretation of “registered person”—noting that this bill went to the Justice Committee, but because it’s not under my portfolio, I didn’t actually specifically take part in the consideration of this bill during the select committee stage.

Can I just check with you, Minister, with “registered person”, if it occurred either in discussions through select committee or with your officials, what happens in the context where the registered person and the driver are different people? Particularly, I’m thinking of instances—and this is something that we hear, you know, if let’s say a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old, it could be anyone. I see that in the electorate I’m based in, Epsom, in Tāmaki, all around, where children do borrow the vehicles of their parents. In those cases, the parent is the registered person, but the child might be the one who created the offence in that case. I want to check what considerations have you given, or considered, where either the court—or any other ways of addressing the balance where the parents may be unaware of a child using their vehicle and then the car gets impounded or, you know, additional things happening. I just want to check—that’s the first question, because it’s the first thing that pinged to me when I’m looking at the term “registered person”.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:21): I’m advised that the bill is quite careful to not just limit this to owners of vehicles or registered owners of vehicles, but wider than that. The reason for that is that you do not want to seem to create an incentive for other people who might have an interest who are in a vehicle, who are not the registered owner of the vehicle to bear the—to essentially engage in conduct that might otherwise be punished. So the bill is explicitly wide and that is a deliberate policy choice.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:22): Thank you for that, Minister. Just a little follow up. So just checking that, again, it’s incumbent on maybe case laws, etc., to start finding some of that balance between how that breadth that the Minister just mentioned is able to be, I guess, whittled down or potentially become a bit more specific through those case laws and as this bill gets implemented.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:22): I’m advised that the definition of “registered person” is added from Part 17 of the Land Transport Act to reflect that the term “registered person” is used throughout the Act.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: So it’s current. Ah.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister. The Minister made the point that this bill establishes the offence—and certainly, we do support the bill. When we look at the new requirement under section 39A(1)(d)—this is in clause 10—there needs to be an intention for the conduct that the person is engaging in to be “frightening” or “intimidating”. Now, what does the Minister’s expectation around how members of the police would be able to, effectively, reliably identify their intent exists, which is a requirement under that particular limb? I’ll just start with that one.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:24): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a general kind of question for the Minister. I’ve been around long enough to remember the first iteration of this legislation when I worked at Police. And so one of the main issues that I’m interested to know is whether he thinks this bill addresses the situation where you have someone who is engaging in illegal street racing activity, who has then registered their vehicle to their nana or their girlfriend or someone else in the immediate family, and so once the police apprehend that person and the vehicle’s impounded, potentially up for destruction, there will become a point where they go before court and the person who actually is the legal owner of the car—so nana fronts up and says, “I need it to get to bowls. I need it to get to work. I’ve got a hardship case here. Please don’t destroy my car because under this legislation, as to the previous one, there’s hardship grounds.”

And so a key reason why I think only two cars were crushed under the previous iteration of this legislation is that actually tying the registration of the vehicle to the person doing the driving—I’m not yet convinced that this actually navigates that same problem because, as far as I’m aware, by reading the bill, there’s still provision in there that if the registered owner fronts up to the judge and says you’re on a hardship—“I need the car to get to work. I need this vehicle,”— then, on those grounds, the vehicle is highly unlikely to be destroyed.

My question to the Minister is: what reassurance—maybe he’s getting it right now—or advice has he received to reassure New Zealanders that the same loophole that has been used in the past won’t come back to cause the same low level of destructions again?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:26): Thanks, Madam Chair. Whilst the Minister’s getting some advice, I wondered if I could just sort of chuck one more into that mix. Looking at clause 12, which reworks section 52 offences for failing to provide identifying information under sections 118A and B, sets fines of up to $10,000 or $20,000. Just looking at that, I wasn’t part of this process to date, but the Minister, I’m sure, will be able to elucidate on why the 14-day information offence is subject to a higher maximum fine than the immediate section 118A offence. And I suppose, further to that, what is intended to count as a reasonable excuse, especially where, as has been mentioned, a registered person genuinely doesn’t know who was driving. But, principally, the first part of that question is the one that caught my attention. Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:27): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I had a really specific question about clause 10, that’s the new section 39A, which refers to conduct in frightening or intimidating convoy. I’m just particularly interested in the words “frightening” and “intimidating”, because those are quite subjective, I guess, and why those words are particularly used in the legislation when they aren’t defined; “dangerous or reckless activity” seems to have a more clear objective test of what that means, but to describe a convoy as “frightening or intimidating”, I suppose will depend very much on who the person is who’s observing the convoy, and whether or not they find it to be frightening or imitating.

So I’m just curious about the use of that language in the legislation and whether it’s really necessary, because the rest of the subsections—this is in clause 10—the new 39A subsection (1), subsection (2) seem to refer more to dangerous, reckless activity, other than the subsection(1)(d)(i) “intending it to frighten or intimidate another person;”; or whether (ii) “knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, it is likely to frighten or intimidate another person.” is the legal test there, for the police—is it going to be obvious? Will it rely on there being witnesses saying they were frightened or intimidated? It just seems slightly unusual. Perhaps it is used in other bits of legislation. I’m not aware of it because I’m not the justice spokesperson.

But, yeah, my main question is just around the use of “frightening or intimidating” and that being a subjective test as to whether something actually is frightening or intimidating.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:29): Let me deal with a few of these issues. Both Mr Utikere and Ms Genter ask about frightening and intimidating. These are new offences; we’re saying that, with any new offence, there will need to be training for front-line police staff to train them up as to what frightening or intimidating means. And, ultimately, in the end, case law works that out. I mean, by definition, once you create a new offence, there will be cases—I certainly hope there will be. If there aren’t, well, that’s good—probably means we’ve eradicated the scourge of illegal street racing and intimidating convoys, but I suspect that won’t be happening. Ultimately, these are factual judgments by police and then the courts. The intent is to make sure that road users feel safe on the roads and are not intimidated or frightened due to other road users’ behaviour.

In relation to Ms Genter’s point, intimidating and frightening, I’m advised, are in the Summary Offences Act 1981 offence of intimidation, section 21. Though the offence is new in relation to the Land Transport Act and road behaviour, it’s not a term unknown to the New Zealand law, but, I mean, ultimately, the member’s right: is “intimidation” subjective? Well, at a level, yes, but also, you know, police and then the courts will make their judgment about it, and I’m not going to get into forecasting or laying down what that might look like, because exactly what it looks like depends on the factual circumstances.

In relation to Ms Andersen’s point, which is a good point, new section 142AAH, in clause 36, relates to “Presumption in favour of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used by certain offenders in commission of [an] offence”; new subsection (1) lays out the variety of offences there. “The court—(a) must order that the motor vehicle used be forfeited … or … forfeited and destroyed; and (b) may make an order prohibiting the offender from acquiring any interest in any motor vehicle within 12 months after the date of [this] order.” But then 142AAI lays out when the court must not do that, and that is when making such an order would be “manifestly unjust”—which, again, is a term well known to the law—or “result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person”.

So I think that does cover off some of the examples that the member was referring to. I mean, these things are a tricky balance in which you want to make sure that for yahoos who are out there at night causing mayhem, a very clear deterrent message is sent, but there’s also a balance there to make sure that—you know, there’s a “manifestly unjust” clause, as there are in many other parts of the criminal law.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just want to make a comment that the Minister of Transport just then did refer to some clauses in Part 2; I’d prefer to stay on Part 1 until we get there. I know he’s used them to make an answer and a case. We’ve covered off some good points, but I’m looking for some new points. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to move on, but I just want to check: I’m specifically looking at clause 10, and clause 10 is the part that introduces most of these new offences as well. I think a broader, policy-based question to the Minister of Transport, just looking at the regulatory impact statement: there are already existing penalties around recklessness, and I just want to check with the Minister what the rationale was for introducing additional ones when there are a number of existing ones—this is on pages 19 to 21 of the regulatory impact statement, that talk about existing penalties—being my first question.

I want to follow up on what the Minister is saying, because I agree with the Minister and I want to thank the Minister for your response around “frightening” and “intimidating” being reasonably new and something that’s introduced, and there’s potentially a level of subjectivity to it and it’s up to the court, but I’m looking at clause 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and those in particular raise the issue of when you’re looking at a particular crime, you have the actus reus and you have the mens rea, and this particular area is looking at the mens rea—the mental component of any particular crime.

When we’re looking at mens rea, you have the four levels: intention, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Negligence we won’t discuss here, but here it touches on three different points. For the Minister: just checking, how would one then, potentially, prove that there is intention to frighten and intimidate another person? Because the onus of proof over there would not be on an ordinary or specific person. You wouldn’t go and say, “Well, I felt frightened and intimidated.” You have to prove that the offender or the potential offender has intentionally done it, and that’s a much higher threshold. So maybe that is something that is a part of a legislative design, in which case that’s totally fair.

The second part, in subparagraph (ii) is “knowing that, or being reckless as to”. That is to do with knowledge and recklessness, which are also different tiers when we’re looking at the hierarchy of mens rea. I want to check with the Minister: having that in one group, are we conflating between what is considered knowledge and also recklessness?

So I want to just check on those two questions—oh, actually, technically three questions, at this stage.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:36): Well, I mean, it’s difficult to answer those questions. I mean, ultimately, the offence is the offence. So in relation to the issue the member was talking about, in relation to an intimidating convoy or frightening convoy, a person commits an offence if you meet the limbs in new subsection (1)(a), inserted by clause 10: you engage in “dangerous or reckless activity”, you operate the motor vehicle, and you engage in that conduct while part of a convoy—there’s those three limbs, and, also, you have to do that in a way that is intending to “frighten or intimidate another person”. Now, intention is part and parcel of what happens in the courts every day; it is judging intent as part of the mens rea, as the member says—he’s managed to pick up a law degree in his two years as an MP; well done. Then, of course, there’s a second limb, which is being reckless, which is a lower bar, obviously.

Those are, essentially, just issues for the courts, and what will be will be. I mean, our job in Parliament is to lay out what the offence is, and it’s the courts’ job and the police’s job to, essentially, apply it, and different circumstances will result in different offences. That is the law. Welcome to Parliament.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on two areas that have not been referred to yet, and this is picking up on the Minister of Transport’s reference to “convoy”. Convoy, for the purposes of new section 39A, inserted by clause 10, is identified there, but in the actual definition in 39A(4)(a), which we haven’t talked about yet, it seems that “convoy means a group of 2 or more motor vehicles travelling together”, and the other stuff kicks in there. It’s the word “travelling” that I’d like to ask the Minister about. In a circumstance where there can be, I don’t know—I hesitate to use the word “convoy”, but a gathering of, let’s say, three or so vehicles that are travelling and then suddenly they park up in the middle of the road for an extended period of time. If the vehicles are stationary and there is no physical movement, will this still permit the police at a point in time to utilise the powers that exist?

Now, you know, the point of the committee of the whole House is to delve into the details around this, as you know. The vehicles themselves actually might be coming independently to a parked vehicle, which is not two or more vehicles in the process of actually travelling but they go to a location independently, one by one, at which point they park up; they’re not moving. What’s that, Mr Luxton?

Cameron Luxton: I said it sounds clandestine.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, who knows, but, you know—I guess, is there a requirement for physical movement to be necessary for the purposes of the police wanting to engage this? We want the police to have these tools to be able to utilise in circumstances to dispel and dampen this terrible behaviour. But the use of the word “travelling”: is there a requirement for the vehicles to be in movement? What of the circumstance where there are, you know, three vehicles independently making their way to point A?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:39): It’s an interesting argument, except to be part of an intimidating convoy, you’d have to be doing street racing, burnouts, and dangerous driving, and so you’d have to be moving. You’d have to be travelling, and the intimidating convoy bit rests on those other offences.

Look, I’m not a street racer.

Tom Rutherford: He drives an EV.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I drive a Nissan Leaf. My Nissan Leaf doesn’t do any burnouts, by definition. But, as I understand it, it is difficult to do street racing and burnouts and dangerous driving while you’re parked.

Tangi Utikere: It could be noisy—it could be noisy.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, no. I mean, look, no—I mean, the short answer is no. You’d have to be travelling. There are other offences for blocking roads and things like that.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister of Transport for the answer. This is not an attempt to try and prevent the police from exercising those powers, but if the Minister is now saying that there are other tools available—for example, I think he said for blocking the road. The tools that are available to the police here are tools that the police have been asking for to dispel antisocial behaviour and gatherings that might exist, and so we’re just wanting to be very clear. In a circumstance where there are individual vehicles, let’s say, three of them, coming independently and making a whole pile of noise—which I thought was actually covered previously when we’ve talked about this as a form of behaviour that could be captured under this bill—and they park up, is the Minister now saying that there won’t be an inability for the police to engage powers to, effectively, move people on in this area?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:41): Yes. I’m advised that it’s not in this part that we’re talking about, which is about intimidating conveys. But in Part 3, with changes to the Policing Act, there are indeed powers in relation to that.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:41): I thank the Minister of Transport for that. Can I just pick up on the second point that I wanted to originally refer to, and that was in relation to clause 14. Now, this is about the types of impoundment for a 28-day period that might exist.

Under new section 96(1AB) in clause 14(2), there is no discretion for an enforcement officer under that provision when the person is engaging as part of a convoy for the intent to frighten or intimidate, or to cause some sort of undertaking of some reckless behaviour—that’s accepted. But it appears there that there is no discretion available to an enforcement officer to make any other decision, except to impound the vehicle that is in use for a 28-day period. Now, there is discretion further down, where it relates to a person who fails to stop, and there is a discretion because the enforcement officer “may” then seize and impound. Is the Minister comfortable that that differential between the two exists, and in circumstances where there might be a need to perhaps exercise some discretion, is he comfortable that that is actually an inability for an enforcement officer to follow in clause 14(2)?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:43): Well, just briefly on that, the short answer is, yes, I am comfortable. Both types of behaviour in new section 96(1AB) and (1AC) in clause 14 are bad, but one is worse than the other. It is true also that there is in new section 96(1AB) “An enforcement officer must,” but it does say “if practicable,” and so there is a practicality caveat in there.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question to the Minister of Transport around clause 10, new section 39A. Obviously, as was pointed out, there are four limbs to this before an offence is created—I mean, all four have to happen before that does occur—and I also note that a lot of these offences are existing offences. I wasn’t on Justice Committee, and so I didn’t go through this, but what are the new offences? If one of those limbs says that they didn’t operate in a convoy but they met all the other definitions, would that mean that someone could do an offence, but because they’re not in a convoy they could actually get away with the offence? I’m not too sure what the new offence is compared to an existing offence, which would, therefore, be able to be done by somebody if they just weren’t part of a convoy?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:44): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Further to the points being made by my colleague Tangi Utikere around impoundment, I just have a question for the Minister of Transport. We know that there’s an issue—we heard this at the Justice Committee from the police—that, particularly in parts of New Zealand that aren’t in the main city centres, sometimes there is only one towie operating in, say, Murchison or Ashburton, and places like that. Often the vehicles that are engaged in these illegal activities—some of them might be high end, but most of the time they’re probably not worth a lot of money. The problem we have is that if tow truck drivers are going to tow these vehicles and store them for a period of time before the case comes before the courts, that’s a significant cost to that tow truck company, depending on what the storage costs are in the particular city centre.

Sometimes there’s very little economic incentive for tow truck operators to actually take the vehicle away and impound it, and so I’m interested to know whether there’s been any work done to understand how this would work in practice and what the operational practicalities are if a vehicle is having to be stored for a period of, say, up to four, five, or six months before a case is coming up before a judge and the daily storage costs for that vehicle are not less than what the vehicle is actually worth. Even if the vehicle is successfully stripped and they can have access to that, the value of those parts would simply not be worth the cost to that operator for the storage let alone the destruction of that vehicle, and so is there Government funding coming with this to enable those operators who can’t store and deal with this issue? Is there going to be an allocation of Government funding to enable this to happen in a uniform manner across New Zealand, and, if not, is that an area which the Minister is going to investigate and potentially report back to us on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:47): The member raises good points, and these were considered during the policy design phase. The regime is designed to avoid additional capacity pressures or costs for operators. The main way to do that is by reducing the six-month impoundment for fleeing drivers and ensuring that offenders remain liable for outstanding costs after conviction.

It’s fair to say that no issues were raised through the select committee process by the towie sector, which is good. We will monitor it as it’s implemented, obviously, but I am comfortable with where we’ve landed, and, like with any new law, there’ll be some implementation time frames and we will have to see how it goes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now I just want to check, in moving on—and I do take the Minister of Transport’s response to my previous question. But think that it’s also important to note that when anything is caught, anything we do in the House—particularly during the committee of the whole House stage—some of those ministerial intentions, which the Minister has been really transparent with, are actually really helpful in any court of law.

I do want to move on to clause 12 and also maybe clause 14. I just want to start with clause 12. I have a couple of questions, and this is to do with section 52, which is being amended. I know that this relates to some of the later parts, but I wanted to check in terms of the fact that the change to the principal Act here is adding an extra tier of offence, which is liable. New section 52(4) in clause 12 provides that “A person who commits an offence against subsection (3) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.” With some of these convictions particularly now adding an additional threshold, I just wanted to check whether the Minister has considered what level of support there is, or whether this will increase the number of cases going through the District Court.

Now, understanding that particularly when it comes to the court system, one of the goals is around core timeliness, we have seen some additional resources being given to courts. But would this add an additional burden on to the court system by it now having multiple tiers or, potentially, having more people being subjected to it under this new section?

I want to touch on clause 14, “Section 96 amended”, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question around impounding. I think they are really, really important questions, and we are seeing that in other areas as well, with the automatic number plate recognition being another area where we’ve seen some additional, unforeseeable cost. If we’re looking at subclause (2), “After section 96(1A), insert: (1AB)”—it, essentially, touches on the question I asked before—in this case, “an enforcement officer … if practicable” and “on reasonable grounds”, what kind of training would you expect an enforcement officer to have—or if it’s something existing—on identifying the intention “to frighten or intimidate; or (b) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct is likely to frighten or intimidate”? That is my first question for this clause.

My second question for this clause is it says, “authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days”. That’s not up to 28 days; it’s specifically 28 days. Is there a reason why it’s not “up to”? Why is it exactly 28 days that’s been selected in this case? Those are my two questions for clause 14 for the time being.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:51): Kia orana, Mr Chair. I want to take a look at clause 16(2), which is replacing an entire section of the Act, 96AAB(1) and (2). I want to look at new subsection (2)(b). This is about the registered person or the hirer of a motor vehicle who’s failed to provide the information that’s been requested for the purposes of the offence. There’s the ability here for that person to be captured only where it’s without reasonable excuse, and it follows on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about reasonable grounds. What can one expect in terms of that threshold for a reasonable excuse? Now, we know that the police often, in other parts of legislation, are very familiar with this, but this is a new offence. Is it the Minister’s expectation that a similar sort of threshold when it comes to reasonableness is applied in relation to this particular offence? I guess that also goes to the point around how the police would be able to actively identify, distinguish, or tell apart the difference between what might be seen as a legitimate or legal or proper inability to identify a driver versus what is an intentional refusal. The intentionality of intentional refusal seems to be what captures a lot of what’s in this, but when we talk about “without reasonable excuse”, what can we expect that to mean for a police officer who’s going about exercising their powers under this piece of law?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:53): In relation to both of the last two questions, there will be training that the police will engage in. I’m not the Minister of Police nor would I seek to intervene in the operational procedures of Police, but I’m sure they will be doing that. “Without reasonable excuse” is a term well known to the law. The short answer is it depends, and I’m not going to sit here and pontificate about what “without reasonable excuse” means, because it will be fact dependent. That’s the point.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:53): I just want to check about the Minister’s statement before, because the difference between the existing penalty, which is in the regulatory impact statement, page 20. The wording that was used, let’s say, for reckless or dangerous driving—this is sections 7 and 36 of the Land Transport Act: it says “may confiscate” for the first offence, for example, when you’re looking at vehicles. But, now, with clause 14, it says: “the enforcement officer must”. That’s quite a change, because, now, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds, then they have to. There’s no choice but for that officer to seize or impound the vehicle for exactly 28 days, which seems to be taking some of the ability for officers to make some of those decisions and also taking away their flexibility, as well. I think that is quite a substantial change from existing policy. This is why I think the training piece is quite important, as is also knowing what this particular section is referring to.

The reason I’m honing in on this part, particularly when it comes to enforcement officers and the way that the officers are able to judge certain circumstances, is we have, with the most recent summary offences (demonstrations outside residential premises) amendment bill—or something along the lines of that—also questioned, particularly asking the Police at that stage, about how an officer would be able to judge some of those and be able to do what officers should predominantly be doing, which is to de-escalate a potential situation to the best of their abilities. My second question to the Minister is: if an enforcement officer must impound if they have any reasonable grounds, how would that work alongside the ability for the police to also de-escalate the situation?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transport questions about clause 20, which hasn’t been touched on yet. This is about the requirement for information to be provided around the identity of a driver or a passenger within 14 days. There is a little bit of discrepancy around the time frames throughout this bill. There’s no consistency. Is the Minister satisfied that 14 days is appropriate?

The other thing is that the Minister will be very aware of this because it’s a piece of legislation that he and his colleague has been familiar with around the introduction of, or capability for, electronic drivers’ licences. That 14-day ability to provide information which also aligns with the clause just immediately before it—sorry, Minister, I was referring to new section 118A(1) and (2), but before that, it says, “(4) The registered person or hirer [of the vehicle] must provide the information requested … (a) to an enforcement officer …”—yes, but—“(b) immediately after it is requested. The question here is: what is “immediately”? Is it that its context dependent straight away and, therefore, if the hirer or the driver of the vehicle doesn’t provide it straight away, then that empowers the enforcement officer to move on and engage this provision, or is there some other form around immediately after the request?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:58): In relation to court timeliness, which was a question asked some time ago, I’m advised we expect there may be some impact on the courts but not significant, and it will likely reduce overtime as deterrent effects take place.

Mr Utikere asked around 14 days. Yes, it’s true that there are different time periods throughout the bill, as there are throughout a variety of different Acts, but I don’t think a lot turns on that. In relation to the question about “immediately”: “immediately” means immediately.

Tangi Utikere: So, straight away?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yes, look it up—it’s in the dictionary—but “immediately” means immediately. Clearly, context goes into that in relation to offences, and, again, as I say, I’m not going to prognosticate around the range of circumstances and how things will play out factually.

In relation to the 28-day impoundment, I’m advised that 28-days of impoundment reflects existing Land Transport Act provisions and circumstances where a vehicle is impounded in relation to the information offence. The vehicle may be released before 28 days if that information is provided.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:59): Thank you, Minister, for adding that information, but that raises another question for me. If I look at clause 14—and we’ve just talked about amending section 96 to require the 28-day impoundment for the new convoy offence that we’ve just previously paid some attention to—it also allows for a 28-day impoundment for failing to stop, which replaces what is the current six months for failing to stop regime. I just wonder if you could tell us a little bit more behind the thinking of why the failing to stop impoundment period is, effectively, being reduced from six months to 28 days, while, certainly, the intentionality behind other powers is to strengthen them. Is there any kind of operational guidance that has informed that policy position, or is this just a practicality that I haven’t been able to see by flicking through that clause 14? Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:00): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve just been looking through some of the points outlined in the regulatory impact statement, so it’s more of a general point, but I’m interested to know from the Minister—one of the main areas that we’ve struggled with in the past is that there’s not strong science in deciding whether deterrence really effectively works or not. I’m just interested to know—there’s not a lot of analysis in terms of correlation directly between reducing offending and increasing community safety in line with greater penalties or increasing the threat of those. Road policing is a common one in this place, where you’re trying to weigh up the effectiveness, you’re trying to weigh up the cost efficiency and, also, proportionality—does the option impose a penalty that’s proportionate to the policy?

What we’ve seen in this space over time is an increasing of penalties, but it doesn’t really, over a period of time, appear to be having a significant impact on, potentially, those communities, like in Levin, where we’re seeing repeat instances of really unruly behaviour that’s detrimental to public safety—where you’re seeing injuries, where you’re seeing front-line officers having their lives put on the line. I know that the Minister knows that in the Hutt Valley there are “rev-head” areas, particularly around the western hills, where you can go up and rip off a burnout and go down again.

I’m interested to know if he thinks that, by just increasing the penalties in this space, this is actually going to have a meaningful difference to changing behaviour and improving community safety—particularly when there is avoidance behaviour that I’ve already referred to, where there is a culture of registering the vehicle to someone else, or doing things in a different way in terms of how the vehicle ownership is structured. Is deterrence really an option here, and does he think that that will have a meaningful impact on the type of antisocial behaviour that we’re seeing in our communities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:02): Deterrence, without getting too philosophical about it, is a core role of the justice system. Clearly, it makes a difference. If we didn’t have offences in relation to what I think most reasonable people would consider to be terrible conduct or bad behaviour, then people would do it. If it wasn’t against the law, people would do it more, and we would not like that as a society. Clearly, at some level, deterrence has an impact.

I think the member raises a good question around whether or not lifting the penalties is more of a deterrent. I would argue yes, because I think there is broad acceptance—as evidenced by the fact that I think most members of the Parliament are voting for the bill, including the member’s own party—and there is a recognition that the law as it stands at the moment has gaps, has a lacuna in the law, around dangerous behaviour and around reckless behaviour and convoys. That’s why the bill exists; there’s (a) a gap, or gaps plural, in the law that have been evidenced over time, and members in the House will be familiar with some of the behaviour that has led to this bill coming about, including in the Hutt, as the member says, but also Levin. I know Tim Costley is a strong proponent of this bill, and there’ll be other members, too.

Hon Phil Twyford: What about West Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Phil Twyford: What about West Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, is the member a proponent for tougher action in his seat of West Auckland? He’s nodding, so that’s good—that’s good. In fact, Councillor Shane Henderson is in the paper out that member’s way—

Hon Phil Twyford: Excellent councillor.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, he’s a smart proponent of greater urban density, which is not exactly why we’re here, but I’ll just give him a shout-out for that. Anyway, I understand, in relation to Mr Twyford’s point and Councillor Henderson’s area, that siren battles have been a real challenge. That is partly why the bill exists—to fill the gap in the law and then, secondly, get tough on those who commit these crimes. If you just go back to the start—why are we here—it is (a) to fill the gap in the law, and (b) to send a message through the Parliament, which is the ultimate lawmaking body in the country, that this behaviour is not going to be tolerated.

Communities get, rightfully, royally annoyed when they see siren battles, they see burnouts late at night—

Tangi Utikere: Yep, agreed—agreed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, in that case, let’s get on with it and get it through, and then bring it into law.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:05): Thank you, Mr Chair—I do want to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just be aware, we’re now into the realms of criminology. When the Minister starts using words like prog—prog—what is it?

Hon Chris Bishop: Prognostication.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah, prognostication.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Prognostication. Is it a word?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’m assured it’s a word. We’re getting near the end, but carry on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d also like to just mention that when we’re looking at new words of the day, the Minister has just used probably one of my favourite words, “lacuna”. I thought that was an excellent word. I used it all the time before in papyrology.

I do want to check a couple of things with the Minister. I’m looking at clause 20, section 118 replaced—specifically section 118(3). I want to start firstly with what the Hon Ginny Andersen or maybe Tangi Utikere mentioned before about “immediately”. I do want to check, in the context of subsection (3) of section 118, it does say that the “officer may request, orally or in writing”. I want to check; it doesn’t specify that the writing has to be immediately on the spot. Is there a feasible situation where the enforcement officer requests in writing via an email, or through a text message, later on to the person, and then now there’s an expectation that the person must respond immediately? I just want to check, does the “orally or in writing” for subsection (3), in this “immediate” section, also mean that the “orally or in writing” to the enforcement officer should be immediate and on the spot, as well? I think that’s an important clarification from the Minister.

My next question is something that the Justice Committee commentary has addressed before, so I think it’s important to engage with the Minister on this. It’s the fact that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) report, the consistency against BORA report on this bill, was silent on section 14 of BORA around freedom of expression. This is specifically in the context of a person who is potentially both the offender as well as the registered person of the vehicle. It’s the presumption against self-incrimination in that, because that was specifically mentioned. I want to check if the Minister has any thoughts around this presumption against self-incrimination, which is mentioned on page 6 of the commentary of this bill. The select committee report says, “Although we have not recommended any amendments to clause 20, we wish to highlight the matter”. The gap in the Land Transport Act as it stands doesn’t have any mentioning against self-incrimination.

The question I have for the Minister around this now, particularly for this section, as well, when we’re looking in the context of self-incrimination, is: often, when you’re looking at, in a criminal law sense, particularly for the police officer—when they’re stopping someone, a police officer will need to list the rights of the person to the person; the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. Are we then looking at now enforcement officers who may not be the police—or enforcement officers could only be the police—in this case, in the context of this amendment bill, also being required to be able to recite the rights to a person to at least allow them to understand that anything they say could potentially jeopardise their ability under the presumption against self-incrimination? Those are my questions for the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:09): In relation to self-incrimination, the bill simply adds additional offences to which the existing power to compel information about a driver will apply. The bill does not change any safeguards or rights with respect to this extended information offence, including the requirement that police must not use the information power on a person arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.

In relation to the commentary in the Justice Committee report, it is worth noting that that is in the commentary, but the previous Attorney-General, the Hon Judith Collins, assessed the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is found to be consistent. As the new Attorney-General—or new-ish Attorney-General—I agree with that advice. The vet is on the Ministry of Justice website.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move to what is a new clause—it’s in clause 20—which seeks to add to section 118B(3). This is relating to the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information about identify of the driver within 14 days.

Now, when we go to subsection (3), this talks about the fact that “The licence holder must provide the information requested … (a) to an enforcement officer;”—which I’ll come to my question on that one in a moment, but the second one is—“(b) within 14 days after it is requested.” So my first question to the Minister is within the 14 days after it is requested—what happens after the 14 days? Is it that there is no other alternative but for a charge to be filed or an infringement to be issued? Is there any discretion or flexibility around that? Because it might be that that’s certainly not the case. And, if so, is he satisfied that if someone happens to provide that information on the 16^th day after the request for a whole range of options as well—we’re talking about a transport service licence holder that might be in a particular set of circumstances where they’re not able to provide that information in a timely way—are there alternative options? Is there flexibility? Is there discretion available to apply that under subsection (3)(b)?

The second part of my question is Dr Xu-Nan has referred to electronic means. So if that information is to be provided—for example, by way of an electronic email; often that information is provided through an electronic email—how is there some certainty that the provision contained in subsection (3)(a) is met; i.e. is provided to an enforcement officer?

Now, further in this bill there has been some change, for example, around the revocation of infringements. Instead of that sitting with a police officer or a constable or an enforcement officer, that is removed and has been given over to the Commissioner for Police. So why is it that either the commissioner is not listed here and that those powers then are delegated, or that someone fulfils the requirement within 14 days, sends it by way of email to some generic address, or is it expected that the individual enforcement officer is the person who is going to be in receipt of that—I think the Minister understands by question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:13): I’m advised new section 118B is a redraft of an existing provision in the Land Transport Act—the bill doesn’t change that. So after 14 days, in relation to the member’s question, there is the discretion to prosecute, but it’s a redraft of what’s already there. That’s the law now.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to touch on the Schedules 1 and 2 that relate to this Part, because they have not been referenced in this debate or in this sort of questioning opportunity at the moment.

Schedule 1 does actually have quite a number of references in terms of sections related to the Land Transport Act 1998. All of these, as we can understand it here, relate to the maximum penalty that would be applied. Now, there are a number of individual sections that are listed there that actually have more than just a couple, in some regards. Is the Minister comfortable that all of those that are identified there adequately have been cross-referenced that need to be collected? There are so many areas that have been identified there. One assumes that what it’s going to do as it says there is replace “maximum penalty is” with “person is liable to”. So is that going to incorporate any potential range of penalty options that might exist and that’s the sort of genesis behind the change in terminology there as opposed to a maximum penalty?

In terms of Schedule 2, which is the other schedule that hasn’t been referred to yet, the Minister in the chair, as he, by his own admission, is the current—he says “new”—Attorney-General, so he may be able to shed some light on this. But when it comes to new Part 10 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998, Schedule 2 will seek to identify section 31, which is the application of when these amendments take place. Now, of interest, subsection (1) relates to the amendment applying only to when the offence is committed on or after commencement. We’ll get to commencement date in due course, but the second one is about the fact that “(2) An offence committed, in whole or in part”. What does “in part” mean? You either commit an offence in whole or—is this in relation to an investigation process that someone might be through a process of investigation, as opposed to part before commencement, remains subject to this Act as enforced before commencement?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. We’re coming near the end of this, members, so it’ll be pretty specific and new.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just actually want to ask the Minister a couple of very quick questions around the Minister’s amendment; noting that this Amendment Paper 508 has not gone through select committee stage but is relevant here for this Part 1. I just want to check with the Minister that, particularly when we’re looking at the new clause 18A that the Minister has amended section 98A(1)(a)(ii)—just checking. Oh yeah. I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale behind this particular part. Because with new clause 18A, this part refers to the authorisation to the Commissioner of Police to give notice prohibiting the sale or disposal of. I want to check, in this case, when you are looking at the changes, how would that work in practice? Also noting that it now requires a court to order the forfeiture or the forfeiture and destruction of the vehicle. Would that then mean that if the person did not give permission for that, the court now is able to do that instead? Is that the whole point is to close that particular loophole in the existing system?

I want to check specifically on new clause 18A. With that—no, actually, that one has been answered. So, yeah, I guess that particular one question for the Minister on his new Amendment Paper 508. Is it to do with now the court is able to do that instead of the registered person?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:17): In relation to Schedule 1 that Mr Utikere raises: yes, I’m comfortable the cross-references are correct, but you never know. [Interruption] Well, you don’t. I mean, yes, I’m comfortable, but also I’m not a legal drafter. As the member points out, there 20, 25—give or take—so let’s hope and wait and see.

I’m advised that the maximum penalty phraseology with the replacement that the person is liable to reflects modern day Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting, so it’s a drafting decision.

In relation to “in part”, I did take some advice about this. It’s an interesting little issue, which is Schedule 2. So “in part” covers the unlikely situation where the offence takes place at the time of or the moment of commencement, which is theoretically possible. If we passed this bill at midnight and there are some yahoos on the good streets of Palmerston North, you never know. Let’s hope not! The good local MP, I’m sure, will be very worked up about that.

Tangi Utikere: That’s right. You know it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Tangi Utikere: You know it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, ha, ha! Yeah.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:19): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): One final question for Ginny Andersen.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:19): Thank you very much, Mr Chair—that’s so good of you. I have a genuine question around new section 118B in Part 1. It’s the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information. I just want to know, genuinely, is that like a taxi driver or a bus driver? What is actually a transport service licence holder? I’m assuming it’s like a taxi driver.

Assuming that there’s been a boy racer or someone and then the taxi driver knows something about them—like know that they were the person who did the alleged crime. I’d just like to understand practically how this would operate. So then the police officer goes around to a taxi driver’s house and says, “Do you know about Gary doing a burnout? Did you see that?” And therefore, if he doesn’t cough up—if there’s some evidence that the taxi driver knows some information—will the police take the licence off the taxi driver for failing to provide the information? Just interested to know, practically, is it taxi drivers and bus drivers? What is the transport service licence holder, and how does this play into whether or not there’s a conviction for illegal street racer activity? I’m really, genuinely interested to know whether police have advice on how do you know if the Uber driver or the taxi driver isn’t telling the truth with their withholding information? And has there been any analysis on the risk of someone who relies upon that licence—for their weekly income, to provide for their family—if there’s been an allegation that they have information the police would like to receive, they don’t provide that. Can they lose their licence, and what’s the recourse for that should they lose it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:20): It’s the licence holder. So in relation to a taxi company, it’s the company; they hold the licence, that’s who it applies to. And there’s a range of—in 118B(1), (2), and (3), around that.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (17:21): 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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 508 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002, and Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 24 to 39—“Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”—and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I welcome the Minister into the chair as well. Look, the way I see things is that this is around the workability of the court process in terms of—not just in, well, empowerment by the police or by the enforcement officer, but actually the decisions to be taken by the court around destruction and all of those sorts of things. So it’s about workability.

My question for the Minister is in relation to clause 29. This is where section 129A is replaced. It’s around the “Confiscation and destruction after third illegal street racing offence if substitute owns or has interest in vehicle”. This is applying to someone who has been convicted of two previous offences—under a specified section of the Land Transport Act—and that there is a time period of four years before the current offence would have been committed. Now, in this provision it talks about “a substitute for the offender owns or has an interest in the specified motor vehicle;”. Now, I think section 123J relates to “substitute” and the definition, but my question to the Minister: given that there is a discretion that follows by the court in 129A(3), where the court does have discretion to order the destruction—well firstly the confiscation of the motor vehicle in question, and then the destruction and we’ll have some questions around that. But this use of the term “substitute”, is the Minister comfortable—well, you know, perhaps even first clarify what that term actually means, even though it’s contained in 123J. But is he comfortable that there is reference to a substitute as opposed to either the person themselves or any other way in which that provision could be expressed to meet the needs of the court’s consideration?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:27): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with a question around interpretation of this new subpart 5A which is clause 25. The two interpretations I want to check with the Minister on are the hire purchase agreement and lease.

Now, the hire purchase agreement. My understanding is, looking at particularly if, let’s say, what looks like the “soon to be registered person”—let’s use the terminology under the Land Transport Act and not the Sentencing Act. Let’s say you get the registered person, and this is to do with if they are buying a vehicle in instalments, or potentially other mechanisms, would that be the correct interpretation? We’re looking at hire purchase agreement.

The second question is: I understand if a lease does not include a hire purchase agreement, but what then would be the difference between a lease and a rental service agreement? Because surely “rental” and “lease” would have comparable meanings. So those two definitions are the two that I want to kind of explore, and get the Minister’s clarifications on first.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. You’ve been in the wars, Mr Chair. Poor fella.

Cameron Luxton: He’s been in a rumble.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Don’t you start. I’ll just address Mr Utikere’s question. It was around the definition of “substitute” and the question was “What does substitute mean?” At a high level, a substitute is either a registered party to, or a person who owns or has an interest in a vehicle that is used to commit certain offences by someone else. So in that context, the offender or driver can’t own or have an interest in the vehicle that was used to commit the offence. So that’s how you get the substitute reason in there.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:29): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do have a question for the Minister—and apologies, I think I asked this in the wrong section earlier. So there is a genuine issue with legislation here; in the past it’s resulted in very few vehicles being actually confiscated and destroyed. The primary reason for this is that they’re registered to somebody else, and when that person fronts up in court quite often hardship is used. We’re not backing away from the fact hardship is a legitimate reason, and we’re supportive of the fact that that can be used. But it has been, in the past, a fundamental reason why attempts to curtail street racing and illegal street racing haven’t been effective. Because they’re registered to someone else and because they front up to the court and say, “I need this to get to work”, and it’s hardship. I just would at least like to know if the Minister’s turned his mind to this problem. We asked this question in select committee, and we asked officials if they could even tell us how many vehicles under the previous legislation were up for being destroyed but weren’t, because this provision had been utilised, so that we could get an understanding if this was really a driving factor for why so few cars had been crushed under the previous legislation. It’s clear, from asking, that no one had even done that level of analysis. I’ve looked through the regulatory impact statement. I can’t see any analysis here either. If the fundamental problem is that cars aren’t crushed, because they’re registered to someone else and the hardship clause is in, what is it that will prevent that from occurring again?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:30): I should just finish off the remaining part of that answer to Tangi Utikere’s question, which is that the substitution won’t apply to this regime, because you need to have ownership or an interest in the vehicle. Just to clarify, that is, under my understanding, from the old regime.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:31): Thank you. Can I just follow up on my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen’s points and just take them one step further. It would be good to get a response from the Minister around this. Clearly there is an ability for the court, under clause 29, to consider when not to make an order. This is not actually saying that the default position will be that an order of the court will naturally follow but, instead, that there are circumstances where the court must not make an order, so there is no discretion in terms of its ability, but they must not. That’s outlined in new section 129A(4), and it does talk around the “undue hardship”. Now, naturally, this is kind of interrelated. Now, my colleague referred to the lack of information in front of the select committee at the time. Now, it’s worth noting that there has actually been a significant passage of time since this bill emerged from select committee and we’re dealing with it now. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister if any further information is forthcoming and if any modelling has been undertaken to deal with the issue around capacity. Now, we support this bill, and we think it will provide a legislative framework to give Police the tools to do so, but we also want to make sure that this bill, as it stands currently, is going to be able to be enforced. What we very clearly have in this country is a track record when it comes to giving Police and Ministers the tools to be able to do this, but, actually, the number of cars that were crushed under “Crusher” Collins was actually much fewer than perhaps some thought would have been the case. It is an important—

Carl Bates: Because the deterrent worked.

TANGI UTIKERE: What’s that?

Carl Bates: Because the deterrent worked.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, you know, we’re back here with another piece of Government legislation to deal with this issue, and it’s important that we have a look at what that will mean in terms of its workability. To the Minister, have the Government or officials done any modelling on the actual number of vehicles that could be forfeited, not confiscated, not impounded, but forfeited? Forfeiture means you give it up whether you like it or you don’t. Is there any modelling that’s been provided around forfeiture? That presumption, if you’re wanting a legislative reference, sir, is new section 142AAH. That’s the new presumption for each year, so has any modelling been undertaken?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. There were some questions from Ginny Andersen and also Tangi Utikere about hardship and numbers around vehicles that were confiscated under the previous regime. There are some statistics and numbers available, and I can read them out to the committee. Between 2014-15 and 2024-25, for street racing and burnouts, failing to stop, and failing to provide information, there were 136 confiscation orders, three confiscation and destruction orders, 24 destruction orders, and two forfeiture orders. Because of the way that the information is collected decentrally—it’s collected through district courts—it’s almost impossible to tell how many orders weren’t given or weren’t made based on the offending at hand. It’s very difficult to collect that information. However, now that there’s a presumptive mechanism in place, we would expect higher numbers, because the presumption is for forfeiture unless an order is made not to do so. From now on, we’ll be able to better collect statistics around the number of confiscation and destruction orders as compared to those which are not made because of that presumption. I guess it’s just generally not possible—well, it’s hard—to accurately describe how many vehicles will be forfeited and destroyed under the new regime. It will depend on whether the court orders forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction and on the circumstances of the case.

Then, just finally, on the hardship question that was raised, the court must not make an order when there’s undue hardship to a substitute for the offender. That’s the case where an offender is driving someone else’s vehicle—if I get this right—and an order for destruction of that vehicle would cause undue hardship to the substitute, to the person who owns the vehicle. That might be an instance where a court must not make the order.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:35): Thank you. I thank the Minister for that response there. It does beg the question whether there’s been any assessment on the administrative burden on the Ministry of Justice, for example—particularly given this Government is making cuts to the Public Service—and their ability to be able to carry through on there as well.

I want to ask a question about clause 32. Now, clause 32, as it’s titled there, is the amendment around the “Offender must not acquire new interest in motor vehicle for [a period of] 12 months”. This is a circumstance, as we understand it, where someone has been convicted of an offence under this Act and they would not be able to acquire a new interest. They could retain an existing interest perhaps, although maybe not if their vehicle had been forfeited and disposed of. But we have this real situation where it is possible where offenders who might not acquire an interest in a new motor vehicle as such for a period of 12 months but they certainly might perhaps apply some pressure on to other family members who might be, perhaps, in vulnerable circumstances for them to acquire the vehicle and for the person themselves to actually undertake the use of it.

So is there a difference in acquisition of an interest in a motor vehicle and actually losing one’s licence so that you’re not able to actually drive? It’s one thing to say you’re not allowed to acquire any additional interest in motor vehicles. Of course, it’s a new interest, so it’s one that they didn’t, obviously, used to have, but how is that going to serve as a deterrent where it is entirely possible for—and we hear about it—those that don’t necessarily have an interest in a motor vehicle but they’re able to get around that by having a family member acquire the interest for them and, therefore, potentially still have the offender utilise aspects of the vehicle themselves?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:38): One possible deterrence factor in preventing someone from acquiring an interest in a motor vehicle may well be that it’s just not cool to have the vehicle that you race around in being owned by your mum. That could be a deterrence factor. There is quite a lot of pride and respect given to car ownership. As a young person who once owned my own car, it would be a deterrent, I would have thought, to me and my friends to not be able to own vehicles. Some of these activities are based on the status of that person, and, sometimes, one of the deterrents might be that if you don’t own your own vehicle and you’re running around in your mum’s Honda Civic, you might not have that status or be as cool to your mates any more. That could be a deterrent against this kind of behaviour, so that’s one possibility.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:39): I just have some further questions in relation to the provisions around “Forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used in specified offences”. We’ve traversed the two key problems with “We’re worried about the towies not picking up the cars and storing them without any cost allocation.” We’ve covered that in Part 1. We’ve also covered the concern that there has been a history with this type of legislation where we don’t see the level of destructions, because of loopholes that have been utilised. I really would like the Minister to comment on whether he thinks a really good deterrent—a really good, effective way of getting on top of this problem—would be better resourcing of front-line police.

Because my understanding, when I visited those areas that have a disproportionate number of antisocial road users and boy racer activities that are disturbing the public, was those areas that have actually managed them better have had a dedicated group of road policing where those police officers get to know the repeat offenders. They repeatedly green-sticker them or sticker their vehicles; they have a dedicated resource that goes out into key areas and polices. It’s in some of those places where we have seen that where there’s been a dedicated resource in place has been the most effective way to ensure that communities are not disrupted in an ongoing manner. And it’s been where those areas are tight on resourcing—they have inadequate front-line police resource to be able to do that—where we see this behaviour where they do a one-off sting and then there’s retribution by the boy racer community, and we end up seeing potentially an escalation that not only endangers front-line police officers but also increases potentially the risk to bystanders and community members when we’re having this kind of retribution and escalation of activities going on.

I’m interested to know whether he has a view that some of the weaknesses that we’ve already discussed in this bill might be actually encountered that if, for example, we’d reached the 500 by now—promised police that was meant to be achieved in, I think, November last year; was it September? I forget—that it’s actually a police resourcing issue to be able to have adequate police officers who can routinely and regularly check in; that they have good intelligence on who those repeat offenders are and they’re able to use an existing range of legislation to be able to apply this in a way that is consistent, that is clear, and that there is an understanding within that community that this is not tolerated. My concern is that this is the second time National’s had a crack at this bill. Wouldn’t you be better off just appropriately resourcing the front-line police to do their job as they can instead of them being so stretched?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:42): We may be a wee way from the strict clause of the bill, but the question is an important one. Of course, resourcing our police and our justice sector is incredibly important to us. That’s why Budget 2026 invested $1.3 billion into law and order, led by people like justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. That includes $391 million for front-line policing resources, upgrades to our police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, and of course investment in technology to better track and apprehend the criminal actors in our country. Of course, one of the best deterrents—along with resourcing our police force—is the certainty and swiftness of punishment under our law and order system, which has proven to be an effective deterrent. That is the point and the purpose of this bill.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at new section 142AAI, inserted by clause 36. This is where a court must not make an order under new section 142AAH. Now, this is in relation to either a forfeiture order, where the vehicle is forfeited to the Crown; or a forfeiture and destruction order, which speaks for itself—it’s forfeited to the Crown and then it’s crushed.

Now, the court needs to be satisfied—there are a couple of things there about the “manifestly unjust”, OK, they won’t make an order there; the resultant “extreme hardship to the offender”, so not just hardship but a higher threshold of extremity there; or “undue hardship to any other person;”, so that could be, one assumes, a family member or perhaps an impact of hardship on the household that might relate to employment prospects if someone is reliant on a vehicle for their employment and that means that the household would suffer.

Now, in new subsection (b), though, it talks about the fact that for any of the following sort of offences that were committed, if the vehicle was “stolen or converted” at the time. Earlier on in this bill, there are four offences. Only three of them are captured here for there to be some discretion for the court not to make an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction. It is the “aggravated failing to stop an offender:” as an offender, the “frightening or intimidating convoy” piece, or being a street racer in terms of activity. The one that’s missing out here is the offence where you fail to provide information when requested to do so by an enforcement officer. That naturally creates a little bit of an anomaly in terms of the four offences in this bill that have been identified, three of them are captured under here where the court may not place an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction. But that then implies that there is no discretion for someone who fails to provide information and that the court must then actually either make a forfeiture order or a forfeiture and destruction order for an offence of that nature.

The question for the Associate Minister of Transport is why there is that discrepancy as part of Part 2. It might be that the Government is relying on a provision elsewhere, but surely if there are four offences contained earlier in Part 1—no issue with the three being carried over, but why is the anomaly with one of them not being carried over?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (17:46): I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps the Associate Minister of Transport would like to take a bit of time to respond to that, but I will move now to the new section, which is new section 142AAJ, inserted by clause 36. We haven’t talked about this. This is the offence to sell or dispose a motor vehicle that is subject to forfeiture or a forfeiture and destruction order. We assume that someone has gone—an offender, a charge has been laid, the court has made an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction, and that is not going to necessarily happen over time. We therefore infer that there is a time period that a vehicle would be subject to that court order, whatever that period might be.

Now, it seems that there are circumstances where someone might interfere with that court order in that process. This particular subsection, 142AAJ(2), identifies that if someone actually does that—if someone does either interfere with a vehicle by selling it or disposing of it—the person is then liable to a conviction; to a fine not exceeding $2,000. Well, what if a person sells it for 15 grand? What if someone goes through and sells a vehicle for something that is more than $2,000? What provision is there, Minister, to recoup effectively a profit that is made when someone’s—and, as we know, often in the court system the maximum is not applied; maybe the maximum might be applied in those circumstances of $2,000 because someone made a net gain of 13,000 bucks. There is a question there around the level of the fine—whether that is appropriate—but also where is there, if anywhere, a provision to recoup effectively profit that might be gained by someone who can gerrymander an outcome, effectively, in their favour?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:48): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just had a couple of questions in relation to the process outlined in the legislation pertaining to appeal by a third party against forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction—I think that’s new section 142AAM, inserted by clause 36, on page 24 of the legislation. This section applies if the court has made, in respect to the vehicle in question, an order for forfeiture of the vehicle or forfeiture and destruction, and it provides that the person may appeal to the appropriate court on one or more of the following grounds. This is my question: is the third party another impacted person, or is that applying to the person who did the illegal street racing? That’s my question.

The forfeiture or the forfeiture and destruction order—as we’ve already discussed—can cause hardship. But also, if the appellant is a secured party under the security agreement relating to the motor vehicle but has no relationship of another kind to the offender. Maybe it’s a financer, so there’s the cut of cars over a long period of time being paid off and there’s actually a company that owns part of the car. Is that able to stop that destruction if they’ve got a financial interest in part of that car that’s going to be potentially destroyed? It also provides that the appellant is the lessor of a motor vehicle under a lease that has no relationship of another kind with the offender.

Another situation would be that the motor vehicle was on hire at the material time in accordance with the rental service licence under the Land Transport Act, and I’m really interested to understand what the chances of that are. I mean, there’ll be lots of financial companies out there who would be interested to know that if they’re required to lodge the appeal within 20 working days after the date of the order, what if they miss that? If they’re late or if they’re not notified, is there any way through the legislation for the courts to notify that potential entity that has a financial interest in order for them to have notification within the 20 working days after the date of the order? How would that be carried out through the courts?

Also noted here is the service of the notice of appeal. It talks about the prosecutor in the proceeding that has resulted in the relevant conviction, and how that is actually being served upon some of those—and sometimes there are finance companies, and sometimes they’re on high-interest terms in many of these situations. I’m really interested to know how the communication of that court order is done and how we’d find the person who is the interested party.

I also have another question, and I’m really sad that Chris Bishop is not able to be answering that one, but I’m interested to know this from the Minister in the chair. When the first car was crushed under the previous legislation, I vividly remember that it was Anne Tolley who was the Minister at the time. There was a great front-page picture of her in a pink high-vis vest and stiletto heels standing on top of the crushed car, and I was just wondering whether we would get the same undertaking from the current Minister of Transport to re-enact that photograph.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:51): I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think they make heels in my size at the moment, and so I can’t make that—

Hon Ginny Andersen: They do—I think they do.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Oh, they do? Well, there you go—never say never.

Look, just to address the questions from Mr Utikere and Ginny Andersen, there was a question on new section 142AAI in clause 36, about why the offence of failing to provide information offenders is not being carried over. It’s because the provision itself anticipates a vehicle which is stolen or converted, and if you were an individual who was asked to provide that information, it would be a reasonable excuse not to provide that information because, as the owner of the vehicle, you wouldn’t necessarily know who the thief is. So it wouldn’t be necessary to port that provision over because the two wouldn’t necessarily marry up.

The second question, I think, or the second contribution was around the proceeds of sale. I think that the key point to that one is that if the offender sells a vehicle despite an order, the courts can recover from the proceeds of that sale. That’s the key point around that issue.

Then there was the first of two questions from Ginny Andersen. The first one was around third parties. The third party must be a person other than the offender—I think that that was the key thing—and the court must then set aside the order of forfeiture if one of those grounds of appeal in subsection (2) applies.

The final point was around notification. The third party is notified of the order by the court and can then apply to the court to have the vehicle transferred to them, or the proceeds thereof.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:53): 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 101

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

Noes 21

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

Part 2 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 p.m.

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

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Amendments to other legislation and consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good evening, members. Before the dinner break we had a vote on Part 2 of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 40 to 49—“Amendments to other legislation and consequential amendments”—and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:30): Kia orana. Good evening, Madam Chair. I’ve got a number of questions. This is a pretty important part, because, I guess, fundamentally it gives the police the particular powers to do a whole range of different things, because it seeks to amend the Policing Act 2008. I want to direct the Minister’s attention first to clause 42, which relates to the temporary closing of roads. This is a whole replacement of section 35. It effectively identifies where there is a need for the police to utilise the new power to close a road or part of a road to traffic.

When we look at replacement section 35(2), this is about the power to close a road or part of a road to traffic: “The constable may temporarily close to traffic any road, or part of a road,—(a) leading to or from the place;”—which is fine. But there’s a second paragraph there, (b), which is “in the vicinity of the place.” Now, given this is a specific power that would restrict the liberty of people to move around freely, it is important that the powers are appropriately defined. My first question for the Minister is, where it refers to “the vicinity of the place”, how is that going to be defined?

If we think about different parts of the country—rural parts of the country; urban parts of the country—they are quite different in terms of landscape and how they are laid out. Can the Minister give an undertaking—and if he does, it would be good to understand the scope of that undertaking—that this won’t be used as a power, for example, to completely close off whole suburbs in communities? I want to just understand what “the vicinity” looks like in terms of a definition for the police utilising that power.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:32): I think generally we’ll just take a plain statutory interpretation to wording in our statutes and look at the plain English meaning of the word in its context and in light of its purpose.

If you look at what the part of the Act is trying to do, it’s giving police the power to temporarily close roads. That power already exists in the current Policing Act. The member was right to raise that this will also give the power to close to traffic any road or part of a road in the vicinity of a place in which disorder is or a range of other effects. Taking a common-sense approach, it would be a reasonable location from the particular place where the disorder or the danger exists for a reasonable time for the purpose of maintaining order over that place. It would be a stretch, I think, to try and stretch this to an entire suburb, but it would always be context dependent, depending on the circumstances with which the police are faced at the time. I think it’s a reasonableness approach about what “vicinity” might be.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that—the context-dependent aspect. I won’t, then, go into the other parts of that particular subsection, because he has addressed that.

One change that the select committee did make when it comes to new section 35A—this is specifically in relation to utilising the grounds of antisocial road use. In new section  35A(1)(b) “a person is operating, or may reasonably be expected to operate, a motor vehicle at or near the place in a way that—(iii) causes, or is likely to cause, damage”. It was “substantial damage”. Is it just that the utilisation is not really trying to find a quantifiable as to the type of damage but just that damage itself exists?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:34): I’m just trying to dig through the select committee report, because I think that was a change made at the select committee stage. We’ve got page 3 of the report: the select committee reports back that “the reference to ‘substantial’ could limit the Police’s ability to apply the new power. Further, it would require them to also consider whether any damage or potential damage was substantial, which could invite legal challenge.” The committee recommended deleting the word “substantial” from new section 35A(1)(b)(iii), and the House agreed to that change at the second reading.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:35): Thank you, Madam Chair; thanks, Minister. I want to move now to new section 35A(4). This is about where a constable is, effectively, utilising the power to do two things for a person: either you’re not to enter this particular area or you are required to leave. This is a very important piece of the legislation because it outlines the power for the constable to engage that rest there.

In a circumstance where a place or part of a place is closed, there needs to be some way in which that information is easily and readily relayed to members who are there. It is highly possible that there will be individuals that might be in the area that’s just been closed by a constable who may not know what’s going on there. If we think about a neighbourhood, for example, this is very common when it comes to some antisocial behaviours that are undertaken in neighbourhoods where someone might be coming out of a property or nearby, they happen to be in the area, and there is now a requirement to give some direction for people to vacate or move on from that area.

Now, it’s not clear as to how that direction would take place. It is likely, I assume, that it is by audible means that a constable is empowered to simply indicate, “Right, you need to move on.” or whatever it might be. Is there any concern to be expressed by the Minister that there needs to be anything else around this? Is it his expectation that the police would utilise methods of communication that might be befitting of the gathering—if we’re talking about large gatherings, for example, an announcement by loud hail speaker, those sorts of things?

I think it is important, because it’s one thing for the police to have power—we don’t have any issues with that power—but it is important for those who are there, either they are part of the initial gathering or may have joined subsequently, that there needs to be an understanding as to how that particular direction is expected to be relayed to the community, so they don’t find themselves falling foul of this.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:37): The police currently have temporary closure powers that they do exercise, and there is existing supporting guidance within Police about how they direct people with regards to those powers. In terms of how the police do that, there is existing guidance within Police operations.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Tracey McLellan, did you still want a call? Oh, have you deferred to Tangi Utikere?

Dr Tracey McLellan: No, it’s all right. You carry on with your line. I’ll skip ahead.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:38): Thank you. I appreciate the Minister for his answers. I think—yeah, no, OK, I accept that.

Moving on to subsection (5) in new clause 35A, inserted by clause 42. This is talking about what is an accessible place. It’s important that we get the definitions right, where it says it’s “a place that is capable of being used, or is being used, by the public”. Now, what if it is a circumstance where it is a road that is capable of being used by the public but it is, effectively, already closed to the public?

I’m sure the Minister will have in his own electorate examples from time to time where there are stretches of road—or, indeed, parks or reserves—where a number of these gatherings can potentially take place. Let’s not forget that we are talking about antisocial road-use behaviour. That does not have to mean that we’re talking about a complete stretch of road; it could be a car park area, for example, where a number of these activities are undertaken. In a circumstance where access to the public has effectively been closed—to those that might have longer memories of Palmerston North, we have a place called “Pork Chop Hill” up there. It’s not called that any more.

Glen Bennett: Tell us more.

TANGI UTIKERE: No, I’ll leave that for others to talk about their own experiences, Mr Bennett, in terms of “Pork Chop Hill”—and I do like a pork chop. That was often an area where you would see some antisocial behaviour, and that would be utilised alongside vehicles. There were times when that was, effectively, closed. It wouldn’t be available to be publicly accessible because it was closed to the public. How does this bill kind of relate with that and the ability for the police to still have powers in that circumstance?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:40): Well, I don’t know what goes on up at Pork Chop Hill, but even if it had a sign saying “closed” or maybe had a fence or gate which closed off access, the section itself defines a place or accessible place as a place that is capable of being used or is being used by the public for motor vehicle access.

If it is capable of being used, I guess you’d have to look at the definition, or, again, the context-specific circumstance of “can the public actually access that place at the time; is it capable of being used?” If there is a gathering up on Pork Chop Hill of members of the public doing whatever it is they do on Pork Chop Hill, outside their car, if they’re capable of accessing it and if the place is capable of being used, I guess it would fit that definition of an accessible place, regardless of whether or not they are lawfully entitled to be there.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tangi Utikere.

Hon Members: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:41): Thank you, Madam Chair—she’s already called me, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just called Tangi Utikere.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Chair. For clarity, Pork Chop Hill is now known as Te Motu o Poutoa: Anzac Park, and there’s a lot of change that’s happened here, but that’s all good.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Who would’ve made the connection?

TANGI UTIKERE: There you go. [Interruption] Still do. Now, I want to ask about new section 54D—this is a new part of “Infringement offences” and how they are dealt with, under clause 44. Clause 44 is inserting a whole range of different options there.

I did allude to this in a previous part when Minister Bishop, I think it was, was in the chair and I was asking questions about the ability of an enforcement officer and aligned that alongside the commissioner. This one here, section 54B(2), is where an infringement notice may be cancelled or revoked before a payment is made. The change that the Justice Committee has made has been to remove that power or reference from a constable and to put it with the Commissioner of Police. Now, I understand from the committee’s report that that is because that reflects the way in which things are done and it also allows for a more independent kind of approach to that, rather than that focusing on constable by constable having that particular call.

Is the Minister comfortable that the changes that have been, effectively, agreed to by the House, through the select committee process—that that is a comfortable move in terms of the commissioner, and that there aren’t other parts within the bill as currently in front of the committee where those changes should also take place? That’s the first thing.

The second thing is about new section 54D, which is how the infringement notice may be served. Now, there are some changes there that relate to the inclusion of postal address. There is also some language in there about it, basically, being served by prepaid post and all of those sorts of things. I’m assuming, Minister, that that’s just an accurate reflection of how infringements are treated elsewhere within Police, and, if that is the case, whether he’s comfortable that that, effectively, is fit for purpose for the future.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:43): Yes, I think I can confirm both of those assertions by the member Tangi Utikere. The second one is that it, essentially, just reflects how infringement notices are served in part of the statute, but also just in general. I think the Justice Committee added some structure to better define where you could send it to, and the messages around prepaid post are probably accurate, although postage is quite expensive these days, so I’m sure the Police, like most organisations, are looking to cover their costs and maybe send things electronically one day, if we get to that point.

The point around replacing “constable” with “Commissioner”: it is outlined again, as the member said, in the select committee report. Essentially, having it with the constable wouldn’t fit well with the current system. The function currently sits with the Police Infringement Bureau, and so the committee recommended amending new section 54B, inserted by clause 44, to replace references to “constable” with “Commissioner”, and that’s consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the Policing Act.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Part 3 agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Schedule 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Schedule 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Schedule 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 508 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 101

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

Noes 21

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

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:49): I’ll take a quick call just to point out that the commencement is one of those commencements where the Act comes into force not the day after Royal assent but on a couple of dates. The first is that the bulk of the Act comes into force six months after Royal assent—that’s to give Police time to operationalise the changes in the legislation. The second is, if we look at clause 2(2) and (3), there are some provisions that will come into force on a date set by Order in Council or, as a backup, the second anniversary of the Royal assent. Those provisions are all around the new infringement processing system, so that just reflects that it may take some time to get the new infringement processing system in place and so the law won’t come into force until that system is in place. It could be faster than six months, or it could be slower.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Associate Minister of Transport for that. There were some questions around why there are different approaches there, and the Minister said that it gives adequate time. We obviously want to see this bill as containing tools available to the Police as soon as is possible, but we obviously accept that there needs to be an opportunity to operationalise that. Having said that, is it the Minister’s expectation that, even though all the provisions will come into effect as outlined under clause 2, the roll-out of all of this will be across the country at the one time?

The reason why I’m sort of asking this question is that we do have, for example, previous legislation when it comes to roadside drug testing, where working through select committee we had an expectation that it would come into effect, but the actual roll-out of that operationally has been staggered in particular areas until it’s got to a point where it’s across the whole country. While, on the one hand, the Minister is saying that it’s been given time—and hopefully adequate time—so that it’ll be rolled out as soon as it possibly can, we want to make sure that it works. I’m just checking that the expectation is that this will be applied across all policing districts rather than a staged or staggered roll-out.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:51): The intention is for it to be rolled out across the country all at once. There aren’t the same, I guess, kinds of equipment requirements that were necessary for the trials or the pilots for the drug-driver testing. I should just clarify that, earlier, I said, strictly under clause 2, the commencement date for those infringement provisions could, in theory, be earlier than the six months, but it’s unlikely to be, because the offences need to be in for the infringements to apply, so it’s likely that, all going well, we can get it all in at the same time.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:52): Thank you. I guess this might be my final contribution in relation to clause 1, the title. This is, obviously, a bill that contains a number of different measures that seek to amend a number of different Acts, but primarily the Land Transport Act and the Policing Act.

What we’re wanting to do here in providing our support for it is to quell the disorderly behaviour that is associated with the choices that some use, that has an absolute impact on communities. We certainly don’t support that, but we often say that what it says on the tin is what it actually is about. Is the Minister comfortable that, actually, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is what it should be called, or should it be something that, actually, is more of a focus on antisocial use by road users and the impact that that has on communities and the need to empower our police out in communities so that they have the tools to deal to what is terrible behaviour that goes on and causes a lot of negative focus and experience out in the community?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:53): Yeah, I think the select committee was comfortable with this title, and we are too. The member makes a good point that the purpose of the legislation is to clamp down on antisocial road users, but also inherent in that is the road use itself, so we’re comfortable with the title. We think it explains pretty well what the bill does.

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 21

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Legislative Statement

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:56): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

Third Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:57): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Colleagues, today is a great day for communities up and down New Zealand. People have had enough of the chaos, the fleeing police, illegal street racing, burnouts, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, intimidating vehicle convoys, and siren battles. These activities are not harmless thrills. They are disruptive, they’re dangerous, and they’re deeply damaging to the sense of safety that people deserve in their own neighbourhoods. This bill is about restoring order, restoring confidence, and restoring the basic right of people to feel safe in their own streets. Throughout the legislative process, the purpose of this bill has remained very clear—to ensure that Police and the courts have the right tools and penalties to deter antisocial road use and to protect the public. After select committee scrutiny and very robust debate at committee of the whole House, I’m confident that we have a bill that does just that. The bill hasn’t materially changed since it was first introduced into the House in July 2025. I think that reflects the mandate that there is for these changes both from communities and from this House, as well as the well-crafted nature of the legislation, of course.

None the less, I will celebrate some of the key features one last time. First of all, presumptive sentences. At the heart of this bill is the establishment of presumptive sentences of vehicle forfeiture or of forfeiture and destruction. This applies to first and subsequent offences of illegal street racing or burnouts. This presumptive sentence will also apply to the new offence for individuals participating in an intimidating convoy and the extended offence for failing to provide Police with information that will help them to identify drivers. Let’s be clear what this means under the new legislation: if anyone out there commits any one of these offences, their vehicle will likely be forfeited or crushed.

In the House, today, we tabled a minor and technical Amendment Paper in advance of the committee of the whole House debate to carry over the Police’s existing power to prevent the sale or disposal of a motor vehicle following impoundment, and this helps to ensure offenders’ vehicles are forfeited or destroyed. Another thing this bill does is it gives Police stronger powers. We are giving Police the ability to temporarily close a larger range of areas, notably those areas that are used for antisocial road use events and behaviours, such as beaches and car parks. The bill also creates a new $1,000 infringement fine for anyone who fails to leave a temporarily closed area when directed to by Police. These powers will help Police to prevent and manage unruly antisocial road use events, which can attract hundreds of participants and bystanders.

It’s not always safe for police to respond at the time of the event. Much of this dangerous behaviour occurs at night, which poses some enforcement challenges for our police. This bill will strengthen the existing powers that police have to help them identify a broad range of offenders and will penalise vehicle owners who then withhold that identifying information.

Finally, to the issue of siren battles, and we all know what these are and we all know what we’re talking about. This bill will increase the penalty for excessive noise coming from within or on a vehicle to $300—no more $50 slaps on the wrist. This is primarily to target and deter what’s known as siren battle behaviour, where people compete with each other to make the loudest noise. It reminds me a lot of Parliament sometimes, and maybe we need some siren battle prohibitions here in Parliament.

Submitters and other members of the public have spoken or have written to our offices to remind us how distressing this is. It’s distressing due to nights of having no or disrupted sleep because of this totally inconsiderate behaviour.

It’s important to note that the bill maintains important protection. Appeal rights remain available, courts maintain discretion as to whether or not offenders are allowed to purchase new vehicles, the new offence for participating in an intimidating convoy applies to individual drivers rather than a whole convoy, and—let me repeat what has been said many times—this bill does not target car enthusiasts or legal car meetings. It targets illegal, antisocial behaviour.

I thank my colleagues and previous Ministers of Transport for commencing this work, alongside the Minister of Police, the Hon Mark Mitchell. I want to recognise colleagues from across the House who have also supported this bill and its passage throughout select committee and here this evening. Finally, thank you to the members of the public, the councils, organisations, and the community who have submitted on this bill and who have told us how these events interfere with their sleep, restrict access to their homes, and create an atmosphere of intimidation. It is their experiences which reinforce why this legislation is necessary, and today is a win for those who have been asking for action. I think that we all commend this bill to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:02): Madam Speaker, thank you. Kia orana. I rise as Labour’s transport spokesperson in support of this bill. We supported this bill at first reading. There were a couple of aspects that we wanted to have teased out at the select committee stage. The bill has emerged through that process, and it has come through this evening in a state where the Labour Party will continue to support it.

This is, as we know, a bill that was introduced as an omnibus bill that sought to change a number of discrete pieces of legislation—the Land Transport Act, the Sentencing Act, the Policing Act, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations—and when we step back and look at why that was, it was because the police in New Zealand needed to have the tools to be able to deal with what is a very clear form of antisocial road-user behaviour in New Zealand. It’s important that our police are resourced and equipped to undertake the roles that they do to protect the community from a whole range of different offences and aspects, and I’ll go through some of them in a moment. But before I do, I also want to acknowledge those who submitted through the select committee process. As a result of that, this bill did receive a number of changes that we think have actually made it much more usable and workable.

There are still some aspects in the bill that I think are not yet tried and tested. The Minister of Transport, during the committee of the whole House stage, did indicate that there was no guarantee that this bill would deal to some of the things that were contained in the bill as it currently stands, but there was a lot of hope and promise that it would.

The fundamental concern that we have around the workability of this, of course, is that it’s one thing to give the police the tools to be able to do this—it is already a police force in this country that is not fully resourced in terms of numbers; despite the current Government’s attempt to say that they will increase resourcing for police, they have failed to deliver that—but the other side of that is that when the police have these tools at their disposal and they utilise them, it is expected that they do actually make a difference. One only needs to look back to the person who was colloquially known as “Crusher Collins” in terms of the nickname that she got and the inability to deliver a huge number of cars that were actually crushed. On the one hand, it’s great to have these tools, but on the other hand, we expect them to be utilised, where appropriate.

When we think about the enforcement opportunities that will follow through this bill, it is important that there are three components around enforcement: firstly, that the enforcement is fair—and that is why on this side of the House we have been keen to ensure that the language that is included in this bill is able to reflect a fair approach to the implementation of this legislation—secondly, that it is consistent, so that when the bill says that it’s going to do something, then that can consistently be applied across a whole range of circumstances; and the final point is that the bill is transparent, and this is fundamental. Where this Parliament gives a number of powers to the New Zealand Police to utilise, if they choose to, it’s important that we understand that there is that level of transparency so that everyone knows exactly what those powers are. The police know what they are, what they’re entitled to do, and what they’re not, and it is also so that the public—who may be innocent bystanders in some of these activities and who are going about their normal day or evening activities—don’t get caught up in this, but are able to actually have a fair go in terms of when they’re told to disperse and move on that they’re able to do that.

That’s why things like how a police officer or a constable is going to communicate the direction for people to move on or to leave are very, very important. It might be one thing for the Government and the Minister to say, “Look, there will be a training process rolled out.”, and it is important that there is training—particularly when it comes to new legislation that is rolled out in our community and out in the public—but it is important that that’s able to be relied upon as something that is not just transparent but is also able to be followed through.

The types of behaviours that we are talking about are behaviours where some folk, unfortunately, flee from the police. That is a behaviour that is captured under this bill. Where there is illegal street racing, nobody in communities around the country, whether it’s rural communities or urban communities, wants to have the constant, or even non-constant, experience of having illegal street racing or events of that nature in their own neighbourhood or outside their own home. Unruly dirt bike gatherings, frightening or intimidating convoys—these are the sorts of examples of behaviours that would be captured by this bill.

When it comes to a convoy, a “convoy” in this bill is defined as “2 or more motor vehicles”. I do think that there is a risk here in terms of the workability of this bill where you could have a circumstance where there are individual vehicles coming to one location and it might be very difficult to define that as a convoy. Now, I know that those are some of the concerns that have been expressed in this House, and I do hope that in terms of the workability and implementation of the structures that will be stood up to support this bill, they are worked through and they are considered.

The final one—and it’s one that the Minister himself touched on—is excessive noise. Nobody who is in their homes around the country wants to deal with excessive noise blaring out from motor vehicles—no. I don’t, you don’t, and no one else does. I know that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford certainly doesn’t, and there was the suggestion that if it was Celine Dion, perhaps that was an aggravating factor to disturbances of that nature. But this is a particular bill that will ensure that there is a little bit of peace and harmony around households—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So harsh on Celine!

TANGI UTIKERE: —well, each to their own—around the country, as well.

There are some concerns here around the ability for some offenders who would be banned, effectively, from gaining a new interest in a motor vehicle for a period of 12 months. If you are an offender who is someone who is constantly offending and this is your third time, there are more limitations on your liberty and restrictions are imposed as a result, and we all know that sometimes it is very easy for some to perhaps sidle up alongside perhaps a vulnerable member of a community—an older person or a friend who perhaps doesn’t have the compunction, necessarily, to say no—and this could be used as a workaround that defeats some aspects of this bill. So I do hope that whilst there is no kind of review or monitoring process as part of this bill, if there are some aspects that are simply not workable, then there needs to be some understanding as to how those can be addressed to make sure that these powers that we’re giving to our police and that this harmony that we’re expecting in neighbourhoods and communities is able to be addressed, because it is important that that is the case.

There are some changes in this bill that we do support—you know, we do support this bill. We do support neighbourhoods and households being able to go about their daily business without the constant barrage of some activities and behaviours that some road users—not all, but some road users—actually utilise from time to time. I know, in the conversations that I’ve had with my local Police hierarchy in Palmerston North, that there is an absolute need for the police to have more tools and more powers to deal with what are becoming frequent opportunities for antisocial road users to come together and to cause havoc in communities. This is an opportunity to have a bill that says that simply will not be tolerated; that it must cease, it must stop; and that we’re prepared to give the police the tools to be able to do that. When the police now will be able to go into neighbourhoods and communities and require people to effectively cease what they’re doing and to move on from this antisocial behaviour—these gatherings that do gather a whole pile of folk around them—that is a good move.

We do have the concern, though, in terms of it being rolled out by a police force that is constantly under resourcing pressure, to ensure that we do things right. This Parliament needs to pass good laws, but it also needs to pass laws that can actually be rolled out. What we don’t want is to have a false expectation for communities that this is a bill that’s going to make a difference; that the police have the tools to be able to use this to good effect, but actually the choices are that they don’t do that because the resourcing is not there.

In conclusion, this is a bill that’s taken a wee while, actually, to get from the Justice Committee through to where we are tonight. This is about giving some certainty to communities, giving tools to those that need them, and we certainly believe that this bill will make a difference, provided that it’s workable and it’s able to be resourced to be rolled out in the community. We commend this bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:12): 众院议长晚上好。 Happy Chinese Language Week.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose this bill, and for very good reason and I want to lay some of that out. A lot of that comes down to the conversations we had with the Minister, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also at the Justice Committee. I want to unpack parts of this bill—noting that this is an omnibus bill and it covers a few specific areas—and I want to start with the Land Transport Act; so, Part 1.

I think, in terms of Part 1, a lot of the conversations we had, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also during select committee, were partly around clarifications in terms of some of the definitions and what it would mean, for example, if the registered person and the actual driver are different. Part of the responses that we got from the Minister around this is, “Look, we just have to let things happen and all will be well if we just implement the law.”, which is not the most convincing argument at times, particularly when it comes to when you’re looking at offences and criminal charges and fines of exorbitant amounts—up towards $20,000 in some instances.

I think, more broadly, fundamentally there is—and we did discuss this—this philosophical underlying question around this bill, which is this bill and the offences that are introduced. A number of them are existing offences, if you’re looking at the regulatory impact statement. If you’re looking at the regulatory impact statement, illegal street racing already has an existing penalty—there are already existing penalties. Fleeing drivers—existing penalties. Reckless, dangerous driving or careless driving causing injury or death—existing penalties. Impounding penalties for those illegal street racers, fleeing drivers, and intimidating convoy. And the fact that the vehicle owner failed to provide information they have on the driver. You already find that there are existing penalties around this, which then begs the question of why, then, introduce a new bill into the House with additional elements if the existing penalties or the penalties we have for any of these punitive actions do not have the deterrence effect that we want them to have.

That brings me to the second part of that philosophical discussion when we’re looking at bills such as this: that international evidence shows that deterrence—particularly for smaller crimes—simply does not work. For larger crimes, particularly when we look at murder, manslaughter, and some of the more serious sexual violence and family violence crimes, deterrence is an important factor, and harsher penalties have that effect of deterrence. But a lot of these smaller crimes? There’s just simply not enough data to suggest that they have that effect. When we do ask the Minister some of those questions as well, there is no convincing data that has been produced that suggests such a thing would work. In saying that, does that mean that we simply don’t care about things like excessive noise intimidation? Absolutely not. But producing these additional, I guess, tiered penalties and offences is going to have that outcome we’re seeking without the kind of resources that we need to actually be able to implement some of these new penalties.

I think that is the real question when we’re looking at a bill like this. Like I said, when you’re looking at existing offences under the Land Transport Act, we already have those, but we’re still seeing that excessive noise; we’re still seeing illegal street racing; but what we’re seeing is the inability for people to be able to report and for police to be attending on time and for those sorts of cases to be caught on the spot—convoys, I understand, are ostensibly a different issue, and I’ll come to convoys in a little bit. I think, in those kinds of cases, if we have an existing penalty, wouldn’t it be better if we actually simply resourced the kinds of areas we’re looking at so they will actually be able to undertake some of these? We are seeing, for example, the Government had a target of how many new police we’re going to have, and we have seen that target consistently being delayed again and again.

That then comes to the question of what we’re seeing this entire week, which is an increasing amount of legislation being introduced. Again, we are probably one of the countries with the fastest turnaround time when it comes to legislation. Although Australia and the UK sit longer than we do, they also have a two-House system so it takes longer for any bill to pass. Yet what we’re seeing this week is 22 pieces of legislation will be going under urgency, and that’s just simply not how we’re looking at the democratic process or anything that we’re looking at with a bill such as this, which could have been addressed through a policy decision as opposed to a legislative decision.

One of the other areas in Part 1 around the Land Transport Act is around convoys. Again, I think we had a lot of questions during the committee of the whole House stage around what that convoys potentially could look like. The idea, I believe, is if it’s “frightening or intending to frighten or intimidate”. It’s incredibly subjective. As a part of the committee of the whole House stage, we talked about the mens rea component of this and who would then determine such mens rea, particularly when you’re looking at the intention to frighten and intimidate, because the onus is actually on the prosecutor to prove that a person is intending to frighten and intimidate, as opposed to subjectively any person who may feel that they are being frightened and intimidated. Then that actually opens up the entire, incredibly broad scope. I think, in one of the earlier readings, we gave an example that, for example, Groundswell, where we saw lots of people come out in opposition of the so-called “ute tax”. That, to some members of the public, would be considered intimidating or frightening. In those kinds of cases, would that then mean all of those people would have their vehicles seized and impounded and forfeited, etc., under this current legislation? I think that is the important question to check, in terms of what is, then, the scope of that.

I think another piece, when we’re looking at clause 20 of this particular bill, is it also talks about the fact that, when it applies, you’re looking at the enforcement officer being able to judge some of these intentions or whether they—I think the term is—“within reasonable doubt” think that the person is intending to intimidate or frighten a person. I think that also potentially opens quite a broad scope in terms of the presumption that we have, one of the key fundamental presumptions we have under both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but also a general legal presumption, the presumption against self-incrimination. Again, this is something we asked the Minister about during the committee stage, because it was also something that was noted in the committee report as a part of the consideration where the board report itself didn’t identify section 14 with freedom of expression, and precisely that presumption against self-incrimination. What would that mean in this case, and how would the officers, for example, be able to have the skills, or would they have that basic requirement we see, to recite the rights of a person before they pursue with any sort of impounding of the vehicle?

I know I’m running out of time, Madam Speaker, but I want to touch on a few other things. One of them is in Part 2, in terms of sentencing. Again, this is something to do with the idea that the Minister mentioned before around the presumptive sentence. The fact that this also sets an incredibly high potential legal threshold when you’re looking at the way that we allow the judiciary to make some of those balanced judgments, because the only way for you to appeal such presumptive sentencing is using what we’re seeing frequently, over and over again in legislation, this idea of “manifestly unjust”. I think that’s also an important consideration of the role of—and the burden it will place on the judiciary, in a lot of these.

I think for the last few seconds, the Green Party absolutely believes that people should be able to have their enjoyment at home and be safe at home and be free from being frightened or intimidated. But again, this bill—through select committee, through committee stage—fell short of that. Without the proper resourcing, this will have no more effect than what we’re currently already seeing in our legislation.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (20:22): I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. ACT campaigned at the last election on actually protecting our community, cracking down on crime in our community, and making sure victims were safe. We then got into coalition with National and New Zealand First, and that is something we have shared through this Government. We actually want to focus on victims in our communities and actually making sure people that feels safe in the places that they live and work and raise their families. We’ve seen a number of quite disturbing antisocial road activities, and I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:23): Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. Look, it’s got a very singular policy intent: to deter antisocial driving behaviour. New Zealand First is proud to stand fair and square on behalf of the victims of antisocial behaviour and crime, not on behalf of those who conduct that sort of behaviour. We all know about the impacts of antisocial road-user behaviour. We talk about boy racers, the excessive speed, risk, substance abuse, noise, damage, intimidation—communities essentially feeling unsafe. This bill really is all about giving police the powers to act not just once something has happened but also proactively, with reason.

We’ve heard a little bit about closing areas off, and I take the point about that, but it’s about doing that with good reason. It also gives the power to police to take action ahead of large and potentially explosive gatherings. Just before this legislation was introduced, of course, there was that a major event in the Horowhenua when about 1,000 people gathered, which was clearly a very intimidating and explosive event. It creates new offences—the frightening or intimidating convoy—and put some rules around fleeing police as well. It gives police powers to act, powers to require information disclosure, confiscation powers, penalties to support our police as well. I did hear from Tangi Utikere about police resources. I would have thought the police can do a lot more with less resources, if they actually have the powers behind them to do that.

This bill is about proactively keeping law-abiding New Zealanders safe. “Crusher Collins” has left the building, but whether it’s a long-lived “Masher Meager” or “Basher Bish”, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Julie Anne Genter, five-minute call.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, unfortunately, this bill is more of a PR and marketing exercise than genuinely making our communities safer, and that’s why the Green Party won’t be supporting the bill. I note, as usual when I stand and speak in this House, there’s a whole lot of heckling from the other side of the House that for some reason my colleagues don’t experience. But I’m fine with that, because I’ve been here much longer than most people in this House. I’ve seen them all come and go.

In my own electorate, I know that, just like every other part of the country, it is frustrating when there are people driving loud cars around and doing burnouts. There’s several parts of my electorate that are afflicted by so-called boy racers and that activity. But as I regularly work with the community constable and community policing, I’m well aware of the steps that they have taken under the existing legislation to take significant action that has resulted in a significant decrease. In fact, no activity in problematic parts of the of the electorate, like up at Mount Crawford Prison, Mātai Moana, in the Miramar Peninsula. This is the point that my colleague was making, which is that police already had the powers and many of the offences already existed. We’ve seen, demonstrably, it is possible to take action to prevent this antisocial road use.

Police already have the powers to impound vehicles. They already have the ability to give fines for excessive noise. They already had the power to close roads. The real challenge was they couldn’t always use those tools quickly or effectively. This bill doesn’t really change that fundamental problem. I can tell you that, in my electorate, the community policing team is really, really great and they work really well, but they don’t have enough resources. They’ve actually had quite a long period of time of a decline in resources for policing and there aren’t sufficient people to be able to address all the different issues there are. Oftentimes, just their presence can be enough to contribute to less of the antisocial behaviour, whether it’s with a car or not. Until we fundamentally resource our public services properly, we’re not going to solve the issue simply by increasing the penalties that are available.

This is the other point that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made, which unfortunately none of the members of the Government parties seemed to grasp, which is when you’re dealing with young people, and young men in particular, the frontal lobe is not fully formed—

Tom Rutherford: Oh my gosh.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and they take a lot of risky behaviour. That’s true, up to the age of 25. So there’s no point—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tom Rutherford—we know you’re over 25. Carry on.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, I did know that Tom Rutherford was over the age of 25. But like, the point is that sometimes teenagers and young people will get together and do silly things and they will be annoying to many of us, and even dangerous. The last thing we want as parents or members of the community is for them to be doing so with motor vehicles, which are lethal if used incorrectly. But simply changing the law and giving the police more powers and increasing penalties doesn’t address the issue because people aren’t deterred by the consequences. They’re not thinking about the consequences when they do stupid things. And when they run from the police knowing that there might—one, they probably won’t know that the consequences are worse than they used to be. But secondly, when they run from the police, if the police chase them, it’s far more likely that there will be a deadly or devastating outcome for innocent bystanders.

Why are we doing things that make the harm worse? It’s silly. There are much better ways to look at engaging youth, giving them opportunities to have challenges and to do various things. Taking a punitive approach simply doesn’t work in the medium to long term. If we take an evidence-based approach, this bill, I guarantee, is not going to reduce antisocial road-use, unfortunately. It is kind of a shame that we’re wasting the time in the House when there’s so many significant issues facing our country that this Government just wants to go around and be like, “Oh, we’re putting the baddies in jail. And, you know, we’re cracking down on the bad people so the good people can live their lives.” I’m surprised to see the supposedly libertarian party just throwing out any sort of commitment to civil liberties. You know, a Police State is not going to make us safer.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (20:29): Constituents in the Whanganui electorate are sick of antisocial road users. In answer to the Opposition’s question earlier in this debate, I can see the headline on the Whanganui Chronicle as I press that button as the first car gets crushed: “Crusher Carl, Let’s Get This Done”. I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (20:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s about as much substance as you’ll get from the current National Party.

We’re not going to stand in the way of letting the National Party have a go with this bill, but I just want to point out that we have real concerns around workability. If you look at the centrepiece of this legislation, the offensive “Dangerous or reckless activity conduct[ed] in [a] frightening or intimidating convoy”—if you look at the ingredients that you have to prove to get that across the line, I struggle to see how it will ever be done.

Now, the first thing you have to show—the first thing you have to show—is that another offence is being committed, because you can only be convicted of this offence if you are also committing an offence in subsection (2) of new section 39A. They’re not trivial offences; they’re not speeding or driving carelessly. No, they’re offences like dangerous driving causing death, reckless driving, dangerous driving, racing, or intentional loss of traction. The first thing you’ve got to do is prove all of the ingredients of that offence, and then you have to prove a whole lot of other things.

You then have to show that the conduct while operating the motor vehicle was part of a convoy, so you have to show that this person is intentionally part of a group of moving vehicles. Now, I’ll come to that a bit further on, because there’s some funny twists and turns in that, as well. You’ve got to show that they’re intentionally part—so not just that they’re parked up watching someone do burnouts but that they’re actually part of a moving group of vehicles. Then you have to show that they intended it “to frighten or intimidate another person”. So you’ve got to look—and this is the mental element; Lawrence Xu-Nan pointed this out—into their heads, or at least show that they were reckless.

Now, Julie Anne Genter just pointed out that not all people engaging in this kind of behaviour are particularly thoughtful, but it isn’t being stupid as to whether you were acting in an intimidating manner, because that certainly happens a lot. Recklessness is a particular kind of knowledge. It’s the kind of knowledge where you turn your mind to the question, but you don’t care. Most of these young people—and, yes, they are generally men—don’t even turn their mind to the question, so stupidity won’t do it. You’ve got to actually, positively not care. If you think about all of those ingredients coming together, I don’t think there’s ever going to be a situation in which this particular offence will be proven. Now, it may well be that what the police really want is an ability to seize these vehicles, because they reasonably believe that’s the case, but that will run into problems of its own.

Turning, then, to another problem of this—and this is what I particularly like—and this is what amounts to a convoy. In our mind, when we think of a convoy, I wouldn’t have thought a convoy is two cars travelling together, but this definition says two’s enough. But here’s the really—and this is funny, because it is truly bizarre—the person who’s subject to the charge “intentionally or knowingly operates the vehicle to travel as part of that convoy”—but here’s the funny bit; this is new subsection (4): even if the other vehicle or vehicles travelling with that convoy are not intentionally part of the convoy. So if Lawrence Xu-Nan’s driving down the road and I’m like, “I want to hang out with Lawrence.”, and I chase him and drive behind him, it’s a convoy that Lawrence is part of and he doesn’t know he’s part of it, which is absolute madness. The idea that you could just be following someone because you want to be part of that group—no one else knows they are; there could be 10 cars in a line and nine of them don’t know they’re part of a convoy—is absolutely ridiculous.

Rima Nakhle: Then why are you voting for it?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The other thing—well, Rima Nakhle, you can have your play in the sandpit, but the fact of the matter is this is one of the worst-drafted and least-effective pieces of legislation that I’ve seen.

The other thing, of course, is that you’re going to seize these vehicles for 28 days, and we know that many of these vehicles are not high value. In the Justice Committee, we tested quite a lot how this is going to work, and it turns out that most of the time the costs of detaining a vehicle for 28 days and taking it to the place of detention exceed the value of the vehicle. And who pays for the storage costs? Well, these people who have had their card confiscated don’t come up and say, “Oops, here you go: here’s my life savings.” They just disappear into the ether, and what happens is it becomes an impost on the State. If we do get to the point where cars are, in fact, seized, the chances are that maybe you’ll get to crush them, but it’ll cost the State an enormous amount of money.

This kind of policy where you give the police these relatively sweeping powers and you have these tough-on-crime, car-crushing approaches—they don’t actually address the problem. I’m the MP for Christchurch Central, so I know what antisocial road use looks like, and I’ll tell you, the Christchurch City Council has—

Hon Matt Doocey: Oh, settle!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Not because I’m an antisocial road user, Matt Doocey, but because I’ve seen it. But the Christchurch City Council has grappled with this for some time, and it had no-cruising zones and all this sort of stuff, but you know what actually solved it in the long term was traffic management. They had the genius idea of changing the phasing of the traffic lights so that people would have to stop more frequently, and it wasn’t as much fun. All of a sudden, that problem abated. It didn’t disappear, but it abated significantly.

So, yes, look, we all accept that intimidating use of motor vehicles and all of those other things—although this piece of legislation doesn’t actually address the problem of people simply driving noisy, noisy cars around in circles. This piece of legislation doesn’t actually address that; it addresses something quite different. But, in fact, if that’s the problem, that kind of antisocial road use, we have to think about more innovative ways to address those problems. Giving an under-resourced police force more powers to try and enforce very complicated, multi-layered legislation to seize cars which will be in storage at the Crown’s expense is not the way to go about it.

We endorse the idea that we need to encourage, one way or another, more responsible road use. We have agreed that if the National Party wants to put this legislation in place and try and apply it, well, good luck to them. I mean, I do worry that there is going to be an expectation in the community that this legislation will be a panacea—that, as soon as someone does a burnout, the police will immediately appear and arrest that person and confiscate their cars. Well, that’s simply not going to happen. Having said that, we would like to see a more thoughtful approach to how we address this problem, including things like the regulations around car modifications, which are part of the problem, because most of these cars are modified vehicles; many of them are not legal. Why wait for the burnouts when these cars can be stopped and detained on safety grounds as they drive past, in any event?

Have a go, but the legislation itself is largely unworkable. In summary, the idea that you’re going to charge someone with driving in a convoy in an intimidating manner when they’ve just been engaged in dangerous driving causing death or injury kind of makes me think that that you’ve probably got bigger fish to fry, and that won’t be the particular offence that they’re charged with. But the National Party seems determined on this perverse course of action. We’re not going to stand in their way tonight. Good luck to them.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (20:40): New Zealanders across the country are sick and tired of these people taking over the roads and causing absolute havoc and impacting on innocent victims across our country. We, on this side, put victims at the heart of our justice system. That’s what this piece of legislation is doing. I commend it to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:40): It’s good to take a call on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. Labour supports safer communities and safer roads, and that is, essentially, why we are supporting this bill. We know that dangerous, antisocial driving causes harm, and we support decisive enforcement. There are different aspects, I guess, when we look at what it means to have safer streets and safer communities. This bill is one part of that, but there is a much larger picture that must be considered in this context when looking at creating legislation in this space.

The first one, other speakers have spoken to already this evening, is around how you’ve got to have the resource to support the increased powers given to Police. The National Government promised 500 extra front-line police. We haven’t seen them, and we’re still waiting. I’m not sure how we can truly implement and manage this new piece of legislation when we don’t have the resource in our police force to support it. We know that laws only work if Police have the staff and the resources to enforce them, and my main concern, moving forward, is that we simply do not have that resource in place. In order to create safer streets and safer communities, we need to make sure those resources are there. Some of the actions that the bill sets out to achieve are actions around aggravating, failing to stop, street racing, sustained loss of traction, and frightening or intimidating convoy offences. These are new offences that police will be able to take action on if seen in our communities, but if we don’t have the police in order to enforce this, these actions will continue to occur, and we won’t have the safer communities that I think we all would like to have.

I think there’s a question here around the community impact, and other speakers have spoken to this. For me, I’m looking at parts of the legislation that allow vehicles to be seized and impounded for 28 days. I understand, in situations where people are acting unlawfully and antisocially on our streets, we need tough penalties, and they’re justified for these serious offences and dangerous behaviours. I’m pleased this select committee considered a broader lens when it came to looking at the 28 days of seizing and impounding vehicles and were able to consider individual circumstances of different people in these situations. We have concerns for young people, people living in rural situations, and low-income people if they have either their vehicle impounded for 28 days or a 12-month ban on acquiring a vehicle, because we know that people use their vehicles for things other than boy, girl, or non-binary racing. At night, they might be boy racing, but during the day, they might be going to work, or during the day, they may be lending their car to a family member who’s using it to work or sharing a car with a family member.

We need to make sure that we know this is predominantly young people and young men that are acting in an intimidating way on our streets. We need to make sure that we are not preventing them from having a future beyond their bad decisions, and if they need to lend their car to someone else the next day, we don’t want that to impact their family members or prevent them from getting to work and continuing in their employment. To summarise, those are the concerns we have with the bill, but, overall, we support safer streets and communities.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:45): People of Mt Roskill are fed up with reckless drivers tearing through our streets in places like Keith Hay Park, putting families at risk. This Government has zero tolerance for that behaviour because National stands as the party of law and order. If you want to drive dangerously, face the consequences. Race on our streets, and you will be walking home. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (20:46): Gosh! Talking about Speedy Gonzales, that was a very, very fast contribution. I rise in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. This is one of the bills where the title can sound a little bit technical but the issue itself is actually really real for real people. We’re talking about illegal street racing, the burnouts, siren battles that the Minister had previously spoken about, dangerous convoys—although there’s some contention with what that definition actually entails—fleeing drivers, and vehicles being used in ways where, quite frankly, the intentionality behind it is something to intimidate people, and, ultimately, that makes communities feel unsafe where they shouldn’t feel unsafe, which is in their own neighbourhoods.

For the people who live with this, I do want to reiterate that it’s not just a bit of noise and it’s not just young people mucking around with nothing better to do; the sound of cars gathering late at night, screeching tyres, engines revving, and all of that sort of stuff leaves people wondering whether the next sound will be a crash. I really want to make that quite explicit. I’ve spoken to people—and I’ve got colleagues in this House that would have spoken to people—in Governors Bay, who sit there at night listening into the evening with the background noise and are anticipating whether someone makes the next bend and whether this results in an accident. They can’t relax, and it’s really stressful. They’re living on their nerves, and it’s not fair. It’s families worrying about narrow local roads being, essentially, treated like racetracks. That is why Labour is supporting this bill.

As has been said by other colleagues, we were happy to support this bill at first reading. We had some reservations. We do believe that the select committee process was able to afford some opportunities to improve the bill. It’s not a perfect bill. There are still some remaining issues with it, and I will get to that, but, at this stage, we are happy to support the bill because something does need to be done.

In Banks Peninsula in particular, this issue isn’t abstract, and I know, for some people, it will be. Some people never face this kind of issue in their homes or in their neighbourhoods, but for people in Banks Peninsula, it’s certainly not an abstract issue. Communities around Lyttelton; Governors Bay, as I said; Cass Bay; and the wider harbour basin, actually, in totality have dealt with antisocial road users for quite some time. Whether it’s the illegal street racing, the burnouts, the excessive speeding, and the siren battles, it doesn’t matter. It comes and goes in cycles and people move around. It’s unpredictable, but one commonality that it always comes back to is those very alluring, windy, attractive roads through those hills that seem to draw this type of antisocial road user to them.

It’s dangerous, and I may be quite biased, but these are stunning roads. They’re also narrow. They are a bit winding. They’re residential, first and foremost, but they’re also, in places, incredibly unforgiving. Ultimately, though, they are roads that people use to get to and from work, to drop their kids off at school, and to access local business, etc. It’s where people are supposed to enjoy living, certainly not racetracks.

The bill does give police and the courts stronger tools to deal with this type of dangerous and intimidating road use that, quite frankly, a lot of communities have had an utter gutsful of. I want to acknowledge those residents, many of whom have not just made complaints—and they have, over a lengthy period of time—but they’ve also tried to solve the problem themselves. They’ve raised it with police. They’ve pushed for more patrols. They have looked at ways that they can actually gather their own information. They’ve set up stations where they can collect data. They’re doing that kind of community service to provide authorities with the information and the intelligence that they might need to be able to put a stop to this, and that’s what community advocacy looks like. If people are saying that they’ve got a problem, I think that we should do anything we can to restore the fact that they need to be able to continue to love where they live and not accept that this type of behaviour is normal.

In general, though, the bill gives police and the courts some stronger tools to deal with the serious end of antisocial road use. It creates a new offence for frightening and intimidating convoys. We’ve heard tonight, though, however, that there’s not necessarily clear agreement on what constitutes a convoy. We’ve heard of a couple of examples of how that could seem quite farcical. It does sometimes see particular examples of, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, someone in front of a two-person convoy not necessarily knowing that they are part of a convoy.

However, the bill also strengthens the consequences for lots of other things, and in serious cases, vehicles can be impounded, they can be forfeited, or they can be destroyed. We have actually also heard about that tonight and about some of the practicalities about actually making that happen and the costs that could be involved. On the surface, there could seem like there are big consequences, but the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Whilst I say that the bill potentially helps police get to the bottom of this problem, the police need to be able to fundamentally access the resources and have the resources available to them to turn this into something that doesn’t just sound good on paper but actually can practically make a difference, and I’ll come back to that.

But the bill has been improved in a couple of different ways through the select committee process, as I said, and I do want to acknowledge the many people who made submissions on the process and gifted us some of their lived experience. One important change is around court discretion. The bill originally had a much more rigid approach to stopping someone from acquiring another vehicle after forfeiture, and submitters did raise some really sensible concerns about how that could potentially affect people in rural communities, young people, people on low incomes, and anybody who genuinely needed to be able to continue to use their car for work, education, or daily life. The bill also allows the courts to take some of those circumstances into account, and I do think that that has been an improvement through the select committee process. The bill is kept largely intact, but also makes it a little bit more fair and a little bit more workable, which is a good thing.

There are a couple of other practical changes too about including how infringement notices are managed. I don’t think that’s necessarily quite hit the right spot, but making police powers more clear when closing areas temporarily is required. So we continue to support the bill because of those changes.

But what needs to happen next? Passing this bill, or continuing with this process, certainly doesn’t mean it’s the end of the job. As I said, this has the potential to simply be window dressing. It has the potential to merely do nothing more than symbolise that the Government has taken an issue seriously and provided an actual, specific, concrete solution to a very, very real problem. But if we do want this to work, police and courts absolutely need the resources to be able to do so, so that they can exercise these powers properly. Impounding vehicles, as we’ve heard, takes storage, forfeiture, destruction—all those sorts of things. It takes a process and it takes storage and it takes time. And enforcement, as we said, has to be consistent and fair.

Of course, road safety isn’t actually achieved through punishment alone: we still need to see prevention; we still need to see a suitable and appropriate youth engagement; we still need safer roads, better infrastructure, and strong local partnerships; and we also absolutely need to listen to communities who know exactly where the hotspots are and what is happening on the ground. However, this bill is a start. It’s part of the response. It says clearly, potentially, that public roads belong to the public, but what it says and what it does could easily turn into two very different things, as I said, unless it is resourced properly.

To the people in Lyttelton, Governors Bay, Cass Bay, and all of those communities around the Banks Peninsula, I really do hope that this bill is able to be implemented in a way that actually does provide some relief and provide them with a little bit of hope that they could finally get to the bottom of this absolute problem. Despite having some very reasonable concerns, and a little bit of cynicism, given this Government has made lots of cuts and not resourced Police properly, I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:56): “There’s just not enough data.” They were the exact words of one of the Green Party members—essentially saying, or justifying, that strengthening the laws and giving police more tools around antisocial behaviour is not warranted. Well, I want to ask Dr Vanessa Weenink whether her neighbours in Banks Peninsula, Carl Bates’ neighbours in Whanganui, Tim Costley’s neighbours in Kāpiti, Phil Twyford’s neighbours in West Auckland, and my neighbours in Takanini are waiting for more scientific, elitist, academic proof that antisocial driving is making them experience fear, disruption to their lives, and intimidation. I’m pretty sure they’ll say they don’t need extra evidence; the evidence is happening every day to them. It’s antisocial driving, and we’re making it even more unlawful. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Scott Willis, are you seeking the Te Pāti Māori call?

Scott Willis: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I note Te Pāti Māori are here. Are Te Pāti Māori happy to give you that call?

Scott Willis: Yes, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Scott Willis.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (20:57): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take my first call on this bill, particularly, because I have just heard the convoy of fast calls from the other side of the House, and it is really disappointing. I will be talking to Vanessa Weenink’s neighbours about the issues that are faced in that neighbourhood in Banks Peninsula, because my sister happens to live there. I’m very concerned that they do not share the National Party’s concern that this is such a serious issue. In fact, this bill, really, is an example of how the Government acts. It’s really just virtue signalling. It’s the way in which they try to promote something, saying they’re going to do something, when we know it’s going to have very little effect.

We heard the concerns from my colleague Duncan Webb about the workability of this. We heard the concerns from over on the Labour side. We heard the concerns from Tracey McLellan that without the resourcing, how on earth is this going to work? We’ve got our police, who will have the powers to act, but what are they going to be doing at the moment? They’re going to be enforcing “move on” orders. They’re going to be doing all kinds of other things. They’re not going to be able to be resourced to do this because we haven’t even got the police that this Government said they were going to provide us with. So we’ve got a situation where we’re creating legislation that’s going to give the police something more to do and no resource to do it.

I’m a bit surprised that this bill has more support. In fact, I wonder whether, you know, on the Labour side, they’re just simply supporting it to see it fail miserably and then to laugh at it, because that’s really where this bill’s going. It’s really sad that there’s not the funding for the police, there’s not the funding to make this work, and that’s where this is all going to fall down.

We know as well that the police already have the ability, because there’s the existing legislation. We’ve got the legislation for illegal street racing, as we heard from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan. We’ve got the legislation for reckless driving; we’ve got the legislation for fleeing drivers; for an intimidating convoy; for failing to give details. That’s all existing legislation. What we’ve also heard is that, when there are local politicians able to work with community police, when people take an intelligent approach, staggering rights, there are solutions already that have a better outcome than simply the punitive, unresourced approach that this Government wants to take.

It’s an example of the desperation of this Government, not being able to think through things with any depth; knowingly introducing legislation that will do little; using it as PR. Why can’t this Government invest in our youth? Why can’t this Government invest in vocational training?

Suze Redmayne: Back to basics!

SCOTT WILLIS: Why can’t this Government do something basic and invest in our education and help our youth? Let’s think who this might apply to. Let’s think of the convoys that they might be able to attack. Yes, as we heard, this would fit very well with Groundswell NZ, that intimidating convoy trying to get rid of the Paris Agreement. This would certainly fit there.

Francisco Hernandez: Ok, so we can use it then?

SCOTT WILLIS: We could use that, possibly. Would this have applied to the 2022 Wellington protest, the anti-mandate, anti-lockdown convoy? Would this have applied to that convoy? Would it have applied to that? In that case, you might get some support. This is where this just doesn’t stack up.

I’ve certainly dealt with intimidating behaviour—anti-social road user behaviour—where I live. I’ve seen cars racing down narrow, rural streets; mothers out, concerned about children on bikes on the street, having to call in the council. Part of that involved the community working to put in speed bumps, judder bars, etc. We’ve got the examples of where local politicians—our local MP for Rongotai—working with community law, can get a great result. So let’s invest in our community. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 June.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:04):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Māori health and safety advocates, employers, and whānau. Nothing has changed in our position since our first reading and our submission that we put through. It still treats health and safety as red tape instead of what it really is: the right of every worker to return home to their whānau healthy and safe and whole. It’s not just a technical amendment; it lands directly on people.

Māori are overrepresented in high-risk industries—forestry, construction, agriculture, transport, manufacturing, contracting. These are the jobs that keep this country moving. These are the jobs that build roads, harvest the whenua, move the goods, and grow the economy, but too often Māori workers carry the costs of that economy in their bodies, their health, and sometimes their lives. Te Pāti Māori’s submission was very clear: any law that weakens health and safety protections will disproportionately harm Māori people, already over-represented where low pay and insecure work, poor training and unsafe conditions are common. Yet, this bill narrows health and safety duties as critical risks. That sounds tidy in a press release, but it is dangerous in real life because harm does not always arrive as a fatal accident. Harm can be back injury, it can be hearing loss, it can be fatigue, it can be stress, violence

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

This bill risks making our health and safety system blind to harm. A worker should not have to be almost killed before the law decides these safety matters. This bill also creates two-tiered systems.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Businesses with fewer than 20 workers will have fewer obligations beyond critical risk, but risk does not count how many people are on the payroll before it becomes a cause of harm.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

the Māori Health and Safety Association for the mahi they have done in this space. They have warned that these amendments will disproportionately impact Māori health workers. They have called for a system that protects workers from all reasonable foreseeable harm, not just the so-called critical harms that are within this bill. Nō reira, tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I say that, aspiring speakers from my right should just leave it to the Chair to decide whether members will be pulled up for reading speeches or not.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:09): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to take this split call in opposition to the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. It has not taken long for some in this House to forget the reasons why we previously strengthened New Zealand’s health and safety legislation. We’re debating a bill that, if passed, will see even more people harmed at the workplace with an aim of reducing compliance costs. This bill is not cutting red tape; it is cutting safety tape. As Winston Peters and Brooke van Velden play a game of “he says, she says” about who is wrong, Christopher Luxon’s Government is marching us towards legislation that will harm more workers. Just this evening, the Minister has deferred the implementation of the bill for five months to April next year instead of 1 November this year. While Winston Peters is trying to claim this as a win, the ACT leader, David Seymour, has said there have been no concessions to New Zealand First.

Really, what we have here is a Minister saying that the problem with the bill is not the bill itself but that everyone doesn’t get it and the Government needs some time to explain it. Basically, people like the whānau of the Pike miners who stood in the forecourt last week, like people who actually work in the health sector, don’t know health and safety like the Minister does! As quoted by the Minister, “the delay is designed to provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and develop advice and guidance”. I’m calling on Winston Peters and New Zealand First to put politics aside and do the right thing now, not just for the families who have suffered in the past and fought to strengthen legislation but for those who will be harmed if this bill passes.

No amendment will make this bill workable. No delay will make it workable. It is time to kill the bill tonight. No one should go home hurt and, even more importantly, no one should die from doing their job. However, that is what currently happens, and it will become even worse, because when you make systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy weaker, more people will suffer. Every action has a reaction.

Hon David Seymour: Who wrote this?

MIKE DAVIDSON: The problem we have here—well, if you just keep to your same lines, we wouldn’t have to write more notes down. The problem we have here is we have a Government and a Minister who see health and safety as a cost. Health and safety is not a cost to business; it is an investment. Good health and safety at the workplace will see productivity rise. The fatality rate for a worker in New Zealand is 1.7 times higher than in Australia and 6.5 times higher than that in the UK—6.5 times higher. We should be strengthening legislation and regulation, not winding it back.

Creating a two-tier system where small businesses are carved out—businesses that make up 90 percent of businesses in Aotearoa—will create more harm. A desire to cut compliance costs will see costs being added and worker absences, staff turnover, and increased ACC costs. It’s not cutting costs; it’s shifting the cost, and it’s pretty much impossible to have an answer to the question about how much this cost will increase ACC’s costs. In scrutiny week, the ACC Minister was asked, questioned, by Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, and the Minister for ACC could not answer the pertinent question that will affect his ministry, instead deferring it to the ministry of workplace relations. The Minister for ACC does not know the cost impacts to his ministry from this legislation.

I have been very fortunate to be on some of the oral hearings to listen to the people, the people in the sector, the workers, the people that actually get health and safety, and it is very clear this bill is not workable. This bill, when passed into legislation, will see more people harmed at work. The Green Party completely opposes this bill, because it will see more people hurt at work. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next speaker, I know the last two speakers are relatively junior members, but I notice how well you speak when you get away from your notes, and I encourage you to continue that. Carl Bates.

Hon David Seymour: I didn’t notice that.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (21:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): David Seymour, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Seymour: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Thank you, Mr Seymour. Coming in halfway through someone’s speech and starting to make comments about it, particularly for a senior member, is out of order, so just behave yourself.

Hon David Seymour: I was here for the whole speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, are you contradicting me?

Hon David Seymour: No, I’m just commenting.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Right. OK. Don’t come in here and upset the balance of the House. Leave the Speaker’s job to the Speaker.

CARL BATES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the National Party, unlike the Opposition, we don’t think about these things in absolutes. It is not credible to stand up and say that the bill in its entirety is completely unworkable and cannot be implemented and that there may not be tweaks that could improve the bill. That’s just not credible.

In the National Party, we understand the concept of implementation, as well, something that the previous Government, the Opposition, never quite understood, basically, across their range of activity. Because we understand the importance of implementing something well, we want to see that we allow time for the approved codes of practice to be well drafted and to have that opportunity to be executed on. We also, through having been through the select committee process and the hearings, want to recognise that there may be further tweaks that we can make to this process prior to its implementation in the New Year. That’s why there has been this amendment that’s going to be brought to the House to extend the time frame for their implementation. The National Party supports that and is behind that.

This is part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future, and therefore I commend it to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:16): It’s important that people understand what’s really going on with this bill. A Government that sees health and safety as primarily red tape, a cost to business, is, with this bill, gutting the health and safety system and substantially weakening the protections for 650,000 workers in New Zealand. The main effect of the bill is to define and separate out so-called critical risks—“hazards likely to result in death, notifiable injury, illness, or incident”—from all of the other so-called non-critical risks; secondly, to carve out smaller firms, those with fewer than 20 employees, and say that those firms only need to focus on, manage, the critical risks. Now, there are other elements, but these are the most significant and the most dangerous.

It’s important to understand also that New Zealand has an abysmal health and safety record. New Zealanders are six times more likely to die at work than workers in the United Kingdom; twice as likely to die at work than workers in Australia. So—and here’s a multi-choice test for the members—why is the Government doing this? (a) Because some small businesses complained that the health and safety laws were too onerous, (b) because the ACT Party is ideologically opposed to regulation unless it benefits the rich and powerful, (c) because Christopher Luxon was so inept that he agreed to this in the coalition negotiations with ACT, (d) because this Government doesn’t really care if this law means that more New Zealand workers will be maimed and killed at work, or (e) all of the above. What is it? It’s (e). It was a trick question.

The select committee process was interesting. One after another of business groups, unions, and health and safety experts came along and debunked and demolished the central idea that underpins this bill—that small enterprises are somehow less risky to their workers than large enterprises. The idea is completely illogical. There’s no evidence that small businesses are less risky. Some of the small businesses clearly do some of the most dangerous work. In fact, there’s evidence that small businesses, on the whole, are more risky, because they lack the infrastructure and the specialisation and the resources to properly manage the risks to life and limb.

Under this bill, a demolition gang with 19 employees will have fewer health and safety responsibilities than a human resources consultancy with 21 employees. Now, what kind of sense does that make? In fact, Shamubeel Eaqub said recently that small businesses are one-quarter more likely to injure their staff than large firms, and that’s when the statistics are adjusted for the size of the workforce. ACC data shows that firms with fewer than 20 employees generate three quarters of all work-related injury costs.

What did the submitters say to the committee? Downer, one of our leading infrastructure firms, said the bill would “Add cost and complexity … without improving outcomes”, and it would “Adversely affect the health and safety of workers … particularly those in small businesses”. Fulton Hogan, one of our leading civil construction firms, said the small business carve-out is particularly problematic in the construction industry, where many subcontractors and others in the supply chain work alongside them in high-risk sites. The New Zealand Minerals Council—that’s the peak body for mining and quarrying—said that “The small business carve-out will be unworkable in complex workplaces, such as mines and quarries”, some of the most dangerous workplaces in New Zealand. The CEOs of every major port in New Zealand said the small-business carve-out would “cause confusion about accountability” and risks disadvantaging small firms because the ports would choose not to work with them and not to contract to them.

Woolworths, our biggest grocery firm, said the carve-out would “create significant confusion”, and, “the Bill [would] degrade health and safety outcomes.”, and, get this, “A worker's baseline protection should not depend on the headcount of their employer.” Civil Contractors, the umbrella association of the entire infrastructure building industry. What are they say? Get rid of the carve-out entirely. It will create confusion and complexity, and it is unworkable. The Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum—440 CEOs; 25 percent of the workforce they’re responsible for—said the carve-out was “inequitable” and it “ignores the reality of modern workplaces”, and it “will … lead to higher rates of harm”.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association of Auckland, representing 7,000 businesses—what did they say? The bill may unintentionally increase harm, complexity, and uncertainty for businesses and workers. It will create a two-tier health and safety framework based on the size of the business. The New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, the peak body of health and safety experts—what would they know about this bill?—say that they are fundamentally opposed to the small business carve-out. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions called the bill “regressive”, and said that it “actively [weakens] the laws and systems designed to keep workers safe” and it “sends the message that harming workers is acceptable.”

I want to give the final word on the submissions to Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse of Stand With Pike. They said, “Remember that the law that this bill is trying to weaken was a cross-party effort to put in place a modern health and safety system to protect workers after 29 of our men died at Pike River.” Sonya Rockhouse said. “It’s crap. It’s dangerous. We need to do all we can to stop it.” Anna Osborne said, “New Zealand workers should be very afraid. It’s absolute crap, this bill. It won’t do anything but damage and kill more workers in New Zealand.”

The stated intention of the bill is to “support continued reductions in the incidence of workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.” That’s what it actually says in the purpose statement. But it’s clear to 90 percent of the submitters who came along to the select committee, and to anyone who’s not bound by party discipline in this debate, that the bill will, in fact, have the complete opposite effect of that purpose statement. The overwhelming majority of the country’s experts on health and safety came to the committee and said, “Don’t do this.” It is illogical. there is no evidence base to suggest that small businesses are less risky to life and limb of their workforce than larger businesses. They said, “Don’t do this. It will do harm, and it is unworkable.”

The big employers who came along to the select committee, one after the other, all said the same thing, except for the most cravenly political of them. The rest of them all said, “Don’t do this. It will do harm.”, and yet when the Minister came along to the select committee for scrutiny week and she was asked, on a number of occasions, about the logical fallacy that lies at the heart of this bill, that somehow small enterprises are less risky than large ones. She was asked about that, and she was asked about all of the evidence that was presented at the select committee, and she acted as if she hadn’t heard any of that evidence, any of those objections. She talked on and on, repeating the misinformation that small businesses are less risky, the small businesses that employ 97 percent of the workforce in New Zealand, that somehow they’re less risky, and the Minister thinks that’s funny.

After that, what hope is there? What hope is there? It’s been suggested in recent days that some members of the National Party and New Zealand First don’t like this bill. I say to those members, if you don’t like it, don’t vote for it. Get a backbone or else know this: workers will die and be injured on your conscience.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (21:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill has some very, very important pieces to it that are requested by the sectors—in particular the Approved Codes of Practice, which allow the true guidance on safety to be implemented. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Rachel Boyack—five minutes.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (21:27): Thank you. Mr. Speaker. This is, again, a really sad day, actually, for working people, and I hear the people across the House scoffing at this, but I think it’s worth remembering that we have a country where people go to work and they don’t come home, because they’re dead. The original bill that this amends came off the back of cross-party work, as my colleague Phil Twyford this said—

Hon Phil Twyford: John Key’s legacy.

RACHEL BOYACK: Absolutely, and Michael Woodhouse’s as well; I want to acknowledge John Key and Michael Woodhouse from the National Party—following the deaths of 29 men at Pike River and an acknowledgement across New Zealand that we have a terrible approach to health and safety in the workplace and that there are far too many people in this nation going to work and not coming home or going to work and coming home badly injured.

Prior to coming to Parliament, I spent two years working as a health and safety officer with the Anglican Church in Nelson, and that role came about following the dreadful tragedy of a worker dying on Anglican Church property in a forestry incident. The church owned a forestry block. You might think: why would a church have a health and safety officer? They put in place my role to work across a number of small parishes, many of whom would probably be considered small under this piece of legislation, to identify a number of very serious risks across the church—physical and psychosocial risks, risks to the safety of children and vulnerable people. Actually, it was about changing the culture within the church, and my big concern is this approach to limit the management of risks that aren’t deemed critical only to those businesses that have 20 employees or more.

There are two parts I want to touch on just in the short contribution I have tonight. The first is around the definition of a “critical risk” and the challenging part of that, and the second part is this idea that small workplaces somehow have lower risk than others, because it’s just not true.

The first part is just to talk around critical risk, and I have some observations around this. It will be very, very difficult to actually determine what a critical risk is, and, as other colleagues have pointed out, this is going to add complexity and add compliance cost for businesses when they’re making these assessments. They have to decide whether the risk is likely to cause death. If it does, then it’s a critical risk, but the definition of “likely” is unclear, so what does that mean? Is it likely on one particular day or across a year or across a working life? When we have this confusing definition, what it means is we’re going to have employers having to spend a lot more time actually doing this risk assessment rather than getting on with the job of mitigating against the risk.

Secondly, it also has implications for determining whether a business actually has to manage that particular risk or not. A small business could say, well, we don’t think that’s a critical risk because it’s not likely to happen every single day. It might only happen once every three or four years, so therefore it’s not critical. But actually, that risk, if it does occur, even if it’s not likely to occur regularly, it has enormous impact in that it could cause death. And so, for some very confused reasons, a smaller business, even if they’re operating very heavy machinery, even if people are perhaps operating sole charge in a place where they could get attacked aggressively—think about our electorate offices for example—all sorts of scenarios where, actually, just because there’s less than 20 people doesn’t mean that the risk is low. Think about a small forestry crew. It could be a small forestry company that only has 15 employees. Forestry is one of the most dangerous industries in New Zealand. Farming is another one. A farm may employ, let’s say, five people. They won’t be covered by this part of the legislation anymore, and if they determine that a risk is not critical, even if that actual risk occurred it could cause immense harm, they’ll be exempt from having to comply with these parts of the legislation. It’s very confused. There’s no way this can be implemented, and I guess the core, really, now is for New Zealand First to actually put their money where their mouth is tonight and vote against this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (21:32): This bill makes pragmatic changes to our health and safety laws. It’s all a part of our Government’s plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:32): There we have it: 12 seconds from Dan Bidois on one of the most important bills that comes before this House in this term of Parliament.

Hon Matt Doocey: That’s why he wants it passed quickly.

SHANAN HALBERT: Mr Doocey, you can’t hold your nose and pretend that the seriousness of this particular bill can be ignored as it passes through, when we’ve heard from a number of submissions over a number of times, and as the Minister for Mental Health, I would expect in this House, when we are speaking about such a sensitive matter, that you would show some empathy and some compassion to the people that have submitted and shown their concerns on this bill. Shame on you, Matt Doocey.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I stand on behalf of the Labour Party tonight to oppose the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. We oppose this bill for very simple reasons: because it weakens protections that keep New Zealanders safe within our workplaces. At its heart, this bill creates a two-tier health and safety system, one where the standard of protection a worker receives depends on the size of the organisation that they work within. For us over this side of the House, we reject that proposition because we believe that every worker deserves the same chance to return home safely to their whānau at the end of the day, whether they work for a business with five employees or whether they work for a business with 500 employees. That principle, in my view, should never, ever be compromised.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety argues this bill is about reducing compliance costs and making life easier for small businesses. Labour agrees that businesses deserve practical guidance. We agree health and safety law should be clear, it should be proportionate, and it absolutely should be easy to understand. But there is an absolute fundamental difference between making compliance easier and making workers less safe in their work environment from Monday to Friday, or whatever days that they work, or time that they work during their working week. Sadly, this bill absolutely crosses that line.

I sat alongside many MPs in this House as part of the Education and Workforce Committee, and I had the opportunity to hear directly from those who would have to live with the consequences of this particular legislation before us tonight. We listened to health and safety experts; we listened to a significant number of employers; we listened to business leaders from across our country; and we listened to workers themselves. But most of all, we listened to families who have experienced the worst consequence of workplace failure, and what struck me was that many submitters supported reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, yes, but they were equally clear that this bill goes too far. Time and again, we heard the same message: support businesses to comply with the law, but don’t lower the standard that keeps workers safe.

One witness whose evidence stayed with me was Mike Cosman from the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management. He said to our committee, “Small businesses have a 24 percent higher injury rate than large firms. Carving them out makes no sense.” That evidence should concern every single member of this House. If small businesses already experience higher rates of workplace injury, why would Parliament reduce their obligations to manage workplace risks?

I was also struck by the evidence provided from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. This was not an organisation arguing against business regulation. This was an employer organisation asking Parliament to make sure that we choose and get the balance right. Their submission stated simply for us, “Business size has absolutely no bearing on risk.” That one sentence exposes the fundamental flaw of the bill that is before this House tonight, because risk is determined by the work being carried out. It’s not determined by the number of people that any organisation has on their payroll. A construction site does not become safer because there are 19 kaimahi, or workers, instead of 21. A forestry contractor employing 10 people faces the same hazards as one employer hiring and employing 100. The risks, Minister, remain exactly the same, and that is why this side of the House, the Labour Party, believes that the answer is better to support businesses to meet their obligations, not to lower the standards that we expect of them.

Hon David Seymour: Has the member read the whole bill?

SHANAN HALBERT: This bill will also have a disproportionate—and wait for it, David Seymour—impact on Māori, on Pasifika, and on young workers, because we know that Māori and Pasifika workers are overrepresented in industries like construction, forestry, manufacturing, transport, and logistics. That is our day-to-day reality of where Aotearoa New Zealand is at. They are also more likely to work for small businesses, and that means that they are more likely to be affected by the weaker protections that this bill creates.

In New Zealand, we already have unacceptable inequities in workplace injury and fatality rates. That is a fact, and this bill makes those inequities absolutely worse. Young workers deserve particular attention, and we know that many begin their careers through apprenticeships and through vocational education. For an apprentice, the workplace is also a classroom. It is where they learn, not only the technical skills of the trade but the safety practices that will stay with them throughout their career. As legislators, surely, our responsibility tonight is to ensure that every worker, every apprentice, steps on to a work site that is protected by the strongest possible health and safety standards, not weaker ones.

If this Government is serious about rebuilding New Zealand’s skilled workforce, it should be strengthening protections for all workers, for all apprentices, for all young people that work on site. They should not be watering them down. We all want more tradies on site, we all want more workers to feel safe, but we also want every worker to return home safely at the end of their working day. As we listened to the submitters before our select committee, we heard directly that this piece of legislation before the House is not workable—it is not workable. Anyone that sat around that table and is voting in support of this bill has not directly listened to the people that submitted within that forum. They have not listened, and this is another example of a Government that is out of touch. They’re squabbling with each other at the cost of the lives of workers in this country.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:42): Both worker health and safety and reducing unnecessary red tape for businesses is important. It is all about striking the right balance, and this is what this bill is all about. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 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 the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and Schedules 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 31—“Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:46): Thank you. Madam Chair. I’ve tabled an amendment to Schedule 1 of the bill and to clause 2, changing the commencement date so that all provisions of the bill come into force on 1 April 2027. This change will provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and to develop advice and guidance.

I welcome debate on this particular part, particularly by the members who have actually read the bill, in particular because, through the second reading, I was amazed at the factual inaccuracies about the bill. Therefore, I welcome debate.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that we will be talking about the changes to the Minister’s amendment later on in the debate, so I won’t go into that now, other than to say that it seems a bit odd that we’re even here having this debate when, from what I read in the media, it seems that New Zealand First have negotiated this and that it would be likely they would vote this out or repeal it when they came back into Parliament if they got back into Government. Given the fact that our party and our side of the House have said that we would do the same, it seems a bit of a dead duck bill, but we will be having that debate later on.

I just want to set a scene here, and then I’ve got a number of questions that go through clause by clause as we’re going through this particular part of the committee stage.

Firstly, we’ve heard some really good debate; that’s happened in the second reading, and that followed a rather robust select committee stage. We had a lot of people who had come in and organisations who had come in and submitted, both in writing and orally. We heard from some real experts in this area and people who are absolutely passionate about making our workplaces safer, because we do know that we have abhorrent statistics in this area, and it is something that we can hang our heads in shame about. It’s not often, as New Zealanders, that we can’t say we punch above our weight, but we can’t say that in this particular instance. It is something that we have to really take seriously, because we do want to see our people come home safe at the end of the day. We do want to see people go to work with the security that their workplaces are as safe as they can be.

That brings me to my first round of questioning, which is on Part 1, and it’s clause 4, and it’s where the purposes part of the bill—it’s clause 4, where section 3 is replaced, and it’s the “Purpose”. I’m really troubled by what the purpose is there for a number of reasons. The word “critical” and the focus on the critical risks is one of those areas. Overall, it makes this bill sound quite rosy, and I don’t believe that that is the case after listening to so many experts—and still having them come through my door just about on a daily basis.

I think Mark Patterson said in his second reading speech last week that it was like a conga line that he was getting coming through. I’m getting the same people coming through like a conga line through my door as well, and these are people, as I said, who are absolutely passionate. They don’t believe that this purpose section reflects what this bill is at all. I’ve got an Amendment Paper in that says that the purpose at the moment is what they’re telling me—that it’s weakening protections in place to protect people while at work, and it’s driving up the cost of ACC.

My question for the Minister is: what empirical evidence is this bill based on? I’ve never been able to get to the bottom of the evidence and the research that shows that this bill is the right way to go. People have said that they’re confused and they want to simplify the Act. That is not evidence. I want to know what the evidence is, and I also want to know—because we’ve been told by many of these people that it will drive up the costs of ACC—what work ACC have done on this bill, and what changes were made as a result, if any, from the feedback that ACC have given? Those are really serious questions, because I cannot get to the bottom of that evidence, and I want to know that that exists. Those are my first questions in that area.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:51): Thank you Madam—oh, Mr Chair. You’ve changed in the last two minutes!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Not everything.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, taking the first question about clause 4, about the contribution being opposed to the current purpose, saying it makes the bill sound rosy. No, look, I just don’t take that as a good faith argument. It’s normal for a bill’s purpose to be factual and based on what the purpose and the intent of this law is, and that’s exactly what this law does—as it does in all other legislation that we pass in this House.

To the further questions that the member had in regards to not liking some of the evidence that she may have seen and asking about what evidence came from ACC: look, it’s really the same as essentially a debate that occurred over a decade ago, where, at the time, ACC never provided costed factual evidence for what the effect of the Health and Safety at Work Bill would be, because it didn’t exist then, and it doesn’t exist now for the same reasons then as now.

It’s also the case that when Labour looked at the Health and Safety Work Bill back in 2015, they were also opposed to that on the basis of “We don’t like some of the stuff that’s happening based on the evidence”. I think you’ve got to really ask what Labour actually cares about for health and safety. They didn’t pass their original law. Then we heard contributions from other members from Labour saying, “Oh, we miss the days of John Key, and we miss the days of Michael Woodhouse.” Well, they opposed it then. My goodness gracious! Like, hindsight is rosy. It’s not about this purpose statement sounding rosy; their own memory sounds a bit rosy. So that’s the end of my contribution on that one.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:54): Just quickly following up on that: is the Minister saying, from that contribution, that ACC have given no advice to this? That was what my question was: what advice, if any, have ACC given? I took her contribution to mean that no advice has been given here, and no action taken on that, therefore.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:54): I can answer that: ACC gave no advice on this particular actual bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:54): That does actually leave the House, I think, quite confused, because it was clear during the select committee stage that ACC did provide advice on this particular bill—and actually very concerning advice on this particular bill. This is indeed something that we mentioned in the scrutiny week a few weeks ago as well, and we got confirmation from the chief executive of ACC, who said that advice had been provided. I think that clarity is important from the Minister.

I want to just continue on and just check, specifically when we’re looking at clause 4, section 3 replaced, around the purpose. This is something we have seen happening in some of the other legislation as well, where we have this one, principal purpose that is above all else. The example I can think of is section 127 of the Education and Training Act. In this case, I want to check with the Minister: if we take section 3(1) as being the priority, as being the main principle—in which case you’re prioritising the critical risks—how would they interact with, let’s say, subsection 2(a) to (h)?

For example, in a workplace situation, if a person conducting a business or undertaking is looking at this piece of work and, like me in my previous role as the health and safety manager of my old work, is looking at this, am I supposed to go, well, you know, I will fulfil the requirements of section 3(1), which is the critical risks, but from my work perspective, anything that is in subsection 2(a) to (h) contradicts, in terms of my work capacity, what I should prioritise under this bill. Therefore, I can safely say that I can prioritise critical risks and critical risks only, and anything else is considered secondary. Would that be a correct interpretation of the purpose clause now? Because, again, this has changed from the existing legislation. I think that clarity is important from the Minister, and I do have follow-up questions for the Minister around the purpose clause.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:57): Thank you. I’m happy to take that contribution. The advice I’ve received is that how section 3(1) interacts versus the principal—how does it interact with other purposes? Look, businesses will look at their duties and not the purpose.

Also, to clarify the commentary around ACC, given that I know it’s very keen and on people’s minds on that side: in relation to ACC, they gave an opinion, but they gave no costed advice.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Urgency

Wednesday, 1 July 2026

Bills

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and Schedules 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is resumed on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 31, ”Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015”, and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:00): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her fulsome answers last night. It was good to hear some of the rationale, but before we leave clause 4, I do have a couple of questions that I want to ask, and it does go back to just asking a further follow-up on the answer that the Minister gave about ACC last night, because as I said, one of my amendments does bring ACC into it because of what we’ve heard around the potential of the rising costs.

The Minister last night said that ACC gave advice or made comment on the bill but didn’t give any costed figures. I know that that was something that we tried to get ACC to come to the Education and Workforce Committee on, but I think that got voted down, that recommendation, which I am surprised about because I think we need to hear more fulsome replies or comment around the potential of this. I really want to have an understanding of why we didn’t get some sort of costings from ACC, whether that was because they weren’t asked because we weren’t able to ask that in select committee or whether that was just an oversight, because it does concern me that we don’t know that information.

That’s, as I say, just in follow-up to last night. There is another question I do want to ask about this—not ACC, but about this clause—after that. So I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just also following on from yesterday regarding clause 4, I just want to check, because I haven’t received a response from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the shift in terms of only having one main focus. The Minister did kind of clarify between the purpose and the duty, but I do want to check with the Minister, because when something does happen, looking from a perspective of statutory interpretation, the purpose clause is what sets the tone for the entire Act. If it were challenged on whether a person conducting a business or undertaking has fulfilled their obligation, any lawyer will be drawing on the purpose clause. So I want to check, from a statutory interpretation perspective, if the Minister has considered the tangible effect of not having the remainder of new section 3(2)(a) to (h), inserted by clause 4, as all being part of that same purpose. I want to check with the Minister on that. I have an amendment, which is 8.00.01, which sort of combines all of these purposes into one, into a broader purpose, and that way all of these purposes, both in terms of new section 3(1) and also 3(2), are considered on equal footing, which means more fulsome cover when it comes to health and safety.

The other thing I want to check with the Minister, if the Minister would be interested—and these are my amendments: 8.00.02; 8.00.03—is around the fact that in all of the work we’ve done with WorkSafe and in terms of the scrutinies, one of the things we consistently see is the disproportionate impact and injury ratio when it comes to Māori. So I wondered: how is the Minister planning, through the purposes, to address some of that, and whether it would be prudent for us to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a part of the main purpose of this bill, either as part of the main purpose under new section 3(1) or as a following purpose under new section 3(2)—if that’s something that the Minister would consider.

I think, finally, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my amendment 8.00.04, which, essentially, also—and I have further questions on this which pertain to a later part of Part 1. But, fundamentally, we see certain obligations under the International Labour Organization conventions, specifically conventions 155 and 187, which are mentioned in some of our trade agreements in particular—and I will be discussing more about trade agreements when we’re looking at the approved code of practice.

So I want to check with the Minister if it is also wise, under the purpose section, which sets the tone for the bill, that we should include our obligation, or to give effect to New Zealand’s obligation, under the International Labour Organization conventions, including but obviously not limited to conventions 155 and 187.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:05): Before we leave this particular clause, I do want to just talk to the fact that this is the first time in the bill, in this clause, that the terminology of classifying risks as critical risks comes up. It comes up, can I just say—I’ll just read out—in clause 4, clause 7, 9, 11, 11A, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, and in Schedule 2. I just want to mention it here because, as I say, it is the first time that it comes up in the bill. I don’t want to confuse what I’m saying here with the definition of critical risk, which comes up in a different clause later on, or how you work out the definition, but I do want to talk about how the bill proposes to classify risks as critical risks or non-critical and create different responsibilities on persons conducting a business or undertaking according to which category of a risk they fall into.

What we heard during the Education and Workforce Committee—and some of this has come up after select committee, which is why I’m asking it now. I’ve had people that have come in who are working tirelessly in the health and safety at work area who have said this would be extremely complicated and expensive for business to administer while also delivering worse health and safety outcomes around their responsibilities of categorising that risk.

My question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is: has that been given enough consideration, what I’m hearing business tell me since select committee of how complicated that is going to be? Why is that justification there, and how are businesses going to be supported in identifying that critical and non-critical risk?

Again, I don’t want to get into the classification or the definition so much, because that does come in a later clause, and I would like to talk about that in the later clause. But I would like to just ask at this stage about support that businesses might or might not get, and also why that justification of that terminology has been used at this particular point.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, in regards to Jan Tinetti’s first point regarding clause 4 and ACC, I do note this picks up on some of the comments I was making last night: that my officials advised me that it’s not possible to cost the net impact of the changes, in the same way it wasn’t possible to cost the net impact of the changes for the 2015 Act, which is why it didn’t exist then and it doesn’t exist now, because potential costs of the health and safety system depend on business behaviour, individuals, ACC performance, and the health sector performance, amongst a wider range of variables. Health and safety doesn’t act completely in a silo, but neither does ACC, and so we would actually expect a focus on the most serious risks to reduce costs from harm.

To the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan in regard to clause 4, he queried why we had a main principal purpose and then subsequent purposes. Look, there is one main purpose, and additional purposes. The benefit of this is that it provides a clear hierarchy to aid interpretation for anybody looking to follow the law, including the interpretation of the broader prospective principles of new section 3(3). This is clearer than the current law, because there are many aspects to the purpose with no hierarchy. That kind of follows on, then, into his later contribution, talking about his tabled amendment wishing to combine all the purposes rather than having a hierarchy. I wouldn’t be supporting that, because the tabled amendment would return the Act to the current mix of purposes that we already have, and the desire here is to prioritise risks, which means setting out that “critical risk” is the main purpose and then there are subsequent purposes of the Health and Safety Act that follow from there.

The other query he had is: should the Treaty of Waitangi only be in the purpose? No is the simple answer—in part, because the overall goal of the Health and Safety at Work Act is to reduce risk of workplace harm in general. It’s not specifying any particular race or actually any need for the Treaty. It’s talking about the drivers of high injury rates—which are high for Māori, but that’s not because people are Māori; it’s because the industries that many Māori work in are harmful, and so addressing critical risks will address the level of harm for Māori people. You don’t need the Treaty to do that. You can also just reduce risk by focusing on critical risk in industry where Māori are working, which are higher-risk areas. That will also reduce risk for people who are from Pasifika, ethnic communities, and other Kiwi communities. We don’t actually need a Treaty of Waitangi clause in order to reduce harm for Māori workers.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for those responses, Minister; I do appreciate them. I think the point of clarification around my amendment is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi does in fact benefit everyone. I think the tangible manifestation of that is that we’ll see a more equitable approach when it comes to health and safety for all, but what we’re seeing right now is that it hasn’t actually happened. I’m not sure—I’m looking at the regulatory impact statement, as well as what has come through select committee—whether that is something that could be achieved by having just one simple main purpose, but I guess we’ll see once the bill gets implemented.

Noting that other people may still have questions on clause 4, I want to move on to clauses 7 and 8. I want to start with clause 8, and this is something that a lot of submitters in particular had a lot of concerns about. I wasn’t a part of the select committee for this particular bill. Even though I’m a permanent member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I didn’t partake in the consideration. One of the things that jumps out at me when I’m looking at the definition, for example, for “small PCBU” over here—two things, and I’ll seek the Minister’s clarification. One of them is: what was the rationale behind a small PCBU having fewer than 20 workers? For example, I would understand when we’re looking at small PCBUs, particularly if you’re looking at family businesses of, let’s say, fewer than three workers, or even five workers—that makes sense. Twenty workers is actually quite—though possibly not to the size of Meta or Apple, but it’s actually quite a sizeable company and it’s actually quite a lot. About 25 percent of our businesses here in Aotearoa would be captured by that, so one-quarter would be captured by that. I want to check with the Minister: why 20 workers, and is it appropriate to cut out 25 percent of our businesses so that way they don’t have to fulfil certain requirements? That is my first question.

My second question on this, and I do have some follow up questions on this clause, is the concern, possibly, around the nine-month mark. There have also been submissions that certain industries, particularly some of the seasonal industries, will be able to manipulate or stack it in a way, of having more staff for three months of the year during those peak seasons and fewer for that rest of the nine months. Therefore, overall, under this bill, they are considered as a small PCBU when in fact they are not. These also can be some of the higher-risk industries where you do see a lot of injuries, particularly when it comes to seasonal work. I want to check with the Minister on those two questions to start off with, for clause 8. It’s clause 8(4), anything that’s (3) to (5) within that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my first time to be able to contribute to this committee stage on this bill, but I was watching last night, and this morning as well, so I understand that we’re now looking at clause 7. I did have some questions for the Minister around clause 7—and I’ve tabled some amendments, and I know other colleagues have as well—focusing on the size of the PCBU and the impact that the size of the PCBU has on the clauses within this bill. The Minister has indicated that there is a change from the impact of the health and safety legislation on smaller businesses. I wanted to ask her if she could let us know the reason for deciding that small businesses were less dangerous than larger businesses, because that’s, essentially, what is outlined in this particular bill. Obviously, we use PCBU as a slightly larger type of organisation than just a business, so I can use either term: “small business” or “small PCBU”.

We know that a large majority of New Zealand businesses are actually small businesses, and a number of injuries are often felt when small businesses don’t have the same staffing and the same resources to be able to look at mitigating the effects of potential health and safety risks. This is a huge issue in the bill. That amendment that I have tabled would delete the definitions of “small PCBU” and “large PCBU”, and that would, essentially, give the effect of having health and safety requirements applying despite the size of the organisation which someone worked for. I have heard—and I apologise; I was not part of the select committee process into this—the Minister comment publicly that there were some changes at select committee around looking at when there’s a large PCBU and a small PCBU working side by side, which is defined in clause 7, and stating that there would be some ability for the larger PCBU’s health and safety requirements to impact on the small PCBU. I wondered if she could explain that—if that is, in fact, the correct and true interpretation of that—and also the justification.

There is an outcome here, if this bill does become law, that those who work for small businesses may be more likely to be injured at work, given that they don’t have the same requirements for health and safety as larger businesses. This is quite a key point in the bill. It is specifically outlined here, in the changes in clause 7, defining what those small PCBUs and large PCBUs are. I think I won’t take my full call to ask that question, but I thought it was important if the Minister could please outline if there has been some changes, and the thinking behind this quite fundamental change in our health and safety system.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:18): Thank you very much. Look, I will start firstly with Lawrence Xu-Nan’s contribution talking about the rationale for fewer than 20 workers and how we landed on 20. This threshold of 20 was advised to be used by officials as an accepted definition of small business that currently exists under law—that is used in the Employment Relations Act—and it has also been used in the past in the Health and Safety at Work Act. It was already a definition that had been used.

Then, to Camilla Belich’s contribution, talking about whether I believe that small businesses are less dangerous: no, I think that’s just a fundamental misunderstanding of the law that sits before us. If you’re a big business or a small business, if you have critical risks—which are actions or risks that could likely lead to death or serious injury—you have to manage those, whether you are big or small. There’s nothing in this law that says just because you are small, you are inherently less risky.

It is the case that when I was developing this policy, I thought of mining as one example where it is possible that you could have some small mining operations that are inherently extremely risky. Therefore, it just doesn’t fit the member’s idea of how this bill, as designed, works, because it was intentionally designed so that small outfits like a very small mining operation could not be seen as inherently less risky. They also need to follow all the critical risks and all of the mining regulations that fall under the law. Whether you’re big or small, it’s actually to do with whether or not you have critical risks or actions, or risks or harms that could lead to death or serious injury.

What is really behind this is—and I haven’t actually read the member’s amendment in detail, but she talks about how maybe it would be simpler if we got rid of the distinction between big and small. I kind of in some ways agree, but I would hope that her amendment is going the other way and it’s putting big businesses into the small category so it’s just that everyone has to follow critical risks and not the other stuff. But I have a high suspicion that it goes the other way, in which case I won’t be supporting that.

In part, the reason why I didn’t extend the small business carve-out to all businesses is because I’ve heard from some of the very, very large ones who have got lots of systems and lots of money and lots of resource, as well as some of the unions, that they didn’t want change; they did actually want to manage everything down to a hot water tap. We’ve done this for the small businesses who are resource-constrained, but for the big ones, they can still manage all the risks, as they currently do under the law now.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:21): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your answers. When I hear those answers, I still weigh those up against the people that have, since the select committee, been coming to me. They are people like the Health and Safety Association of New Zealand and people who are volunteers who have come out of business and work in that space absolutely for no monetary reward whatsoever, but they have been working in this space for 30-plus years because they want to make a difference in health and safety and have the most appropriate qualifications and experience, both in a regulatory level and on the front-line level. They still have concerns about this particular clause, and they see that there is a two-tier system.

At the meeting that they asked to have with me last week, they said that they see that we are treating business and people differently. Now, in the departmental report and, indeed, in the legislative statement that was made for the second reading, which is the Minister’s own statement, it said that people had misunderstood the Act. But they take exception to that because they see that this particular clause—and they have gone through it with a fine-tooth comb with their legal advisers, as well—is going to create that two-tier level system. They have been in this, as I’ve said, for a long, long time. They state that they are not misunderstanding this. They have sought several legal opinions in this area, and they can see that this is going to have only negative outcomes for New Zealand because it will not meet that legal threshold of holding those smaller businesses to account.

I put it to the Minister and ask whether she is absolutely confident that this is going to stand up in the court of law—these particular clauses, clauses 7 and 8—when people who have worked in this area are getting legal advice from several different sources and saying that it is not going to meet that legal threshold. I think, for me, the crux of this whole bill is in these two clauses, which are of concern to the majority of people here because of what it is actually doing. We’ve had people sort of say, “No, that’s not what the intent is.” That doesn’t matter when it comes to the legal interpretation of what this law is trying to do. When you’ve got people that have worked in this area for quite some time saying this, I have huge concerns, and I’m wondering if the Minister does, too.

I also just want to point out that with regard to those people that have been to see me—and it’s not just that association that I’ve mentioned; it’s quite a number of people who have worked in this area for some time—I have made some amendments to clause 8 that replace the figure “20” with “1”, because they tell me that any time that you have more than one person working on the site, you have a huge health and safety issue that you have to be really cognisant of—

Cameron Luxton: Yeah, like the critical risks—the ones that you have to be.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —particularly with critical risks. I say that for the member on the other side that’s calling that out over there, who obviously doesn’t understand this and hasn’t had the same discussions that the rest of us have had.

Those are my questions to the Minister. It really is about that legal threshold and the confidence that she has that this will uphold, because, essentially, that is where people are seeing the huge issues with this bill.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m taking some of the contributions that I hadn’t quite ticked off yet. For Lawrence Xu-Nan, who inquired about the purpose of potentially having International Labour Organization conventions within the law and how it interacts with our free-trade agreements. Convention 155, which he referred to, is a high-level convention which imposes a general obligation on businesses to ensure safety as far as reasonably possible. The purpose of this law already covers those requirements.

There was also a concern about seasonal fluctuations for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) and the rationale behind how we landed at the 20 threshold. Ultimately, having the seasonal fluctuation for the three-month period responds to real-world situations that I heard of while we were developing the law. A good example of this would be industries such as the retail sector, who have a potential Christmas period that requires more workers, but at other times the workforce may be actually much smaller than it would be outside the Christmas period. The businesses will be able to form a reasonable expectation of their workforce over 12 months based on their experience and knowledge of their industry.

He was also concerned whether people could manipulate the number of workers in order to be a small PCBU. Look, it was something that we had considered in terms of would people be able to have employees versus contractors, etc., but the bill refers to “workers”, and so it’s not possible to manipulate this through different employment agreements. Businesses can and do change their worker numbers all the time, so if businesses do have fluctuating numbers, whether they are large or small, it really depends on the reasonable expectation of the workforce size over a financial year.

Camilla Belich also inquired about how small businesses, therefore, will go about working with large businesses, and I do want to take a little bit more time talking about this one, because I note this came up quite a lot over the last few weeks. There seems to be quite a misunderstanding that the select committee has, in fact, dealt with this issue that there were concerns raised at the time—and I also had concerns that were brought to me, and I thought about this in a lot of detail—that, yes, if you’ve got areas, such as a construction worksite, where you have small businesses and you have large businesses interacting, you do want to ensure that there is a bit of simplicity on a worksite.

What has ended up happening in practice with the select committee’s changes, which I also support, is that large businesses must cooperate with others on all risks, and small businesses must cooperate with others on critical risks and may voluntarily cooperate on non-critical risks. However, businesses remain free to enter contracts requiring cooperation on all risks, and so a large PCBU, or a large business, on a worksite can continue to impose their higher standards through contracts where it is appropriate. It does actually provide much more clarity that contract law still applies above and beyond a minimum standard of law—for anybody who might be worried about overlapping duties on construction worksites—although I do note that it’s possible on other worksites as well, but that’s the main one that’s been brought to my attention. I believe that was a sensible change from the select committee.

Jan Tinetti also inquired whether I’m confident that the law would stand up in court because of clauses 6, 7, and 8. Yes, I am confident, because my officials have advised it will stand up because the clauses are quite clearly drafted. It’s my view that there are people who are opposed to the bill who are taking a more vibes-based approach to the bill than is actually written in legal drafting.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your responses, Minister. It does clarify some of my questions, but I do want to kind of follow on, and this will be my last bit on clause 8. Regarding the number for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs), I acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of it being something that the Employment Relations Act uses and what previously maybe the Health and Safety at Work Act used, but I want to ask, for the Minister’s clarity. Looking at page 15 of the regulatory impact statement—and this is the one that’s dated 20 May 2025—there were four options given in those when it comes to the definitions for a small PCBU. So I want to check—and I do correct myself: I said 25 percent of business, but, in fact, 97 percent of New Zealand businesses have fewer than 20 workers, according to the regulatory impact statement. So out of those four options—which are sole trader only, five workers, 10 workers, or 20 workers—what is the rationale for the Minister to then land on 20 out of those four options?

In terms of the Minister’s response for the nine months and then whether employers are able to stack it, she mentioned that it’s a reasonable expectation, but I also think this is where the problem is. As the legislation is drafted, a seasonal employer, let’s say, could have nine months of the year with fewer than 20 workers. My understanding is—please correct me if I’m wrong—that then they are justified as a small PCBU, which means that for the three months when they have more than 20 workers, they do not need to fulfil the additional requirement that’s appropriate for a large PCBU. So for those three months, even though they have more than 20 workers, they can still, by definition, consider themselves as a small PCBU. Is that the correct interpretation?

Finally, just on this bit on clause 8, I want to check a couple of the amendments I had with the Minister—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Jan Tinetti’s amendment, as well—to limit it to one, particularly for sole traders, which I think is an important one. I want to first speak to my colleague Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment 8.00.05, which is actually deleting this section, because, again, from my conversations with my colleague Teanau Tuiono, his understanding from conversations with workers is that such a definition is, overall, arbitrary and doesn’t really need to be in place, whereas my tabled amendment 8.00.06, is, I guess, sort of more liberal than both the Hon Jan Tinetti’s and my colleague Teanau Tuiono’s amendment, by reducing 20 to three.

I also want to check with the Minister on one of my other tabled amendments, which I thought was an interesting one. This potentially would help alleviate the concerns I have, which are about a PCBU being able to determine for themselves whether they consider themselves to be a small PCBU. That’s to do with new section 17(4) and (5) in clause 8(4), which provides that “the PCBU is a small PCBU if the PCBU reasonably expects”. I think that if we want to ensure the independence and transparency of this, rather than having the PCBUs themselves determine this, which would be a conflict of interest, it might be wise to have the designated agency—which is a defined definition under the Health and Safety at Work Act—determine that instead. My tabled amendment, which is 8.00.08, changes the word from “if the PCBU reasonably expects” to “if the designated agency reasonably expects”, and that then takes out the conflict of interest, and potentially protects the PCBUs themselves.

Just one final just thing that I want to get clarity on—this is not clause 8, but the Minister has touched on it—is the new clause 11A from the select committee that the Minister has mentioned in terms of interacting or cooperating between a large and small PCBU. I want to just check with the Minister if that interpretation also includes where there’s a large PCBU with a lot of small PCBU subsidiaries—for example, they have different businesses, with one in Auckland, one in Wellington, and one in Christchurch, but, overall, it falls under the umbrella of a single large PCBU. Would that be also captured in new clause 11A?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there’s certainly a lot for us to be looking at from this committee stage. The Minister said that some of our objections amount to vibes, so I’m very happy to take the Minister through every single clause of this bill and see if their bears out with the evidence that is put before us.

I would like to put it to the Minister that she has, again and again, said that this is not undermining the health and safety regulations for small businesses, but limiting their responsibilities to critical risk does mean that they have fewer responsibilities to look at risks to health and safety which are not considered to be critical, and that would be the majority of health and safety incidents that come up in New Zealand. So I would put it to the Minister that it is, in fact, correct that the health and safety responsibilities for small businesses have been lessened by this legislation, and that it is, in fact, her objective under this Act to make small businesses have fewer responsibilities to keep their workers safe. That can be evidenced through the select committee process and through the clauses that we’re looking at today, which make a specific effort to look at the difference between small and large PCBUs. I’m specifically looking at clause 8, which has the definition of a small PCBU in it, which is particularly important, because those with under 20 don’t have the responsibility to look at things that are not critical risk.

The Minister has, again—and I’ve heard her use it publicly—used the example of a hot tap as almost like a ridiculous thing to be concerned about from a health and safety context. Now, I just want us to think about that for a second because burns are extremely serious. If anyone thinks about when they turn on the tap, how do they find out what the temperature is? They put their hand under it. If you have a tap that, as soon as you turn it on, is running at a level of boiling that is actually going to burn you, then that tap is going to cause a serious injury. I’m not just talking about adults here; I’m talking about children, or anyone who turns on their tap. That is something that I’ve experienced personally within my family: taps running that hot have led to burns that have needed to have medical attention and hospitalisation.

When we look at these examples that the Minister may seek to undermine through lack of seriousness, actually, those things that may not be seen as critical risk can actually turn out to be significant injuries. When we’re looking at the definitions of critical risk, which we’ve touched on in clause 7, and when we look at the fact that smaller PCBUs don’t have the responsibility to look at critical risk, then we can see that some of those particular instances that aren’t deemed critical or particularly life-threatening—well, burns can be life-threatening, but I accept probably not in a tap situation as it’s unlikely to be for a longer duration—can be very serious. The purpose of this bill is to actually undermine the ability for people’s health and safety be taken seriously by smaller PCBUs.

The other issue that I wanted to ask the Minister is: in relation to this definition that we’ve got in clause 8 and the fact that she is looking at limiting the number of workers to 20—and I also just want to look at the nine-month period of time. I know that my colleague has talked about the fact that it might be difficult for seasonal workers, but the issue that I wanted to raise is in fact around the nine-month period and the term “reasonably expects”. I think that definition is very, very loose and it could potentially result in people who have PCBUs with more than 20 people actually being in a situation where they don’t take the high-level health and safety assessments that they are required to make currently under the law, because they, for some reason, don’t think that their PCBU will be growing to 20 within that period of time. So I think that that is important to understand why there aren’t stricter criteria, and where the liability will lie.

Also, I don’t think that the fact that the select committee has said that it is possible for private organisations to enter into a contracting relationship that has higher health and safety standards than the law answers anything. Of course, private companies have very, very wide contracting power and can usually enter into contracts for whatever they like, and so I don’t accept that that means that when there are mixed sites, this issue is resolved.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety seeks some advice on the questions that we’ve proposed, I do want to now move on to clause 9. Clause 9 is probably one of the more important clauses in this bill, and this is to do with the definition of “critical risk”. Madam Chair, if you’ll indulge me, I was wondering if I can have just a few quick back and forth exchanges with the Minister, if the Minister is happy to do that. I have a few quick questions, and then we’ll get into some more of the details of the bill. This is to do with new section 22A, “Meaning of critical risk”, particularly when we’re looking at subsection (1).

If we’re doing a quick-fire round to the Minister, the first question is: could the Minister just clarify what the Minister’s interpretation is of a risk and a hazard?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Carry on with your questions while the Minister gets advice.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. How the Minister responds to my questions will determine what kind of questions I’ll follow up with. So I guess my first question is: can the Minister define what is a risk and what is a hazard? My second question is: can the Minister define what is the difference between likelihood and consequence? The reason I ask those is because, as the Minister would understand, when we’re looking at a risk management matrix for health and safety, those are some of the key areas that we look at whenever we do any sort of risk analysis using such a risk matrix. That is fundamental to health and safety, whether we’re looking at safety level one or safety level two.

On the basis of those questions, one of the things that jumped out at me when we’re looking at new section 22(1)(b) is the fact that when the risk is associated with “a hazard of any kind” and that if the risk occurs—i.e., a consequence—“is likely to result in any 1 or more of the following:”—but that’s not the norm when we’re looking at a risk management matrix, because, I think, as a starting point we look at the likelihood. The idea is that when we are determining—and if you’re looking at the risk matrix and we give a score, and the score varies depending on which jurisdiction you are based in, that particular score determines the level of intervention that is required for a workplace when you’re looking at health and safety. So if you’re looking at something with a high level of likelihood of a consequence, and particularly a higher probability of a consequence as opposed to a likelihood, you give it a higher score. But, in general, using the hot water example of the previous speaker and the Minister, the consequence is there as well as the likelihood, but in those kind of cases, what you want to do in terms of any form of intervention strategy is you look at elimination. You eliminate the potential hazard, then you limit or you minimise, and then you engineer and you kind of use signifiers, like if personal protective equipment is involved or if there’s nothing you can do about it. Those are some of the hierarchies you’re look at when you look at any form of intervention.

All of those are crucial when we are trying to understand the definition of “critical risk”. In the hot water example, if a small PCBU—person conducting a business or undertaking—for example, is not considered a critical risk, a small PCBU will have no requirement to signpost “That is hot water”, nor engineer it in a way that it needs a specific mechanism to ensure that the release of such boiling water can only be done via an engineered mechanism. That’s how it works when it when we’re looking at health and safety. So I do want to check those kind of quick questions with the Minister first, as well as what the Minister considers in terms of the example I just raised regarding the risk management matrix.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, going back to the ones that I still needed to tick off, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I suspect, will be having a very busy morning, standing up for the Opposition. But a little while ago, he asked why we have picked 20 as the option out of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) when there were four different definitions potentially given. It was because it was consistent with other definitions that already exist in the law, and so it would have been familiar to businesses. He mentioned the point about 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand being small businesses. However, I would also note that small persons conducting businesses or undertakings (PCBUs) employ approximately 27 percent of all employees.

He also then queried whether it would be correct that a seasonal business with fewer than 20 workers for nine months of the year would be a small PCBU. Yes, that is a correct interpretation of the law, and it aligns with the policy and Cabinet decisions to capture seasonal fluctuations in workforce sizes.

He also queried, and this is also the same query that Camilla Belich had, whether it is correct that businesses with more than 20 workers—sorry: if they had three extra months where they had more than 20 workers, can they consider themselves small? Once again, it’s to do with the thresholds. Look, if the business is in an industry where the numbers habitually fluctuate, then yes, they would be small if it has more than 20 workers for no more than three months. But, importantly, the small business must identify and manage its critical risks, whether or not they’re big or small, which means that it puts the attention where it is needed most, which is where you’re managing the things that will do the most harm. So if a business simply decides to increase their work numbers for a long term, they’ll have to reassess and they would be a large PCBU.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then had another query—which I guess really turns to the fact that we’re ticking all of those ones off—as to why are we leaving it to PCBUs to determine if they expect the workforce to be less than 20 for nine months, rather than an agency or some other organisation. Look, it’s simply just not practical in an economy of our size to have an agency to assess each and every PCBU with a fluctuating workforce in order for businesses to know what their duties are. That’s just a bureaucratic nightmare.

Lawrence Xu-Nan then asked: what are the differences between risks and hazards, and likelihoods and consequence? A hazard is the thing that has the potential to cause harm, the risk is the harm that can arise from the hazard, the consequence is the outcome of something happening, and the likelihood is as it sounds, which is how probable it is that the consequence will eventuate from the risk arising.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then had another query: if a large PCBU has several subsidiaries, is it captured by clause 11A? Yes. If the PCBU shares a duty with another PCBU, it must cooperate on that duty. Where there are shared duties for critical risks, cooperation is required, whether the PCBU is small or large. PCBUs may also require cooperation and their contracting arrangements.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (09:49): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, it’s a bit early for that.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve moved on to clause 9 now, and my colleague moved us there. I did mention right at the beginning that this is the one, when I talked about critical risk, and I said that I didn’t want to get that muddled up with the definition, and this does bring the definition of “critical risk” into this. I do have a number of amendments and I don’t want to talk to all of them, but I actually want to talk to my colleague Camilla Belich’s amendment because I think her explanatory note sets this out really well.

It talks about the current drafting of the new section 22A(1)(b) setting a probability test of the consequences of risks and it sets that probability at “likely”, which is an uncertain term. I know that officials have said, “Well, it’s used elsewhere in legislation.” I actually think there’s an issue there, in that so many people came into select committee, and since select committee, very much saying that people did not understand this particular term, and that is part of the issue. So just because it’s used in other parts of legislation doesn’t make it correct. Camilla Belich’s explanation talks about the fact that it may be interpreted as greater than a 50 percent chance. And this requires a person conducting a business or undertaking to have the knowledge and resources to undertake such an assessment, and would result in uncertainty and disputes regarding these assessments.

The first question that I’ve got for the Minister is to ask whether the Minister is concerned that so many people came to the select committee—it was many of the submitters—and said that they did not understand this particular term. In this explanatory note, and this is the second question that I want to ask, it also sets the threshold unreasonably high when the safety, health, and lives of workers are concerned. Certain categories of risk, such as musculoskeletal and psychosocial, would largely be excluded from this definition. Now, why that is of concern is that musculoskeletal and psychosocial harm make up a huge percentage of ACC claims. While I’m not saying that this is a critical risk, I am saying that this seems to be put aside from this bill and excluded from this bill. Is that the Minister’s understanding?

Does the Minister have concerns around the fact that those areas aren’t in there, and is there a thought that in the future, we would be doing something about that so that businesses have that oversight of what is a growing area of harm in this country in the workplace, and also a growing area that ACC are having to cover? Should we be doing something about that in this bill, because it seems like we’re excluding it and we’re not going down the track of actually doing something about it now? So those are the questions that I have.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had some questions, like my colleague, around clause 9, which we’re now up to, which is new section 22A. I did check with the Clerk before, but I wanted to signal now that in new section 22A(2)(a), there is a reference to Schedule 1A, and that actually sets out the—I’ll just go to it myself now—examples of what is defined as hazards associated with critical risk.

Hon Member: 22.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes. The reason that this is relevant is you can’t really read new section 22A without looking at Schedule 1A. The complication here is partly the question, and the issue, for the Minister. So if I own a small PCBU—person conducting a business or undertaking—of, say, five people, when I’m determining my responsibilities under this amended Health and Safety at Work Act, I will have to figure out if I have a risk associated with Schedule 1A. When we flick through to that, we see that it covers—and I know that this is a very substantive part of the bill, so I will mention some of it but I know that there will be more detailed questions on this—adventure activities, amusement devices, and general risk and workplace management.

It especially has some carve-outs in relation to work done by children, which, I have to say, was quite alarming; we’re talking about envisaging a situation where someone under the age of 15 years old is involved in the manufacturing and preparation of goods for sale, and someone under 16 is working in between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., so a few questions around the situations that would lead to that particular situation occurring and whether that is a desirable outcome for those who are of that age.

As we’ve mentioned previously in this committee stage, we do need to take into account different levels of ability when assessing health and safety risk; we’re not always talking about fully compos mentis adults engaging in the workplace. We know that workplaces are open to every single body of every single ability and capacity, and age as well, so that is a specific thing that I think we need to look at.

In discussion with my colleagues, I think that it is going to be very difficult for us to be able to look at new section 22A without looking at Schedule 1A in detail, even though that does come in a later section. So my proposal would be that we do mention that now, and then it may be that it’s relevant again to talk about that when we come to clause 30.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It is part of this debate.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a question, really: how is this simplifying and getting rid of what the Minister has called red and green tape, by getting a small PCBU—it might be a small start-up, or it might be someone who’s just started a company—to understand their responsibilities in relation to health and safety by first making them look, once they’ve established that they’re a small PCBU, at section 22A, and say, “OK, so we have to look at the risks within our workplace, and the only way we can do that is we have to assess whether any of the following is likely to occur.”, and then we look at this list: a death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident, or an occupational disease. I mean, that is a pretty huge expectation on a small business—and the Minister may want to comment on that—to know if anything that they are doing is likely to result in an occupational disease.

Then, you haven’t finished: you then have to go to see what the regulations say, and the regulations are set out in section 1A, and you have to go through the entire list, which I just alluded to, in Schedule 1A, which goes through all the different hazards and the different ages that people might be able to participate in certain things, all of the different substances—whether it’s in mining or quarrying, petroleum, gas extraction, when we’re looking at pipelines. Sometimes this might be obvious, but, Minister, this is very difficult for a small business to understand, isn’t it?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:57): Thank you very much. These two last contributions have been exceedingly enlightening—and, in part, I think, quite concerning, especially because Jan Tinetti’s contribution said that she was listening to people talking to her about how difficult and confusing and potentially more costly this will be.

I just wanted to ensure that I was raising the correct point here. The term “likely” is actually a term that is already used in risk management, in the Health and Safety at Work Act. So if she’s got experts coming through her doors saying that using the term “likely” is going to be very confusing and very costly for business, well, I’m sorry, but they can’t be experts—I certainly hope they’re not giving out expert advice to companies now, because they’re currently needing to use the word “likely” in the tests under the current law. So that is exceedingly concerning. The current law is that the likelihood of the risk occurring is a factor to be taken into account when deciding what is reasonably practicable in relation to a duty. So all persons conducting a business or undertaking should be familiar with this, especially experts on health and safety law.

She went on and then had further concerns about where our people don’t understand “likely”. Look, the select committee did clarify the provision, because the current “likely” test does not actually require a probability test of over 50 percent, as is claimed in Camilla Belich’s Amendment Paper. “Likely” has the ordinary meaning of being more than possible but less than certain. That is consistent with the current approach to identifying and managing risks that appear.

To summarise the contribution made by Camilla Belich—look, if she thinks that this term itself is, in fact, too confusing, then maybe she’d be in favour of simplifying the law even further in line with the ACT Party principles, and she would go even further rather than trying to make it even more complicated by putting in place new standards that would go above and beyond.

I’d also just make the point that I do struggle to see how the Labour Party does take itself seriously some days when—

Camilla Belich: That’s unnecessary.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, it’s not unnecessary, and I’ll give you an example, because last night we heard about how the Labour Party was so grateful that John Key and Michael Woodhouse had put in place this law. At the time, they opposed this law, and they—I think, looking at some of the contributions from back when that law was done over a decade ago—kind of alluded to the fact that they wished that the law would go further and would be stronger. But, well, guess what! They had two terms in Government and they did nothing on health and safety, so I don’t understand how we can take them seriously on health and safety.

I know Jan Tinetti, in her contribution at the second reading, said, “Oh, but we did do something. We put in place some basic drafting on a plant and structure regulation.” I’m sorry, but that Government put it on pause and they didn’t even bother to pass that one. So, look, it’s just a bit ridiculous, really.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll stick to this bill.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yeah, sorry, Madam Chair—I’m getting a bit exercised here, but I’ll end my contribution there. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to seek your guidance, Madam Chair: based on the Minister’s last contribution, are we allowed to extend the scope of our conversation and questions to the health and safety over the last 20 years or over the last 15 years? Is that something that we are able to expand the scope on?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re able to do it, but I probably would end the debate quite quickly.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah—thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the Minister for responding to my questions so thoroughly. That is appreciated.

I do have follow-up questions on clause 9, so the new section 22A. Following on from what the Minister responded to regarding new subsection (1)(b), I want to now look at some of the sub criteria within (1)(b). Madam Chair, I’m also signalling to you that while Schedule 1A technically sits under clause 31, I believe, which is still Part 1, we’re actually going to discuss Schedule 1A now, because it’s most relevant to this new section 22A of this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, it is part of this debate.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah. I just want to check with the Minister: number one, under the criteria, when we’re looking at subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iv)—is that an exhaustive list, or is that open to anything, or are those examples of what would be considered a risk that is associated with a hazard of any kind? The reason I say that is because, potentially, again, there are other things that could be, also, a part of this. So that’s my first question: are subparagraphs (i) to (iv) an exhaustive list?

My second one is around subparagraph(iv), which I think is probably one of the more concerning ones, which is “an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.” I’m concerned about that, because Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act (AC Act) is not an exhaustive list. In fact, a lot of what is considered occupational disease is left out of that, and I think my colleague Mike Davidson can speak to some of that as our ACC spokesperson.

My recommendation is—and I’m speaking on behalf of my colleague Teanau Tuiono and his Amendment Paper 8.00.13—that, rather than limiting it to those listed in Schedule 2 of the AC Act, whether we just delete “listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act” and just say “an occupational disease”. Would the Minister be open to that amendment, which actually simply broadens the scope but, also, covers additional occupational diseases that could—that should, rightfully—fall under the definition of a “critical risk”?

I want to now move on to some of the things we’re discussing, which is in Schedule 1A, which is also, technically, the list that is described that falls under the description or definition of a “critical risk”. We do have a few amendments for Schedule 1A, but I want to speak to one first at this stage, because my previous speaker, Camilla Belich, mentioned the general risk and workplace management, specifically relating to the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. This is on page 22. Apologies, Madam Chair: there are no clause numbers for Schedule 1A—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, the schedules make a little difference to the conversation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah. So, with that, while it’s good that they’re in there, I think one of the some of the things that are missing from that, which is important to possibly also include under this general section, is around—let me just quickly find it—“Any personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection”. This is drawing from, but not limited to, the current section 30 of the Accident Compensation Act, since we’re talking about the AC Act. This is something that is already identified as already reasonably nuanced within the main body of the Accident Compensation Act. Essentially, it is “any personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection, such as suffered by a person, caused by gradual process disease or infection, or caused by circumstances described in section 32 of the Accident Compensation Act”. This is my colleague Teanau Tuiono’s Amendment Paper at 8.00.33. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would consider expanding the scope of that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Camilla Belich’s contribution about simplification and how that would be achieved, under the current law, a small business has to identify all their risks and management, and the definition of critical risks under this law would guide the Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBUs) to identify the risks that caused the most harm. The schedule at the back provides immediate clarity on what is already regulated, which avoids duplication or reinterpretation of the existing rules. Schedule 1A is designed to provide certainty to PCBUs, which the Schedule 1A criteria apply to, and this relates to regulations that PCBUs need to comply and be aware of. Despite the amendment for the catch-all test, it is already expected that a PCBU understands the risks, including potential outcomes that arise from their business. It shouldn’t be complicated for people, because it’s what the law already expects.

There was a query about matters relating to children listed in Schedule 1A. There was an assumption being made by the member that children were being excluded from needing to be managed in these critical risks, but talking with my officials, the reason for that is that young people are excluded from doing that work, and it is already part of the law that young people can’t do some of those tasks. That’s why she may have misinterpreted that form of exclusion.

Lawrence Xu-Nan had a query about new section 22B(1)(b) and whether or not it was an exhaustive list: yes—officials advise that this covers the most significant risks.

Jan Tinetti had a query about why the critical risk does not specifically include psychosocial harm or musculoskeletal harm. Actually, the Education and Workforce Committee did make a change to clarify how psychosocial harm may be a factor in critical risk. If a workplace has a hazard, such as in inherently traumatic work, then there is risk of harm to workers’ mental health in the workplace that involves—you know, like driving at high speeds and emergency services personnel. The mental harm would be assessed as likely to cause serious physical harm and would be a critical risk. For musculoskeletal harm, it would be a critical risk if a workplace has a hazard likely to cause broken bones or other severe injury. Less serious muscular skeletal harm—such as a sprain, I guess—would not be a critical risk, but it doesn’t mean to say that musculoskeletal harm is completely not in a critical risk definition.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then had a query about whether or not I’d agree that critical risks include occupational diseases. Without reference to the Accident Compensation Act Schedule 2, no, it’s appropriate that the ACC system decides on what is an occupational disease. The diseases included in Schedule 2 are the diseases overwhelmingly proven to be caused by work, and so that list is regularly reviewed.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond to something that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety brought into the debate, which was whether or not the Labour Party can be taken seriously on health and safety. I was interested in her comments around the fact that we have the gall to object to the fact that she’s watering down health and safety laws, and her point seemed to be that we didn’t support the Act when it came in in the first place. I was interested in that, and I looked back and I wondered, why was it that the Labour Party at that stage did take that decision to not support that Act, and very interestingly, it was because the National Government had decided to exempt small businesses. I stand here very proud of a very consistent line from this party to say that every worker in New Zealand—small business, big business—should be entitled to be safe and healthy at work.

Thank you to the Minister for allowing me that opportunity to clarify that. We’ve decided we’re going to talk about new Schedule 1A, inserted by Schedule 2, now, and there’s a lot in here, and I do have some very specific questions for the Minister around Schedule 1A. I know that, behind Schedule 1A, there are a number of different regulations that I have had a brief look at and have tried to kind of answer any pre-emptive questions that I might have by looking at some of these regulations, but I do have some additional questions that I haven’t been able to clarify.

I wanted to start with the adventure activities and the definitions. Here, we’ve got a definition of amusement devices, which I’ve looked up in the regulations and I see are, generally, kind of like your Easter show type of situation is what I’ve managed to ascertain from reading that. But I wanted to understand from the Minister, when we’re talking about the critical risk hazards, and this is really important, because if what you’re doing as part of your small business does not fall within this Schedule, then it’s likely to be excluded from the definition of “critical risk”, so it is important that we have clarity over what’s included and what’s not.

In this first bit around adventure activities, from my reading, a lot of it is based around mechanical hazards, big machinery, that kind of thing. I wanted to know: does this cover more of the activities that New Zealand is famous for in terms of, you know, our white water rafting activities, our outdoor pursuits—obviously, those would be considered hazardous. I don’t know if they come within this particular section or not. I’m certain that they will be covered, but I just wanted some clarification as to which section they would fall within and whether it was within that initial definition of the regulations for adventure activities.

I know that my colleague, Jan Tinetti, has some questions around asbestos, but I had had a look, briefly, at the regulations in relation to asbestos because I had a question around—obviously, asbestos is an extremely concerning workplace hazard and, I think, something New Zealand needs to take even more seriously than we do. When I worked in the United Kingdom, I worked with colleagues who worked extensively with victims of people who had been exposed to asbestos, and they worked with lawyers who had claims, and it was the saddest department to work in because every single one of their clients died, and they died in a horrible, horrific, terrible death that is associated with when you have mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. So I want to acknowledge that asbestos exposure can be extremely serious and life-threatening. But as everyone will know—and Madam Chair, you will also know—it’s not the only airborne particle that can cause injury or occupational illness. When I looked at the definition of what was covered by the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016, it seemed to cover a number of different types of asbestos, but it didn’t seem to cover other airborne particles and other, perhaps, things that could be inhaled at work, and therefore cause issues with people’s lungs and breathing and those more serious conditions. So I did want to know if that did go further or if, in fact, there’s another part. Because I assume that we wouldn’t have left out on those other serious parts. I’m just aware time of the time, Madam Chair—I’ll leave those questions.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:15): Madam Chair, look, I’ll answer that relatively briefly. Yes, the member queried whether or not things like adventure activities covers a lot of tourism activities that happen in New Zealand, like white water rafting, etc. The answer to that is yes. In fact, there shouldn’t be any company out there that’s doing our tourism extreme sports that’s not clear about which regulations they should be under, otherwise that’s seriously concerning. This is not actually any change, and that’s the second part to the statement about asbestos and other airborne diseases and things. New Schedule 1A, which is what we’re talking about, lists the hazards already regulated as critical risks under our regulations. This is avoiding duplication and reinterpretation of our existing rules. There is nothing necessarily new in this.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go back to new section 22A, inserted by clause 9, and then come back to the Schedule, which is brought in through this too. But the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said before, and sort of made light of the fact that people are concerned, and have been concerned, about the “likely to result in” and that terminology. I just want to say that 22A comes after section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and section 22 says that the definition of “reasonably practical” includes “likelihood of the hazard or risk … occurring.” Well, that’s quite different to what’s in the new section 22A, which is, “likely to result”. I want to know why that difference is there and what that difference actually means, because we’ve gone over and over this but we’ve still got people that are confused, and it’s not OK to say, oh, well, it’s a concern that these people are in the sector and don’t get that, when the terminology is different to what’s in the preceding section. I think that’s a reasonable question to ask.

I want to go back. My colleague said that I had a question, and I’m going to make this quick, around the asbestos, and her question was around other airborne particles. One of the big areas that we have been hearing a lot about over the last wee while is engineered stone—and, of course, that’s silicosis—and I can’t see where that is in new Schedule 1A apart from, is it covered either in the asbestos or the mining and quarrying, which sounds that it would be a bit strange to be in there. It is something that we’ve had lots of people that have asked questions about that. I’m wondering whether this is where the answer for those questions are and where we can see the health and safety regs that sit around silicosis with the engineered stone sitting there. I’ll leave it at that because I know we’ve got lots of other questions, so I’d like an answer to those two.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Mike Davidson. I’m just waiting on another sheet here, but I will note that, so far, the debate has been run by three members, and so I don’t want—I’m not saying that the member’s going to do this, but I don’t want new members participating and asking questions that have been asked before. If it’s something absolutely new, then I’m very happy with that from any member in the committee.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:18): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions, and one, actually, is around clarification. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety earlier spoke around—and this is around the psychosocial and the inclusion of mental health, and I just want to get clarification around this to ensure that this is treated, I guess, on more of an ongoing effect of mental health on someone, not just a one-off event. It talks about, in the Education and Workforce Committee’s report around an incident such as a vehicle crash, equipment misuse, which may cause mental health from that one-off event. But we know there are a lot of, I guess, workplaces where some of these incidents may not be as significant as a vehicle crash, but, actually, are still, over a period of time, if they happen continually, quite significant and can cause significant mental health issues, potentially if you look at workplace culture and bullying.

We know in the construction industry they have a significantly high rate of suicide, and, potentially, we’re going to see vehicle crashes on a construction site. I just want to ensure and get clarification that through this inclusion and the words spoken in this report, ongoing issues, even if they’re slightly less significant as something like a vehicle crash, would actually contribute to mental health and would, therefore, be deemed a critical risk.

My other question is in relation to Schedule 1A. It obviously goes through a number of different hazards associated with critical risk, and I’ve got an amendment to this. I’m speaking to my amendment dated 1 July 2026, at 08.00.32. It has listed in here a number of things like “Mining and quarrying” and “Petroleum exploration and extraction”. One of the things that I’ve noticed that is missing from this list is firefighting.

We know that firefighters, obviously, put their lives at risk when they are saving people—New Zealanders—and that comes at an extreme risk to them through exposure to carcinogens, and also extreme temperatures and environmental pollutions. What we’re finding in that industry is that it’s actually getting a lot worse because they’re not just fighting fires that are caused through natural products that are causing fires—obviously, that has been made worse by plastics, etc.—therefore they’re dealing pretty much every day with significant hazards that will, potentially, cause the risks and issues that will actually give them things like cancer, etc.

We know that firefighters have a much higher rate of cancer. So I’ve got my amendment there, and I really appreciate that being included because I think it’s a significant gap within Schedule 1A not to acknowledge the hazards associated with firefighting.

Also, I would really appreciate getting clarification around the ability for ongoing psychosocial impacts being a critical, risk rather than just one-off incidents. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (10:22): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a lot of questions around Schedule 1A and what the scope of Schedule 1A is, and so I’ll just speak to this a little bit. Schedule 1A does not limit the risks already managed by regulations. It simply sets out what these risks are to make it easier for businesses to assess whether they may have critical risks. If a risk is not included in Schedule 1A, it may still be a critical risk if, under the catch-all test, the risk is likely to cause serious physical harm as listed in the text.

There’s been a few specific examples raised by Camilla Belich, Jan Tinetti, and Mike Davidson. I’d just like to say that with regard to the asbestos and other hazardous dust that had been raised, this specific example is covered by the hazardous substances regulations, and as far as engineered stone goes, it is not currently regulated. There is ongoing work being done on this so it can’t be in the schedule. The catch-all test will clearly cover silica exposure, given the harms it can cause, and, around firefighting and the hazards and risk, the schedule list hazards and risks currently covered by regulations. Firefighting isn’t regulated in this way, but the catch-all tests will clearly cover firefighting.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Camilla Belich. I’m getting very close to closure on this, and so I just want the key questions now.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:24): Well, Madam Chair, that’s interesting, because the majority of this bill is in Part 1 and we are working through the schedule, which we haven’t finished. Then, once we—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s why I’m asking for your key questions.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, OK. I just would note that Part 1 is the majority of this bill, and Part 2 and Part 3 are very small.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, and I accept that, but I’m asking for Camilla Belich’s key questions that haven’t been answered.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I do have some key questions that haven’t been covered at all in relation to Schedule 1A, and the questions that I have are in relation to—I’ve covered amusement devices and asbestos in Schedule 1A in my last contributions, and Jan Tinetti has mentioned that, as well. But what I want to move on to now is the general risk of workplace management.

Now, the Minister before, when I asked her around the issues around someone who was under 15 and under 16 being covered by this, said, “The member has misunderstood. This is about prohibiting those under that age level from doing this particular work.”, and I thought that was interesting. So I checked that with the regulations, and I found that in the general risk and workplace management regulations, there isn’t a prohibition on people doing that work if they’re under that level. In fact, the only restriction is that they shouldn’t do that work “so far as reasonably practicable.”, and that’s in section 44 of the regulations. That language is also echoed in relation to the other duties: in relation to harmful substances, they must not do it so far as reasonably practicable; they are not to work with heavy machinery, so far as reasonably practicable; and, if they’re under 15 years, they are not to ride upon certain vehicles so far as is reasonably practicable.

Now the Minister, I am assuming, will say that this is the law as it stands, but the question I have for her is this. If this is the law as set out in the regulations, as it currently stands, and when we are adding in this new schedule to the primary piece of legislation—so this is the primary piece of legislation that sits above the regulations which helped to enact that piece of legislation. We’re also mentioning that it is in the wording that is specifically written down in Schedule 2, which is what I’m asking about. The general risk workplace management envisages a situation where these young people might be undertaking these highly risky behaviours and it specifically sets out that when they do undertake those behaviours, that would be considered to be a critical risk.

So the question I have for the Minister is: has she taken any advice about whether her inclusion in Schedule 1A of those people under 15 years old and under 16 years old doing these highly risky activities in primary legislation would, therefore, undermine or slightly lessen the restrictions in the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations? On my reading of this, it isn’t clear that there is a prohibition in the primary legislation, and when I read the regulations, I see that there isn’t a clear prevention from those young people doing that work, and so I do think it is an important question for the Minister to answer. Does this Government still stand by those restrictions on young people doing their work, and, if so, how does this legislation further the aim of making sure that our children are not participating in this extremely hazardous work which is envisaged by this legislation?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, sometimes I find some of these contributions interesting but also tiresome. Look, there is there is no change. I honestly don’t know how we could be any clearer: Schedule 1A is not changing regulations. It’s simply a list of the regulations that already exist, and if the Labour Party was in power for six years and cared so much about this issue, you wonder why they did nothing about it.

There is no change here to how children interact at work. This is the exact law that exists, with the same regulations, in a list. There is no change to those regulations, and so the short and long of that is just no.

Jan Tinetti asked: why does new section 22A use different terminology from existing section 22 with regard to “likely”? Look, the answer to this is that existing section 22 explains the meaning of “reasonably practicable”, which is the standard to which risks must be managed; new section 22A defines “critical risk”, which is quite different from section 22. It is a forward-looking assessment of what is likely to happen if a risk materialises, and this is not the same as deciding how a risk should be managed. Differences are to be expected in how likelihood would be used in these two contexts.

Mike Davidson, I understand, had a contribution about psychosocial harm over time, and the select committee recommended an amendment to clarify that where a hazard in the workplace risks harm to workers’ mental health and if the harm to mental health occurs and it’s likely to cause serious physical harm, then the harm to mental health will be a critical risk that must be managed. But I do acknowledge that that had already been raised before. But, look, I just take the point that there has been a number of contributions here made which are also talking about so-called experts, as well as people in the Labour Party who so-called care about health and safety law, who have serious misunderstandings of the current law, which I find quite concerning.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—I’m just going to make the point that I’m just waiting on some Amendment Paper grouping.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies before for taking up the full amount. I’ll keep my questions concise. In terms of New Schedule 1A, I do appreciate what the Minister is saying, but I want to just check. There are a list of things that would be captured by the definition of a “critical risk”, so we can also add to that particular list. I do want to address some of the amendments we have on this, and I want to particularly, let’s say, focus on my amendment, which is 8:00:31. I agree with what the Minister is saying, that psychosocial is already included. We see a new point under new section 22A, but, if anything, it doesn’t stop us from expanding on such definitions within New Schedule 1A. Within that, I just want to check if the Minister would consider including additional, I guess, hazards for the education sector, which involves such expansion of the psychosocial injury as workplace stress, including burnout, fatigue, anxiety, harassment, and bullying.

I also acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of musculoskeletal being a part of what could be another viable injury, but what it doesn’t capture is musculoskeletal strain and repeated strain, so I want to check with the Minister if that’s something that should be notifiable and genuinely does affect people’s ability to work but is not currently, in my understanding, captured under the definition.

Other people may have additional questions for New Schedule 1A, but I want to check with the Minister around clause 11, new sections 25A to 25C. In both new section 25A and 25B, it says that a small person conducting a business or undertaking’s (PCBU’s) or a PCBU’s “failure to prioritise critical risk in accordance with [a previous subsection] is not an offence.” I want to check with the Minister. If they are non-compliant and there is a critical risk, why is that not an offence?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Jan Tinetti—again, I’m just looking for some honing in on—

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:33): Yes, certainly, Madam Chair. I’m looking at new section 22B, “Amendment of Schedule 1A”, but it’s not about New Schedule 1A. My colleague Camilla Belich has an amendment around making certain that when changes are made, as it currently stands there, “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister” make those amendments to the schedule. This has come through a lot, and this is an amendment that, I think, is a very, very good one, ensuring that we’ve got the voices—because it doesn’t say that in the bill as it stands at the moment—and that experts would be in there. There is a concern that the voice of people that work in the sector or the voice of health and safety - affected stakeholders would not be taken into account or might not be taken into account. This amendment changes that. I really want to know why that happened in the first place, but also whether the Minister would be favourable to this amendment. It’s just ensuring that we do have the voice of affected stakeholders when we’re looking at that change in the schedule. To me, this is a good amendment that would send a sign of good faith to those people who are stakeholders, whether they be owners or workers. I’m just asking that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:34): Look, I’ll tie that one away quite quickly. I don’t agree with that amendment, which was the tabled amendment proposing to require consultation before the changes can be made to New Schedule 1A for hazards associated with critical risk. That is because I think there is, once again, a serious misunderstanding of what the law here is intending to do. I, once again, note my serious reservation and concern that this is simply a list of regulations that will exist under law. Adding to New Schedule 1A with a new regulation is not creating a new regulation. The regulation itself has been created, and then this power is adding it to the list of the list of regulations. It’s not as though the Minister, through this, has the power to just create a new regulation and put it into the list. The regulation will exist, and then we want to update the list to ensure that the new regulation is also captured. It’s hardly a scary provision at all. It just allows for any new regulations over time to be added to a list of regulations. There is no need for consultation on that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s response on New Schedule 1A. New Schedule 1A is extensive, and there are more questions we could have asked, but I’m taking the direction from the Chair that we will move past that and we’ll move on to some other parts of the bill. On my reading now, we’re up to around clause 10 or 11. The Minister has said, in response to my previous question, not to be alarmed, as this isn’t a major change of the law; it’s just actually listing what’s already an existing regulation. The question was, Minister: when you change primary legislation, which you are doing and you are making a list of what is included as a critical risk, how does that impact on the existing regulations? There have been a few condescending comments about lack of understanding, but I don’t, in fact, believe that that question, which is a thing around the precedence of primary legislation and its interaction with regulations, has, in fact, been answered, but I will move on.

The Minister seems very keen to answer questions around what is new in this legislation, so moving on from that schedule, the amendments to section 23 of the primary Act, which is outlined in clause 10 of the bill before us today, does make changes to the definition within the primary piece of legislation. I’m looking to the Minister to see that we’re on the same page with this. It’s changing the definition of “notifiable injury or illness”, and it’s making specific new novel changes to the law as it currently stands, which the Minister has put before the House. I do think that there are some questions that the Minister needs to answer on that, and I would expect that she’s able to give some insight into her thinking on this, as opposed to stating that it’s the restatement of the existing law.

In this bill, Minister, you have added in the examples of “fractured skull, a blood clot or bleeding in the brain” in the definition of “injury”, and there are a number of examples here, in subclause (2), in relation to eyes and, in (3) and (4), in relation to spinal injuries. All of these examples will have a bearing on how the definition of “injury” or “illness” is interpreted, and I want to ask the Minister: what advice has she taken, and if it is, in fact, further expanding the definition or limiting the definition, why has she chosen to do that in this amendment bill, and what evidence is she relying on that adding these examples to the Act will provide further clarity for those businesses wanting to understand what the meaning of “notifiable injury or illness is”? That is important because when it is notifiable, there are different processes that need to be put in place that businesses will have to go through, compared with an injury that isn’t declared to be notifiable. Also additionally, what guidance, seeing as this is a change to the existing law, will be provided to organisations so that they are up to date with the new definitions of what is considered to be an injury or an illness?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that we’re moving on to a new clause, but I just wanted to tidy up some of the things from the previous clause before we move.

Lawrence Xu-Nan had a query about why it’s not an offence not to prioritise the critical risks. Look, the requirement to prioritise critical risks relates to a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) performing their duties under the Act. The relevant offences remain offences about failure to comply with those duties, and they’re already in the Act.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also had a query about whether or not I’d add “musculoskeletal repeated strain” to Schedule 1A. No. Musculoskeletal harm was not a notifiable injury. The definition of critical risk is based on pre-existing definitions of notifiable injuries, illnesses, and events, and focuses on the most serious harms.

Camilla Belich’s queries, then, relating to clause 10 about notifiable incidents: look, these are clarifications and examples based on existing regulator practice, and these will help PCBUs know what to notify. Currently, PCBUs are unclear about what is or is not out, and that was feedback from businesses, but this is based on regulator practice.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a couple of clarifying—just clarifying—questions now. I’ve noted that we’ve covered pretty much most of the clauses and the Schedule.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of clarifying, I think what I’m on to is now clause 12. One of the things I want to check with the Minister—and I’ll move through a couple of clauses, Madam Chair—is around clause 12 and a clarification around what happens when there is no ability in the current structure of clause 12 for there to be the notification of other powers or other enactments that potentially would touch on this. My colleague Teanau Tuiono has a tabled amendment, 8.00.17, which just inserts a clause that allows for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make recommendations to also be able to identify other enactments which this pertains to, if that is something that is either covered in the existing legislation or would be something that potentially additional regulatory-making powers are required for as a part of that.

I do want to move on to one further bit, because I think that’s important—and I know that my colleagues may have other questions regarding clause 21, section 44 amended, around the duty of officers and due diligence. I want to just check, in terms of clause 28, around the approved codes of practice (ACOP), and this is something I signalled to the Minister and the chair previously that I would have questions around. One of the things around the ACOP is the fact that there is no real ability to review such regulations, and we’ve noted that this is not necessarily, from what I can see, a secondary legislation, but any sort of sunset clause or review clause may be important. Can the Minister tell me if there is already existing consideration for a review? If not, I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be interested in my tabled amendment 8.00.20, which just says that—

Ryan Hamilton: No.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, I love when someone else on the opposite side throws their voice around like they’re the Minister. I would like to see if the Minister would be interested in my amendment, which just simply allows for the Minister to review an approved code of practice, but limiting that the approved code of practice must be reviewed at least once every five years.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (10:44): 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 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): Members, we have received a large number of amendments on various clauses in this part from different members. Standing Order 315(3) and (4) provides discretion to the Chairperson to both group amendments and select amendments. Amendments may be grouped where they stand in the name of a single member, they lend themselves to being grouped, or the grouping is necessary to enable the committee’s effective consideration of the bill. In assessing what represents effective consideration, I am guided by Speaker Brownlee’s earlier ruling that the committee’s time is best spent on debating legislation rather than voting on it and that the committee should be focusing on serious amendments.

My approach therefore will be to group or select amendments to the extent that is reasonable and appropriate. The judgment will take into account the number of amendments that have been placed before the committee and the extent to which those amendments provide a genuine alternative policy proposal.

That said, if any party has a different position on a specific amendment—for example, it intends to vote against an amendment from a member but is otherwise supportive of that member’s amendments—then please indicate that to the Chairperson. A separate question can be put on that particular amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to Part 1 deleting provisions relating to critical risks be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is the Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to Part 1 deleting provisions relating to small PCBUs be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s seven tabled amendments to clause 4 are ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Members, there are four amendments to clause 4, new section 3, in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 4 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment deleting the interpretations for “large PCBU” in clause 7 and deleting clause 8 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s three tabled amendments to clause 8(4) are ruled out of order as not being serious amendments.

Members, there are three amendments to clause 8 in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, replacing “20 workers” in section 17 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining two tabled amendments to clause 8 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Members, there are four amendments to clause 9, new section 22A, in the name of Teanau Tuiono. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 9, replacing “if likely to result” in new section 22A(1)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Teanau Tuiono’s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 9 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Members, Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, and 12 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yes, vote separately please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’ve asked if you indicate that you wish to vote differently on one of those amendments to the other amendments. That is—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Sorry, could you clarify?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not asking to vote separately. I’m saying I will group them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately—which means differently than you would have otherwise voted. If you intended to vote on all of those amendments in the same way, then I will group them. If there’s one specifically you were going to do differently, then you would indicate that to me now.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK. Good to know. Thank you for the clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, and 12 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 9, new section 22B(1) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Members, Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, 21, and 28 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, again, unless a member indicates they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, 21, and 28 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to delete provisions in clauses 10, 11, and 21 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting provisions in clauses 10, 11, and 21 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 12, inserting new subsections (4) and (5) into section 35 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment deleting clause 21 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 28, inserting subsection (6) into new section 222A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, there are 11 tabled amendments to clause 3 in the name of Francisco Hernandez. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 3, replacing new section 3(2)(a) with words commencing “to provide partial protection to workers” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Francisco Hernandez’s remaining 10 tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 9, new section 22A(1)(a) and (b), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 9, replacing words in new section 22A(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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 10, replacing subclauses (1) to (4), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 32 to 34, “Amendments to WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:03): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 315(3) and (4). The Chair of the committee previously to you offered some guidance to the committee. Firstly, I’m asking you whether that was guidance or a ruling. Mr Chair, I’d like to submit to you that on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, the House began to vote on the Auckland super-city bill. The member in charge of the bill was Rodney Hide, also an ACT Minister. The House ended its voting on that bill at 9.42 p.m. on Saturday, 16 May 2009. The reason why Standing Order 315 has been developed in the way it was was through careful negotiation between Labour and National Ministers, not only during that committee stage, where three Speaker’s rulings were given, but also in the Standing Orders review that concluded at the end of that Parliament.

This is a deeply meaningful rule which is intended to change the way that select committees and the committee of the whole House are intended to operate. In that debate, there were 8,000 amendments which were proposed by Labour and Green members. This is not the same as that case. It was important at the time because the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, also made comments to media around what was appropriate to debate and what was appropriate in terms of amendments. There was much debate between the shadow Leader of the House and Minister Grant Robertson at the time as well, which played out and was useful to the development of that rule.

Mr Chair, I’m asking you to clarify whether the Chair previously to you has made a ruling which changes that carefully developed piece of ruling, which was informed by not only public scrutiny but public debate around the kinds of debate that we have in the committee stage. Is it the case that we have made a change which has not been made through a determination of the Business Committee or a Standing Orders Committee consideration of this rule, but has been made unilaterally by the Chair before you?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (11:05): Well, you’ll be aware of what the Speaker commented yesterday in the House. It’s always up to the presiding officers to interpret the Standing Orders. In relation to your question, what the previous presiding officer has said is an interpretation. It’s not a new ruling; it is an interpretation under the existing Standing Order, and as far as the broader negotiations around that go, can I suggest perhaps some discussions between the party whip and the Speaker, if there is to be a looking for, I suppose, a reinterpretation—that those discussions take place. In the meantime, the rulings that you heard from the previous presiding officer are from the Chair interpreting within Standing Order 315.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will do that and I will take that away. I’m just wanting to clarify: does the interpretation apply equally to every presiding officer, or is it that presiding officer’s view of how amendments will be dealt with?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (11:07): No, it will be a continuation. Presiding officers do, obviously, discuss. We don’t operate in isolation, and the indications made by the previous presiding officer will continue in the absence of any reinterpretation of Standing Order 315. Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:08): So, Part 2?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Part 2—yes, thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is in relation to amendments to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013. This is an extremely significant part of this bill. Although it appears short, it actually makes some very significant changes to the way that WorkSafe works. I just want to draw the committee’s attention to this because previously during the term of this Government, WorkSafe have said that they see their role very much more as an influencing role, not as New Zealand’s only regulator in relation to health and safety—and, yes, they did use the term “influencer”. This was hugely concerning at the time that this was raised, and a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is this. It appears that this change to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act is implementing a weakening of WorkSafe, and I’ll draw the committee’s attention to the various parts of this bill that do that.

First of all, at clause 34, it inserts a new section 10(1), which sets out the purpose of WorkSafe—so this is all new law. At new section 10(1), it outlines what WorkSafe’s function is. Now, if you read that, you’ll see that it does appear to be mainly providing guidance and advice and recommending codes of practice and instruments, and monitoring. There is only one mention of enforcement of compliance with relevant health and safety regulation, and that is not on its own limb.

Additionally, in subclause (3), there is a repeal to the original Act, and that is in relation to section 10(c), (e), (ea), and (f). For the committee’s benefit, I’ve brought those particular parts up. The bits that are being deleted are: “(c) monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation:”; “(e) develop codes of practice:”—although there is some mention of codes of practice in the new section; then “(ea) develop safe work instruments”—I’m just checking to see if that is covered under the new definition, and it appears that that one is; and then (f), if we look at (f), it’s to “provide guidance, advice, and information on work health and safety to—(i) persons who have duties … and (ii) the public:”.

My question to the Minister is: is she choosing to reorganise the purpose of WorkSafe or is she weakening the powers of WorkSafe? On a provisional read of that provision, it does appear that the focus of WorkSafe is not to be a strong health and safety regulator that can hold those with duties to account; it is instead to weaken the purpose of WorkSafe to providing guidance, to influencing workplaces, and to not being the strong health and safety regulator we need.

Now, the Minister will need no reminding, and I hope the committee doesn’t either, that New Zealand has terrible statistics internationally in relation to workplace health and safety. We are behind the UK, we are behind Australia—and it is not a small amount; it is either double or treble the number of workplace accidents that we hear. There’s something not working with our workplace health and safety laws when we have those numbers of people being injured compared to jurisdictions that we compare ourselves to.

This bill does not strengthen workplace health and safety in the way that it would need to in order to bring those statistics down, and my concern around the amendments to the WorkSafe Act is that this is further weakening their jurisdiction. They’ve told us that that’s their intention—to weaken it. What I’m asking the Minister is: is it her intention, through the passage of this legislation, through passing these clauses in Part 2, to actually make WorkSafe more of a guidance model and less of a regulator?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the main query that was within that contribution about does this weaken WorkSafe, the answer to this is no. I believe we are strengthening WorkSafe with these changes. We are strengthening WorkSafe by prioritising this new list of main functions and other functions. It makes WorkSafe more focused and effective. The functions listed are all existing functions. I note the member went through a number under an assumption that they’d been deleted, but, in fact, they’re actually there as main functions, but they are now prioritised so WorkSafe knows what to focus on.

The four main functions are: “to provide guidance, advice, and information on compliance with relevant health and safety legislation”—seems quite legitimate; “to develop, review, and recommend codes of practice”—once again, very legitimate; “to develop safe work instruments”—core business; “to monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation”. They’re all very core and what you would expect the regulator to be doing—to be providing guidance while at the same time also monitoring and enforcing compliance. No functions have been removed in these changes; they have been prioritised. There is only one new function, which is supporting businesses to comply.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions about this, and clause 34 of Part 2 is where my questions are based. The first one is: why is WorkSafe’s main function—why is number one—not helping reduce workplace injuries and the rate of that and fatalities over time? Surely that has to be the number one role of WorkSafe. I know the Minister has talked about what my colleague brought up, but it just seems unbelievable that we would not put that as number one.

But number two of my questions actually has come up during and after select committee, and it is something that I would like to look at a little bit more closely from the Minister. It seems to be, from people that have been through the Pike River tragedy, that there was a conflict of interest at the time—and that has been borne out in the royal commission report that came through—seen from the Department of Labour in the handling of Pike River. Where it was inspecting and advising Pike River management, that was seen as a conflict. Now, the new functions as they’re being outlined here by WorkSafe seem to be the same. We’ve got the role as consultant and giving advice and the role of the regulator, so like the policeman, and that seems to be the same conflict.

I want assurance from the Minister of how that perceived or real conflict is being managed or will be managed, but also how that can be a barrier to businesses who are seeking advice on health and safety issues and how smaller businesses, when they see the regulator and the adviser being one and the same, would be unlikely or may be unlikely to get the advice from the regulator because of what the Minister has called the “fear” of the regulator. How will they be able to do that when they’ve already got that conflict, whether it’s perceived or real, that sits there between both the regulator and the adviser?

Two questions, one regarding are we going back to a pre - Pike River, and was that the intent, and the second one is around the businesses seeing that perceived or real conflict between that, and how would they be able to access that knowing that conflict exists.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:17): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to start by touching on clause 33 or discussing clause 33 in terms of the changes to WorkSafe. I do want to acknowledge both Camilla Belich and the Hon Jan Tinetti’s earlier questions.

I guess, before I talk about the main objective and objectives and the prioritisation that we see here in clause 33, I want to check with the Minister whether there was any advice or any sort of discussions by the Minister or by the officials around comparing what we have here and Australia’s system, noting that Australia has, in some ways, better stats or better outcomes for their workers, proportionately. But Australia has two separate systems: they’ve got Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Australia. One does the policy and one is the regulator. I want to check with the Minister that we don’t have that system, yet what I’m seeing here, like the previous speaker said, is shifting some of that more towards the policy side and potentially less emphasis on the regulatory side. I could be wrong—I would be keen to hear from the Minister. But my question is: what sort of conversations or has any work been done on how things are being done in Australia—whether that is being used to map what are some of the changes here?

In terms of clause 33, one of the concerns that we have is around the idea that they’re prioritising just critical risk. Now, I would assume that when it comes to WorkSafe, they are about injury prevention in general. That’s from what we heard in scrutiny week, and that’s one of their core mandates—if we are doing any review of Estimates week. But then by shifting it to critical risk only, are they now deprioritising other workplace injuries? That is going to be a concern because of the fact that—we discussed this is a concern that ACC has, that what you’re going to be seeing is more workplace injuries that may not be critical risk that still would put a burden on our ACC system.

The two questions for clause 33 are: how would WorkSafe prioritise critical risks while not deprioritising injuries in general, and what is now WorkSafe’s mandate when it comes to workplace injury prevention?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:20): Thank you. I’m happy to take a couple of these contributions. Look, Jan Tinetti had a query about why reducing harm isn’t one of WorkSafe’s functions. The answer to this is that harm reduction is already covered in the purposes and objectives of the Act and WorkSafe. It’s not a function at the moment. WorkSafe’s guidance will help persons conducting a business or undertaking needing advice.

I see this as WorkSafe going back to how it performed when it was first established. However, when we were doing the roadshows, what became really apparent was people saying that there had been a shift in WorkSafe that was not a helpful shift, and that they had moved more to being policemen. There were a lot of people who were quite fearful of asking WorkSafe for help. However, that was not the case when it was first established. This change will help elevate those four main functions to be of equal importance. I believe this will also be very helpful to people, but it’s not the case that developing guidance has never been a function of WorkSafe, while at the same time needing to monitor and enforce compliance.

I think that also then goes to the query from Lawrence Xu-Nan. Our health and safety law is based on the Australian model of the law, so our regulator’s objective, functions, and powers are equivalent to the Australian jurisdiction’s. It’s been the case since day dot of WorkSafe that they are providing guidance while at the same time monitoring enforcement.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:22): Thank you for that, Minister. That’s very interesting. What the Minister has then just clarified is that, in fact, we are shifting—because, like the Minister said, people might be fearful of WorkSafe from a regulatory perspective—more towards a policy perspective. But if we look at the Australian model I mentioned, Australia has two separate agencies—one for policy and one for regulations. If we had such a system, that makes sense. But if we are having one system where we’re only going to be mainly prioritising policy but not the regulations part, then what we are seeing is a complete reduction or weakening of the regulatory function in Aotearoa New Zealand, which is not the case in Australia.

In fact, Safe Work Australia as a regulatory body is incredibly stringent and powerful, particularly in certain states. In Western Australia for example, they are very strict, as well as in Victoria. I understand that we don’t have a state/federal divide here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but those two separate bodies function very separately. If we had a bill here where WorkSafe was, essentially, split into two different agencies, that would potentially make sense, but that’s not the case. I want to check with the Minister, then, if that’s an accurate representation of what is happening here—in which case, having one agency and deprioritising regulations is a bit of a concern.

I do want to move on to clause 34 though. I take the point of the Hon Jan Tinetti around this, where, now, you’re looking at the main functions, and I do acknowledge what the Minister has said. One of the things that did jump out at me is what is currently listed in section 10 of the WorkSafe New Zealand Act. In section 10 currently is a whole list. Basically, the Minister pulled out four of them and said, “These are now your four main functions; the rest are all secondary”. That’s what we see in clause 34(1), (2), and (3).

One of the things that I found was quite interesting and that I want to check with the Minister—I have a tabled amendment on this, lodged at 8.00.24 a.m.—is that, in section 10(g) of the WorkSafe New Zealand Act, it says that WorkSafe is only promoting and supporting the likes of research, education, and all of those. For me, promoting and supporting does not mean they themselves do it. Is WorkSafe themselves actively also doing research and also conducting education? It doesn’t seem to be clear within the current WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013.

Because we are amending section 10 anyway, I think it’s also important for us to look at the functions as a whole from that Act, which is open to amendment. My amendment for section 10(g) is to replace “promote and support” with “promote, support, and conduct”, just to say that WorkSafe might be doing all three. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be interested in that amendment.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:25): I’m happy to take this contribution. Look, no, I won’t be supporting that amendment, but I thank the member for asking. To some extent, there is a split already in New Zealand in that we have a policy shop, being the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), as opposed to having policy coming directly out of WorkSafe. We have policy, and then we have WorkSafe, that does the guidance and enforcement, but the guidance and enforcement has been there since the start.

In terms of that contribution around whether we need them to be doing even more research: in some ways, that is even MBIE’s role, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t do a little bit of it if they wanted to. However, I don’t see that as a main function. This whole purpose here is about aligning it with the Health and Safety at Work Act. If we’re focusing on critical risks and trying to simplify the law within the Health and Safety at Work Act, it does make sense then to have correlating changes to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act, where, of course, there’ll be a need for guidance and enforcement.

These are not big changes. The functions of WorkSafe are there in the law; we’re simply, like we’re doing with critical risks, prioritising what people need to focus on, and here, for WorkSafe, given that they have such a range of functions, we’re making sure that they need to prioritise guidance, developing codes of practice, developing safe work instruments, and monitoring and enforcing compliance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just a general reminder for members: when they’re approaching the Table to pick up papers, could they be aware of what’s happening in the Chamber and not get in the way—particularly during this part where a Minister and a member may be having an interaction. It’s just committee management.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Mr Chair, I very deliberately waited until the member had ceased speaking so that I could come. So when am I to get the papers?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): This is a general observation, not directed at any particular member—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Should I crawl along the floor?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —just the timing of it. The member might just like to sit and calm down.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to just have a quick follow-up with the Minister. Thank you, Minister, for your response. Just one quick one. What we’re seeing is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is in charge of the policy, and, now, WorkSafe is also doing some of the research and policy and very little in terms of the regulatory function. I think, in that case, other than the four main functions that the Minister has identified, can I interpret it that clause 34(d), amending section 10, “to monitor and enforce compliance”, specifically only that one is fulfilling the regulatory function of WorkSafe now, under the main functions?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. Very quickly, when I’ve gone through this with people in recent times, this particular clause—clause 34, I’m talking about, of Part 2—there’s been a question about what that means for the structural changes in WorkSafe itself. Certainly, I have had some information this week that says there’s been some disestablishment of some teams in WorkSafe which are critical teams to working with some pretty gnarly issues that we have. I’m talking about—and I hope I don’t offend anybody by saying this—things like suicide that have been caused from workplace harm.

It seems to me that if that information is correct and those teams are being disestablished, we’ve got some issues, because we’ve still got huge issues and terrible statistics in that area and other areas. I want to know what this particular change—because I think that’s only fair for people who are asking this question, too—will mean for what the structural change of WorkSafe will look like now and the changes that have been now and in the last few months, but also going forward, and what future changes we would expect to see.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:30): Happy to take both of these contributions. Look, in terms of Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about, does this mean that there is only one regulatory function for WorkSafe, being the compliance part? No, I think that’s just a misunderstanding of being a regulator. Regulators have multiple roles, and so it’s not the fact that regulatory response is only the stick. Sometimes, regulators actually have multiple functions, and you can look across regulators all across Government. I think David Seymour pointed out there was nearly over 260 of them. Most of them have multiple roles. It’s not just to enforce compliance. There are other elements to it as well. For WorkSafe, this simply clarifies which functions are central to the regulator’s core role, but it’s not saying that there’s only one role within WorkSafe. In fact, it’s talking about that there’s multiple regulatory functions within that regulator.

To the second contribution of Jan Tinetti. Look, suicide is a very, very important issue in this country, and one that we shouldn’t make light of at all. However, the difficulty with the member raising it here is to try and figure out what the specific interaction of that with this law is, because she’s really talking about having heard of some potential operational change within WorkSafe. Now, I would suggest that that is better suited as a question to the chief executive of WorkSafe, potentially at the next hearing where the chief executive would be present, as I don’t actually have an effect on the operational side of WorkSafe as opposed to the law and the legal effect of the legislation, which is what we are actually talking about today, so I don’t want to get into that more operational side.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:32): Very quickly then, and I am talking about the legislation, and surely that has been thought about by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. What potential—and the Minister must have had those conversations as you’re developing this legislation—changes would you see in the structure and the work of WorkSafe as a result of this legislation? This legislation deliberately makes a change to the functions of WorkSafe, so I’m trying to get an understanding of what that would look like, and it is a question that is being asked. I totally agree that there is an operational component to that, but at the same time, as Ministers, and as a Minister, there must have been a discussion about what that would look like or could look like.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:33): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a very quick question from me. Thank you, Minister. I was mainly referring to the new main functions. I understand there are also additional functions that WorkSafe will have in terms of the regulatory aspects. Can I just check, from me, with these new main functions from WorkSafe, how would that then interact with the existing action plans and the prioritisation within WorkSafe as an organisation? Would you expect WorkSafe to also be, I guess, restructuring or reprioritising, to a certain extent, based on this? Is that something WorkSafe has already done and this just happens to line up with what they’re doing? Or does the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety expect some new changes within WorkSafe?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in relation to Part 2, what is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s view around the responsibility that she has, as the Minister responsible for WorkSafe, for providing direction to WorkSafe in terms of the way that they implement their operational directions? Obviously, there are changes here to the primary piece of legislation that directs WorkSafe and everything that they do, and I’ve heard the Minister say that how they implement that is operational. How is she going to be holding them to account given these changes which seek to change their priorities? What is the Minister’s role in implementing this piece of legislation and how will she hold WorkSafe to account?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:35): Happy to take this. Look, I think there’s a potential difference of opinion in how legislation and the debate around this is supposed to take place as opposed to the Minister’s day-to-day interactions with the chief executive of a regulatory agency. What I’m doing here today is changing the law, and to Camilla Belich, Jan Tinetti, and Lawrence Xu-Nan’s query about how this affects operations: that is set out in things like the statements of performance expectations and the Minister’s letters of expectations, which we revise yearly and we do our ongoing analysis of, and I have monthly meetings with the chair of the board as well as the chief executive of WorkSafe. But the operational side itself I see as sitting somewhat at length of what the specific debate is today, which is about simply, in these clauses 32 to 34, reprioritising some of the current functions of WorkSafe so that we are prioritising the providing guidance, developing approved codes of practice, developing safe work instruments, and monitoring and enforcing compliance. We’re not going into the day-to-day operations of WorkSafe as an agency, and those things are mainly dealt with through the select committee processes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:36): Thank you, Mr Chair. With due respect to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I understand that the Minister is not in charge of the day-to-day operations of WorkSafe, but the policy intent that the Minister would have would affect the operations of WorkSafe. I’m not asking whether the Minister understands the nuance of the operations of WorkSafe, but more like—this is something that has been signalled for a while. We have a regulatory impact statement dated to 2015. In the conversations that the Minister had with WorkSafe, has the Minister given indication, through the changes in this bill, that there are some ministerial expectations of changes within WorkSafe that now need to align with the new prioritisation and the main functions that is now detailed, as opposed to one long list, now you’ve got four main ones? Has that come up?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:37): I’ll tidy this off, but I might start repeating myself ad nauseam. That is changed through the appropriations structure that has also taken place in Budget 2026 with changes to the appropriations and the fact that we have, now, buckets of funds as opposed to just one appropriation in general which splits out money being given to guidance as well as money given to compliance, and there are different funds structures there, and that will be how I monitor that going forward.

But also, yes, I have had ongoing conversations with the chief executive and senior leadership at WorkSafe in terms of, how do we gear up for legislative change? That is already under way with guidance being produced, ready to go out the door as soon as the legislation takes effect, if not earlier. But there have also been an ongoing conversations since my 2024 roadshow about how we ensure that WorkSafe is currently meeting the Minister’s expectations external to what the legislation itself says, that they should be more proactive in providing guidance. WorkSafe has done, over the last year, quite a long process of stripping old guidance documents that are no longer relevant from the website, changing how people can actually go and talk to WorkSafe about their queries. We have far too many different ways of getting in touch with WorkSafe and we’re streamlining that. There’s a lot of operational stuff that sits outside of the legislation that happens in terms of the operations. But this law that we are debating today does not touch, I don’t believe, a lot on that. I believe that is mainly through the letters of expectations and the statements of performance expectations.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:39): Minister, when the first reading of this bill passed, you made a public comment to state that the bill will require WorkSafe to move from an approach of accepting everyone to address every possible risk towards one which WorkSafe provides guidance on critical risks. How does that statement work with the general objectives of the primary piece of legislation to create healthier and safer workplaces? Is this change to require workplaces to only focus on critical risks, which I appreciate is stated in her public statements on the bill? How is that consistent with the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act? Because it appears, on the face of it, to be the opposite.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:40): I’m happy to take that. It also, in part, talks, I think, to the difficulty—that came from Lawrence Xu-Nan’s contribution—where the regulator can actually have multiple functions. Camilla Belich’s question there was: is this requiring WorkSafe to only focus on critical risks? No, because the four main functions it talks about are things like developing, reviewing, and recommending codes of practice, developing safe work instruments—safe work instruments are not necessarily a function of the critical risks under here; they’re a separate thing in and of themselves—and monitoring and enforcing compliance with the relevant health and safety legislation. Now, we acknowledge that there is a prioritisation of critical risks, but to the members original point of wanting everybody to focus on all risks all the time, WorkSafe still has to manage the non-critical risks for the large organisations as well, so, no, it’s not the case that WorkSafe is only focusing on critical risks, because if they focused only on critical risks, it wouldn’t focus on the risks that the large businesses have to monitor as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to Part 2 deleting provisions relating to critical risk are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 34(1), new section 10(1), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thanks for your patience, members. We’re just accommodating some later amendments here.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 33(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 33(b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendments deleting provisions in clauses 33 and 34 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 34 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, there are four amendments in the name of Francisco Hernandez proposing to replace clause 34(3). To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 34(3) repealing section 10(e), (ea), and (f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The will of the committee having been tested, Francisco Hernandez’s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 34(3) 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 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): Members, before I come to Part 3, you will note the discussion around the decisions to group amendments. The quid pro quo of that will be, as you’ll note that the Speaker said yesterday, that time is better spent on debate than on voting, and that will be a consideration of the Chair when considering a closure motion.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 35 to 38, “Amendments to Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016”. The question is it Part 3 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. When we look at Part 3, we see the impact of the changes that the Government is making to the health and safety system in New Zealand, and I have some specific questions around the general risk and the workplace management regulations and the impact that the Minister intends that these have on New Zealand workplaces. I’ll start first with clause 36. Clause 36 affects the regulation. That’s a general regulation to provide information, supervision, training, and instruction. At the moment, this is a general regulation that applies to all workplaces, and it talks about making sure that a worker who carries out any work of any kind and uses plant or equipment of any kind or deals with a substance of any kind is trained to ensure that they don’t cause risk in the workplace.

The effect of clause 36 is to state that that is only in relation to critical risk. So my question to the Minister is: what is her intention and what is her purpose of removing the duty to provide information, supervision, and training, and limiting it to critical risk? What is the likely impact on a persons conducting a business or undertaking of 20 and under due to this change that she’s put in place in regulation 9?

I do have a number of questions; I don’t know if the Minister is ready to answer that now, but I do have some questions in relation to the other clauses, which are similar. I’ll take it that—I’ll move those questions now unless the Minister is ready to respond.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:50): Look, I think this should knock off quite a few of the contributions that will come from here. But in essence, these amendments in clauses 36 to 38 give effect to the small person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) critical risk limitation that is set out in clause 11, new section 25A(1)(a)(ii). It is clarifying that the duties apply to small PCBUs only in relation to critical risks.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:51): Thank you to the Minister for answering that question so quickly. However, I’m not sure if it was sufficiently addressed in terms of the information I was wanting to obtain from the answer. I do understand and I think the committee understands that on the clear reading of this, there is a carve out—and I use that language because it’s the language that the Minister has used publicly in relation to small businesses—in relation to small businesses that only now have to deal with critical risk. That’s understood. The question that I have in relation to training is: what is the impact that there is likely to be on workplaces in New Zealand for those small workplaces?

Another question that I have, which is similar and which might help illuminate the type of response that I’m looking to get, is that if we look at clause 37 and we look at the general duty of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to provide personal protective equipment, and we see that—I’ve got that in front of me now—in regulation 15 of the general risk and workplace management regulations. Now, that clause states that personal protective equipment must be given to workers unless it’s already been provided by another PCBU, and it has fines in there. So this is a very specific question too. The fines that a PCBU would attract if they do not provide personal protective equipment would be $10,000 and $50,000 for an individual or another person, presumably a company. My question to the Minister again is: what is her expectation, in terms of change of behaviour, that implementing this specific regulation that, as the Minister stated herself, carves out small businesses from this regulation? What can New Zealand workers expect? It appears to me that the Minister is removing, literally, personal protective equipment or the requirement to provide such apart from in the most risky situations.

These are very practical questions. I don’t feel the question in relation to clause 36 has been answered yet. On clause 37—I understand the critical risk; we’ve been over that—I want to know what the practical implication for New Zealand workers of these changes is.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:53): Thank you. Yes, look, I’m happy to give this one a go here. Look, in terms of the question originally about the training aspect and how this relates, the use of machinery is an example, or if you’re a company that uses hazardous substances, those would be classified as things that need management as critical risks. Training for those types of critical risks would still remain. It is simply the lower-level training for minor risks that would not be a requirement under the law. Things like how to use a standard kitchen tap would not be a requirement for someone to need to know how to use, but for serious critical risks like hazardous machinery and substances, those would require training.

Similarly, I think the main point here when it relates to personal protective equipment (PPE), as it relates also to the training, are the stories that I heard when I was doing the roadshow, approximately two years ago now, where people believed that workers on work sites as well as business managers were not taking training or PPE seriously, because they have so much of it. If there is so much training and it’s not apparent what is actually important training as opposed to just training for the sake of it, or compliance for the sake of it, it starts to have less effect. It starts to mean less to people.

It’s the same for PPE. If you see PPE everywhere, all the time, on everything that you’re working on, there also is the potential impact that people no longer feel like they need to actually acknowledge the risks, and they are not able to discern as well between a low and a high risk. You see this in all sorts of environments and all sorts of different workplaces. However, the changes here mean that providing PPE and ensuring workers use it are required when they actually need it, whereas there are real harms from substances or equipment that the PPE is being provided for, for critical risks. It does mean that businesses don’t need to be worried about providing it for lower risks, but I think the ultimate impact will be that both businesses and workers, when they’re dealing with training and PPE, will take it far more seriously than they currently do, because it will actually identify and mean you’re dealing with a significant harm.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister, but I think it is important, following on from the Minister’s response and my colleague Camilla Belich is that what the Minister’s said is correct. It is human nature, it is within our human nature that if we constantly have something repetitive over and over again, whether it’s small risk or even critical risk, where there’s been no injury as a result of that, our brain is trained to deprioritise the risk. To give an example to the committee, we often when we’re driving don’t think about the potential impact of driving until we have an accident or something happens, in which case for a little while we’re going to be really cautious about how we drive, until our brain is trained to desensitise ourselves so we no longer consider that to be important.

Because what the Minister is saying is actually not simply about prioritising critical risk or non-critical risk but about describing a general human nature. I don’t think that, within this particular part, the changes are going to be making per what Camilla Belich mentioned before, we are going to be seeing that shift in behaviour just because, now, small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) are only going to be focusing on critical risk and not non-critical risk. We still are going to be seeing the same sort of human behaviour manifesting.

I think that this is important because to be honest, for the Minister, that is one of the key considerations and barriers for health and safety managers or anyone who works in health and safety is around that human nature. I think pandering to this idea that people can be, “Oh, well, we can’t, then, prioritise.” or etc. doesn’t actually address the baseline issues that we’re seeing manifesting in this part.

I want to check a couple of other things when it comes to personal protective equipment (PPE), and I want to test a couple of things with the Minister. The first thing is I want to test the scenario that, for example, in the event of the pandemic, PPE was huge. We were expected to wear masks etc. as a way of reducing transmission. Under this new requirement, would PCBUs no longer need to provide PPE in the context of this as a critical risk? In the event of a pandemic, for example, or let’s say the peak of flu season, would the Minister still consider the provision of PPE to still be considered a critical risk, and if not, why not?

There are other things, I guess, in terms of clause 37 and clause 38 in terms of providing PPE and also ensuring that PPE is worn and used. Again, what we’re not hearing from the Minister is that actual practicality of someone who works in health and safety in terms of what the workers’ behaviours are. I guess from the Minister’s perspective, what, then, is the tangible experience the Minister has had when she’s looking at how to ensure workers’—whether it’s critical risk or non-critical risk—PPE is being worn?

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an earlier discussion that we had—which I also think is important—pertaining to this section, which is that when we’re looking at the hierarchy of intervention, PPE is a way of engineering, I guess, that intervention. If we’re cutting that out, what are the other considerations for small PCBUs when it comes to non-critical risk regarding elimination, mitigation, signage, and also, at the bottom, to do nothing. Those are my three questions to the Minister so far.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:00): I thank the member for his contribution. I think he speaks to a real problem here, which is how you effect culture change. This is, essentially, what the aim of the bill is designed to do, which is to allow companies and workers to take critical risks far more seriously and to identify risks and focus on real risks, rather than on having compliance for the sake of it and having compliance and policies that are not necessarily followed. That was something that we heard a lot of when we went to talk to people on the ground, outside of Wellington, in 2024. There is a sense of desensitisation to risks because people are being asked to manage all risks all the time, and, therefore, with companies and businesses and workers who have limited time and resource to figure out what it is that they need to try and manage, it is in some ways overwhelming.

How do we ensure that when they are doing training, when they’re using personal protective equipment (PPE), and when they are doing their day-to-day operations, they are identifying and managing the things that will truly cause harm, and are not focusing on the wrong things—and that’s what this entire bill has been about. Yes, there is a sense of desensitisation to the risks. I think the impact of this law will mean that people focus on the right things and that we have more interest in stamping out the critical risks and managing them, but that is the focus behind this law.

When the member was discussing the use of PPE and whether or not another COVID or a pandemic could come through and asking what would be the requirements there, that was actually addressed under the public health law during COVID, not through the health and safety law. That was managed under a different form of legislation.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a little bit of a follow-up to that answer in that the Minister is talking about desensitisation to risks. Isn’t there a fear, then, that we’re not identifying all of the risks in those smaller persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) under this particular bill—trying to solve a problem or a perceived problem by saying that that they’re only focusing on critical risks.

Like my colleague from the Greens, I want to use a little bit of a scenario around clause 36, which talks about information, supervision, training, and instruction. If a business or PCBU was identifying only critical risks and they were a business that required their workers to lift some boxes, but not all of the time, and put them on to shelves—which maybe happens in quite a number of businesses. They didn’t see that there were any critical risks that came from that and so they didn’t identify and they didn’t provide any training or instruction around the right ways to do that, and over time they started to see that their workers were getting back injuries or musculoskeletal injuries that were forcing them to take time off work. But because they didn’t identify that because it wasn’t a critical risk, then isn’t that an issue that this bill is creating? In trying to save that desensitising, this is actually creating another issue, and isn’t that maybe an unintended consequence of what this bill is trying to solve?

I ask this quite sincerely. By taking away that focus on all risks from those PCBUs, we’re actually going to create more of an issue, and that is what people did bring up a lot in the select committee and since then. So it’s a genuine question that I’m asking of the Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:05): Yeah, I’m happy to respond—thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I disagree. I think, in part, what we have here is we’re looking at identifying the risks, and under the current law, the small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have to identify all their risks now and they will continue to have to identify the risks, but they only have to manage their critical risks, and in identifying their risks, the PCBU needs to look at, among other things, their activities and the incidents and injuries that they do have. But, in part, what I think the member is not referring to is the fact that we are also asking WorkSafe to develop and produce guidance on risks, as well as having more approved codes of practice, which would be set by industries, and which would say, “If you would like to try and comply with the law, here is what you need to do.”

Those are industry standards that, over time, will be developed to actually help produce that on-the-ground guidance on what are the critical risks in certain activities across industries. I think that this, in part, points to the fact that we’ve actually well-designed the system so that you are focusing not on everything under the sun, but prioritising the critical areas that will create harm.

You’re also allowing industry to be leaders on what are the critical risks within their own workspaces, and I think that is actually a much better way of getting culture change across this country, rather than having WorkSafe as the one saying, “We’re setting all the standards for everything that you need to do, and we’re here as the bad guys.” We are actually allowing industry, with unions and workers, to set those standards for themselves, with WorkSafe’s help and guidance to do the technical elements of those approved codes of practice, but that will, in essence, be far stronger for cultural change across New Zealand.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then had a query about PPE: how it was then fitting into the hierarchy of controls. PPE is one of the hierarchy of control measures that a PCBU uses to minimise risks that cannot be eliminated. It is to be applied only after all other higher controls have been found to be ineffective or not reasonably practicable. So higher controls could be isolating the hazard or substituting the hazard with something less risky.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’re getting really to the heart of this bill now. We are looking at the removal from regulation of fines for small businesses who don’t comply with health and safety laws, and I think that if you want to look for some actual change, then those are certainly two areas, in terms of the levels of the fine, that are being changed by this bill.

I still feel that in terms of the motivation and the actual impact on work science, we haven’t had a clear answer on what change will be. I wanted to ask the Minister: can she provide the committee with some examples of personal protective equipment that would be worn to protect from risk, but would not be useful for critical risk? The reason I ask this question is because it appears to me that most protective equipment would protect against both critical risk and also risk that wouldn’t meet the standard of critical risk, and so what I would like to hear from the Minister is: is it by specifically removing the requirements for small businesses from these clauses—and I’ve touched on my last contribution on clauses 36 and 37, but clause 38 is also important. The reason that clause 38 is important is that this is the duty that extends to making sure that other people that you might be responsible for in a PCBU—

Hon Simon Watts: This has been covered in the select committee. You covered this question in the select committee—same question. You’re just repeating questions from the select committee.

CAMILLA BELICH: Sorry, were you in the select committee, Minister Watts? Well, this is very interesting. This is very interesting.

Hon Simon Watts: Wasting time—wasting time.

CAMILLA BELICH: Take a call—this is very interesting.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Actually, this is wasting time.

CAMILLA BELICH: This is very interesting to hear Minister Watts heckle across the Chamber against the requirement for people in small businesses to have personal protective equipment. I’m certain there are a lot of people on the North Shore who may be hurt and maimed by the fact that these are being removed.

Whether it’s been covered in select committee or not, we don’t have the Minister in the chair in select committee and this is our chance as the Opposition to actually put—

Hon Simon Watts: Wasting time.

CAMILLA BELICH: —key questions. If this is a waste of time, this was started by the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK, that’s enough. We don’t have the debate across the House. The member needs to address the member in the chair.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would actually like an answer to that question. I don’t believe has been covered. I don’t think that we have heard from the Minister about the exact reason that suddenly these small businesses who might be providing personal protective equipment will not be providing personal protective equipment and the logic for that, in that most personal protective equipment will provide protection from risk from harm and also critical risk—a specific example. We’ve heard some scenarios raised by members, as well, but this is important because this is how the bill will actually be interpreted. We haven’t covered clause 38 before, so specifically that duty in relation to personal protective equipment used by other persons. I’d appreciate an answer from the Minister on that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:11): Look, happy to take Camilla Belich’s contributions. The original query was about fines and the belief that somehow this is all about just removing fines. I just wanted to clarify that the key enforcement mechanisms and penalties that WorkSafe uses remain unchanged in this law. Second to that, I was asked questions about being very specific about particular types of personal protective equipment (PPE) that could be used in certain companies for critical risks and not for other risks and for non-critical activities and other critical activities.

Look, I’m just not going to get into the ins and outs; there are so many different businesses and companies and individual arrangements, but I’ll give a very clear example of one area where you’d have some PPE for a critical risk where you wouldn’t then use it around the rest of the work site. You know, you might be a welder; you think of a welder and you’ve got an actual, very physical mask that you’re needing to wear for a very high-hazard environment. You don’t need to use that for every single thing a welder is doing every single day. You need to do it for the act of welding, but you don’t need to wear that around the entire work site at all times. That’s one clear example of something that fits into critical risk that you wouldn’t need to wear in the lunch room, for example, or you wouldn’t need to wear it doing some other activity, as a welder. I’m sure all welders out there listening to that would say, “Well, of course you don’t, that’s just silly.”

That’s just a clear example of something that’s PPE for critical risk, but not for non-critical risk, but I’m not going to go into the ins and outs because there’s just so many different industry types and we’ll just waste time here.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:12): I just want to check a couple of the responses from the Minister. Thank you for responding to my questions, but just to the last example that the Minister gave: surely, the thing is the rules are very clear, currently, that some of those are already in existing legislation and we don’t need to have an additional carve-out, surely. The two things the Minister responded to: the comment around the fact that she’s heard people who said that they’re overwhelmed by the volume of the different kind of risks that they have to manage, which then causes the desensitisation. I do want to check: is that anecdotal or is that empirical? Is there empirical evidence that the Minister has that suggests volume affects desensitisation, because what I mentioned before in terms of emotional habituation and normalisation of deviance, those have genuine psychological bases, and they are well researched in terms of how that does affect desensitisation, whether it’s critical risk or not. I want to check with the evidential basis for the idea that volume will lead to that; this is clause 38 for that question.

For clause 37, just in terms of the hierarchy of controls—thank you, Minister, for responding to that question as well—I guess that then does raise a new question. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) sits around the mid to lower range of hierarchy of controls, but then by splitting that out and saying that the hierarchy of controls with PPE will only be for critical risk for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs), does that mean that small PCBUs will still need to fulfil their requirement for non-critical risk for the higher tiered hierarchy of control in terms of health and safety management, such as elimination, mitigations, or limitation?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested—and this is my first call on this bill, but I have been listening to the Minister’s responses and am interested in this carve-out with the small businesses, as we’ve been calling them, but of course it’s for all of the persons conducting a business or undertaking. I note, in an answer to another question in another part, the Minister referred to the fact that whilst most businesses are small businesses in number, the fact that the employed members are 27 percent of the workforce, are employed by these greater number but smaller workforce entities—she then also said that the groups that are exempted in the definitions of “small” include the nine-month exemptions.

I’m wondering if the Minister can comment on how many there are that are not just the 27 percent of the normal definition of “small business”, given the Minister has said that the 20 employees comes from this normal, convenient definition of small businesses being the 27 percent of the workforce. How many, then, is added to that, being this additional exemption of the nine months? That is relevant to Part 3, of course, because this is where we see the carve-out coming. So the question is: does the Minister know how many people this carve-out will apply to? It’s clearly more than 27 percent of the workforce. How much more and how can she be comfortable with that?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, just a very quick clarification from you: the Minister has been very good in terms of seeking advice and also answering our questions diligently. If we do get to a situation where we finish this part, just seeking your guidance that we’re able to allow the Minister to continue some of those responses, unless she has them now, when we move to the next section.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:17): I can answer. To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about the small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) and do they need to apply other controls to non-critical risks, small PCBUs do not have to manage non-critical risks, so they do not need to supply the personal protective equipment (PPE) for the non-critical risks.

He also queried about the empirical evidence and, look, there was a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I would also note that in Labour’s objection, I think, to the 2015 Act, when I was reading the select committee report and the minority view from Labour, it was also a concern that maybe there was too much influence by anecdotal evidence. I would say, in something like this, when you’re actually going out and talking to people on the ground—the Kiwis out there every day doing the hard work—that is important information. We don’t just need to have statistics and surveys; we can actually go and talk to people who don’t usually get captured by Government consultation. Many of the people that I was talking to out there around New Zealand said it’s the first time they’ve ever met a Government Minister, let alone interacted with a Government department. I think it is important for us to take their concerns quite strongly. We don’t need to just listen to people who are so-called experts; we can actually listen to the people doing the hard yakka. Our officials are aware of the international evidence about the disproportionate effect of health and safety compliance requirements on small PCBUs, as opposed to large businesses.

I would also say that, no, there have been some surveys that I’ve seen; there was a Site Safe survey as well that talked about the vast majority of people who replied to that survey believing that they needed to simplify the law for small businesses, as well as focusing on critical risks. So this was very popular as a policy platform, but also shows that this is not the Government acting alone; there were actually quite a lot of people out there in the real economy who also believe that there’s too much regulation on small business. I think that the MYOB business insight survey talked about the fact that one of the top three things they wanted the Government to do was to simplify health and safety for small businesses.

Rachel Brooking had a query about the small business PCBUs, and, once again, the seasonal fluctuation. I would really suggest that that’s mainly being ticked off in the previous parts, but it is true: the majority of New Zealand businesses have fewer than 10 employees. That’s 94 percent have fewer than 10 employees, and my officials advise that they expect few businesses to actually fluctuate around that 20-worker threshold.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (12:20): 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): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to Part 3 deleting provisions relating to critical risk and small PCBUs are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clauses 36 to 38 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 36 to 38 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Part 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 to replace “may be” in clause 29(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 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 (Maureen Pugh): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete Schedule 2 is ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

Members, there are six amendments to Schedule 2 making insertions into new Schedule 1A in the names of Green Party members. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 inserting an item relating to firefighting into new Schedule 1A be agreed to.

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

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I hope I’m not pre-empting it, but I heard you say that you were going to take amendments together that were from Green Party members. Now, I just want some clarification here because I had heard that an earlier Chair had indicated that amendments from a particular member might be grouped together if they were on the same subject matter, but it would be very unusual to do it across party lines, because every member has an individual right to have an amendment tabled and considered. I’m just wondering on what basis, on what Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order amendments are being grouped on party lines rather than coming from a particular member.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, we have, as was explained earlier, some advice from Mr Speaker on the grouping of the votes, the questions that were being put. In order to expedite the bills and focus on the debate rather than the voting, this is how we are grouping them.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I see you might have some advice coming, but my point is I understand that, and we certainly fully endorse focusing on the debate in committee stages. We heard that from the Speaker in the House. The grouping of identical or highly similar amendments is well recognised in Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders, but the grouping on the premise that they come from the same party is certainly not. That does not seem consistent with the statement of the Speaker from the Chair, but I see you’ve got advice.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand your question. The advice I have is that you’re referring to the first vote that we had to test the will of the committee, which was based on the Green Party. That was a selection of questions or amendments, not a grouping. So they weren’t grouped by party, but they did come from the same party. There is a difference between selection and grouping. I hope that’s helpful.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to that point of order—thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate what the Chair has just said. I want to double-check in terms of our interpretation of Standing Order 315(3)(a). In this case, you are testing the will, and my understanding is if you are selecting from a sample—it would be good for us to know under what Standing Order that pertains to. My understanding, under Standing Order 315(3), is that when we’re looking even in terms of the sampling of that, it must fulfil all three requirements of Standing Orders 315(3)(a) to (c). But if we’re starting to select it based on either one of those, then it would be good for the House to understand that that is now going to be a new interpretation of that particular Standing Order. In Standing Order 315(3)(a), it specifies the amendments stand in the name of the same member, as opposed to different members or from a political party. That clarification between grouping and sampling is helpful, and which Standing Order is that sampling now coming from, because I’m unaware of that particular Standing Order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (12:31): Well, Mr Speaker did make it clear when he addressed the House yesterday that he wants to ensure that the House runs smoothly and that debate on particular bills is done thoroughly and the House is not distracted by hours and hours of voting. That is not helpful in the running of the House, and it’s certainly not good use of House time. If nothing else, the cost of that to the taxpayers does not add any value to the passage of legislation. I’m just taking some more advice.

The member has asked about the relevance of the difference—so 315(3) and 315(4). Standing Order 315(3) applies to the grouping of the amendments, and 315(4) is the presiding officer testing the will of the committee and allowing for those amendments to be voted on together. We use the assistance of the Clerks to do that in the House Office in preparation for the votes.

Members, the will of the committee having been tested, the remaining five tabled amendments to Schedule 2 in the names of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, Teanau Tuiono, Hūhana Lyndon, and Francisco Hernandez are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

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.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. As discussed in Part 1, I have tabled an amendment to change the commencement date so that all provisions of the bill come into force on 1 April 2027.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. Since you have raised it in terms of what the Speaker mentioned yesterday—and I do endorse what the Speaker mentioned in terms of the amendments, but I think one part of what the Speaker mentioned yesterday is also a reminder to Ministers not to put in last-minute amendments. But we’re in this peculiar situation where this is probably the first time where we have seen a tabled amendment by a Minister that is not even released ahead of time. I do want to check with the Minister on where this—

Tim van de Molen: We saw it a lot under the last Government.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’ve seen a lot of yapping over on the other side, and I recommend that that member actually get up and take a call. I see so little that that Government is doing, or that party is doing, at all when it comes to the discussion of this—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I recommend the member comes back to the bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I do want to know from the Minister about why this particular amendment with the date came about, because I feel like what we’ve seen in terms of the public announcement from the Minister is in some ways inadequate, but also noting that this tabled amendment has no explanatory note attached to it, so there’s no way for the committee to know where this amendment even came about. I think it would be really useful as a starting point for the Minister to explain how this amendment came about.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to acknowledge the amendment that the Minister has put forward and how late that came into being, but I also would like to acknowledge the tabled amendment of my colleague Camilla Belich, who put almost an identical amendment in prior to the Minister’s amendment, also talking about making the commencement date 1 April 2027. I will point out to my colleague that there’s a really good explanatory note there, so perhaps that might help the Minister as well in her answer to that question.

What I will say is the very first thing that I said in this debate, which is that this gives us an opportunity to talk about why this extension of the commencement date has come into play. We know that there have been some discussions that have been going on between the coalition partners in this particular area. We have a number of tabled amendments about alternative dates that go out even further, and I dare say that the Minister probably won’t take those into account.

But my first statement in this debate was about the fact that—why are we even having this debate at the moment? This, effectively, kills this bill. This amendment kills this bill. This is exactly what it does. It will kill the bill, because we know that there are parties in the coalition team on that side of the House that have stated that they would get rid of this bill if they were elected back in. We know that this side of the House will get rid of this bill if we get elected in. Therefore, the bill is dead in the water. That is why this debate has been an absolute waste of time. [Interruption]

I really invite members on the other side to take a call. They haven’t taken calls other than trying to close the debate the whole time, but I invite those members to take this call. I love the fact that we’ve got some of them who think that they know a lot about what’s going on who haven’t been anywhere near this select committee.

When we come to this amendment, it is likely that we will actually support this, but I too would like to ask the Minister why this amendment came into being, because there isn’t an explanatory note that goes there. I think that’s really important, because it was very late in the piece that this got tabled.

We’ve seen some of the commentary that’s been through the media, but it would be nice to know whether that was accurate or not, and nice to know what the discussions have been between the coalition partners in this particular case, because we can only speculate on what has come through the media. So those are my questions for the Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:40): Look, I’m very happy to take a contribution. Look, the member originally started talking about how she thought the bill was a waste of time. I would counter that by saying a number of the contributions by the Opposition have been a waste of time. The bill itself is good work, and we very much look forward to it being passed today.

However, when it comes to the need for a commencement date shift, look, the change will provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and to develop advice and guidance. Now, if the member wishes to be privy to coalition discussions, she may wish to attempt to get into a coalition. But I can tell you we’ve got three parties in the coalition that are working very well together. All three parties will pass this bill together, and I look forward to having the coalition come back in the 2026 election.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (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 (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s nine tabled Amendment Papers to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 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 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “1 April 2027” with “1 April 2028” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “1 April 2027” with “a date set by Order in Council” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s five tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

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.

Report adopted.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:49): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to seek your guidance. We have had the Speaker’s guidance yesterday regarding amendments, and we’re trying to figure out what the new guidance would mean, but I want to check with you because one part that was quite clear with what the Speaker said yesterday was also a warning. It was a recommendation, I guess, to Ministers to submit Amendment Papers on time so that there is sufficient time for the House to discuss them, particularly when there tabled amendments from the Minister. But what we have found is that there were very few opportunities. In fact, we were only able to take one call each, as the Opposition, on the tabled amendments, and this is the first time I’ve seen a tabled amendment by a Minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member to clarify: is the member referring to the commencement clause debate?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, I am referring to the commencement clause.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I have seen part of that debate, and I understand there were questions being asked. There’s only a small amount of answers people can give to a commencement clause, but I will say that the recommendation that the Speaker gave yesterday relates to—there’s been a number of Ministers’ Amendment Papers on different pieces of legislation. From what I’ve seen on that particular one, where it was a commencement clause, I believe the debate may have been efficient. I haven’t seen it all, but I’m pretty happy with what I saw.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Madam Speaker, just speaking further to that point of order, I guess the other element of that is that what we have seen is not only a Minister’s amendment, but we were also looking at the title and commencement as a whole, where we were supposed to, under the Speaker’s ruling, be able to also summarise some of the content of the committee stage as a part of the title debate. But I note that, in that debate we had earlier, understanding that we were still trying to figure out our way into what the new system would be, I do want to address the fact—and this is one of the reasons why we opposed the reporting—that there were no calls being taken that allowed us to summarise the title or to use the title at all to summarise the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the point of order. What I will say is that the Speaker, yesterday, gave an observation and said this is how we would like to go forward. We’re all having a learning opportunity here in the interests of the New Zealand public to give them better debate on legislation. We’ve got quite a few hours ahead of us this week where we can actually try and perfect any concerns people have. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:52): Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Madam Speaker. This is just a small clarification point, which is that the Minister had made an amendment to those title and commencement sections, and there were only two calls that were able to be taken on that clause 1. It was relevant to what the Speaker said yesterday, when he advised Ministers not to do late amendments, and if they were doing that, then it was important that the Opposition members got a chance to fully scrutinise that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He did, and so thank you for that feedback. As I say, we’ve got a few hours this week—I don’t know if we’ll ever perfect it, but we’ll have a few hours this week—to work on it. Thank you.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:52): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and do you have—

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t have a legislative statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I didn’t believe you did, but you can carry on with your speech. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you. This bill is about restoring clarity, common sense, and focus to New Zealand’s work health and safety system. At its core, this Government has taken a straightforward approach. Laws should work in practice, not just in theory. They should support safer workplaces without creating unnecessary confusion, duplication, or cost. This bill reflects that approach. It maintains the core purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is preventing harm, but it improves how the system works on the ground. It sharpens the focus on what matters most: reducing deaths, serious injury, and illness.

Importantly, this is a Government that has listened. We have heard consistent feedback from across New Zealand from workers, from small business owners, and from large employers that the system has become harder to navigate than it needs to be. Too much effort can go into compliance for its own sake, rather than improving actual safety outcomes.

We have taken that feedback seriously. Through consultation, engagement, and roadshows, we have spoken directly with people who live and breathe health and safety every day—not just those who advise on it, but those who rely on it to keep their workplaces running and their people safe—and what we heard was clear: New Zealanders want a system that is practical, proportionate, and focused on managing real risk; they want clarity about what is expected of them; and they want to be able to focus their time and resources on keeping people safe, not on navigating unnecessary complexity. This is exactly what this bill delivers.

First, it strengthens the system’s focus on critical risk. It makes clear that attention should be directed towards the hazards that can kill or seriously injure people or that could cause serious illnesses—the risks that seriously change lives. By sharpening this focus, businesses can concentrate their efforts where it has the greatest impact, and regulators can target their activity more effectively.

Second, it improves clarity and certainty about what is required. Having clear expectations make it easier for both businesses and workers to understand their responsibilities and apply them in day-to-day settings. This supports better decision-making on the ground and greater confidence about what good practice looks like.

Third, it supports a more proportionate approach across the system. What is appropriate for a large, complex operation will not always be appropriate for a small business. This bill recognises that, while maintaining the same underlying objective—preventing harm. It ensures that expectations are practical and workable in different contexts.

Fourth, it reduces unnecessary complexity and duplication. By improving how the frameworks fit together, businesses can focus on managing risks, rather than navigating overlapping or unclear requirements. This makes the system easier to use and more effective in practice.

Taken together, these changes make the work health and safety system easier to understand, easier to apply, and better focused on what matters most. This bill also reflects the priorities of this coalition Government. It delivers on a clear commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform health and safety law and regulations, and I’m pleased to have delivered on that commitment.

We are committed to restoring confidence in New Zealand’s regulatory systems, including the work health and safety framework. That means ensuring protections remain strong while also ensuring obligations are clear, proportionate, and focused on managing the risks that cause the most harm. When systems become overly complex or unclear, that doesn’t help workers, and it doesn’t help businesses. It can undermine confidence, create unnecessary cost, and distract from what actually keeps people safe.

This Government is taking a different approach. We are focused on outcomes. We are focused on enabling businesses to operate with confidence, to invest, and to create jobs. We are focused on ensuring workers have clear, effective protections that are understood and applied in practice. This bill strikes that balance. It supports businesses and workers to do the right thing, it provides greater certainty about what is expected, and it strengthens a system that is fundamental to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the many New Zealanders who have engaged constructively with this process. Your feedback has directly informed these changes, and that is what good lawmaking looks like. It’s listening, responding, and delivering practical improvements that work in the real world.

This is a forward-looking reform. It is about making our work health and safety system clearer, more effective, and better aligned with the needs of modern workplaces, and, ultimately, it is about keeping New Zealanders safe. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted. The House will resume at 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Retirements

Roland Todd, KSM

Speaker's Assistant

SPEAKER (14:00): The House is resumed. Members, before I call the first question of the day, I’d like to notify the House that today marks the last day that Roland Todd, KSM will be seated to the right of the Speaker when the House is in session. The invaluable service that Roland has provided for eight Speakers over the last 30 years is testified by many of the very positive comments that all of those Speakers have made about Roland. They’ve spoken in glowing and complimentary terms, and I certainly affirm those views. The job is much more than just sitting in the House and keeping track of question time, and then in other stages, keeping an eye on where bills are at; it’s about the smooth operation of the Speaker’s office, and it’s no surprise to me that consideration is now being given to replacing you with not one but two people.

There will be an opportunity at 6 p.m. this evening in the Grand Hall for all in the House, and the many friends that you have made across the complex, to celebrate your contribution, Roland. But for now, I invite members to join with me on behalf of the 375 members who have served in this House during your career to acknowledge the fairness and the integrity with which you have approached your job in the House. [Applause] Well, that’s better than any valedictory, I can tell you.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER (14:02): I present the strategic intentions of the Parliament sector for 2026/27 - 2029/30. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

NANCY LU (National) (14:02) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on business confidence and the New Zealand economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:02) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I’ve seen the latest ANZ Business Outlook survey showing business confidence jumped 27 points in June to positive 37, while expected own activity for firms also rose strongly to positive 37. ANZ noted most of that lift occurred before the sharp fall in oil prices later in the month, suggesting businesses were already beginning to regain confidence in the underlying economy. The survey also showed stronger investment intentions, improving employment expectations, and easing inflation pressures, with pricing intentions now lower than before the Middle East disruption. Recent GDP figures show the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter, more than twice Treasury’s budget forecast.

Nancy Lu: What were some of the most encouraging signs in the latest business confidence survey?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the encouraging aspect was how broad-based the improvement was. Investment intentions rose sharply, employment intentions improved across almost every sector, commercial construction confidence reached its strongest level since March, and manufacturing remained particularly strong with expected own activity reaching positive 56. Overall, the report shows businesses are becoming more willing to invest, hire, and plan for growth. It’s good news for all New Zealanders.

Nancy Lu: What impact have global oil prices had on the outlook?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, recent falls in international oil prices have helped ease some of the pressure created by the earlier Middle East disruption. Brent crude prices have now fallen back to around US$73 per barrel; West Texas Intermediate to around US$70, significantly below the peak scene during the height of the instability. ANZ has noted that inflation indicators softened as oil prices fell and margin pressures reduced. At the same time, our fuel supply chain continues to operate smoothly with fuel stocks remaining well above minimum requirements, 14 fuel ships currently on the water, and importers reporting strong forward supply confidence through to September. I might also note at this point, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) specifically praises New Zealand as one of the few handful of countries worldwide that have followed international best practice in responding to the oil crisis.

Nancy Lu: What has recent global volatility highlighted about New Zealand’s long-term energy resilience?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I think all members in the House will agree that recent events have reinforced the importance of a more resilient and diversified energy system. We’ve taken significant steps to strengthen energy security by accelerating renewable projects, reforming our planning laws, supporting transmission upgrades, and improving security of supply during dry years. We now have a record pipeline of renewables under way, including major solar, wind, and geothermal developments; several projects already consented through fast track—around 400 megawatts; 5 percent of overall supply. Over time, greater electrification, more renewables, and more distributed energy supply can help reduce exposure to international fuel shocks and improve our resilience during disruptions. This is important not just for energy security but for productivity, business confidence, and long-term growth.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:06) to the Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also, on behalf of the Opposition, extend our thanks to Roland Todd for his years of service to the House and suggest that, as it’s his last day, he stops counting and we’ll just see what happens. My question is to the Prime Minister: does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06): Yes, I do, and, particularly, I’m very proud of the recent hospitality winners who have achieved Michelin star status overnight, which is fantastic. I also join with the Leader of the Opposition and thank Roland for all his contribution over many years and look forward to finding out in his book as to who was the best Speaker.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why, after almost three years of his leadership, is the average New Zealander now worse off with GDP per capita lower today than when it was when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s great to see in the last quarter that GDP per capita is up about half a percent. What’s been encouraging is to see the growth that we saw in the first quarter—up 0.8 percent. What’s been encouraging is seeing a record trade surplus month being achieved in April and, also, a very positive forecast as we go forward from here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the average family’s grocery shop cheaper or more expensive than when he first became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as you know, we’ve had a situation where we inherited a position of a 32-year high on inflation, and, of course, that made life incredibly difficult for lower-middle income working New Zealanders. It was very disappointing to see that the Labour Party wouldn’t even support tax relief for lower-middle income workers, which would help people with the cost of living and the cost that they experience thanks to the high inflation and high interest rates the last Government created.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that his Government’s made homelessness worse, driving it to the highest level ever recorded in New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. What I’d say to the member is that, when he was in power, homelessness went up 37 percent, despite spending a billion dollars. We all saw a tremendously tragic situation of families living in squalid motel conditions, riven by crime, and I would put our record of housing up against his. Housing is more affordable, rents are down, the people on the social housing wait-list are down, we have got 2,400 families out of motels, and we are lowering homelessness—as evidenced by the Auckland City Council count from September to this month.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why have only one-in-five of the families who have left immediate access transitional housing gone into a long-term home, and where did the other 79 percent end up, if not on the streets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let’s go through some of the numbers because I want the member to be really clear about this. Just because someone is declined for an emergency housing application, that means that they may be better to determine not to go to a motel but to actually get into a house through transitional housing, social housing, rent arrears, and those sorts of things.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the one-in-five families who have left immediate access transitional housing that have gone on to a long-term home, leaving 79 percent who don’t. My question to the Prime Minister is: where have they ended up?

SPEAKER: Yeah, and he started out by saying that that’s not always an automatic transfer from one to the other and there are a number of circumstances involved, but there was so much noise being barracked across the House that I’m not surprised that the answer didn’t continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the 100,000 houses had been built, and not 99,000 short, would there be any homeless today?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister raises a very good point, which is that if you actually want to deal with homelessness and you actually want to get people into housing, the parties opposite should support fast track and they should support our Resource Management Act reforms. It’s a housing supply issue, and that’s what this Government’s working its way through and delivering on.

SPEAKER: Let me just be clear: it is OK for Ministers to refer to situations that are relevant to the policy being questioned when there are matters that they are dealing with that are part of a transition from one regime to another.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that there is a link between record homelessness and public servants now being performance managed into turning people—homeless people—away from emergency accommodation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. What I think is really good is that the Public Service is actually measuring its performance on its execution of the Government’s agenda, and the Government’s agenda here is very simple: we don’t think it’s acceptable just to park people up in motels like the last Government and not care about them. Our agenda is to move people out of motels into proper houses, and that’s what we’re doing. Housing’s more affordable; rents are down; the social housing wait-list is down; 2,400 kids are out of squalid, crime-ridden motels; and we are putting a lot of focus on homelessness and rough sleeping.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if a homeless person with nowhere to go ends up at a Ministry of Social Development office, why should the case manager who provides them with accommodation be performance managed so the Government can create the impression that it’s dealt with emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because when people are in genuine need, there are genuine options available for people, and it may well be the assessment that we can use a social house, a transitional house, rent arrears, or a private rental as well. But we are not going to do what the last Government did, whose record on housing was abysmal and an absolute utter public policy failure, and you should be ashamed about it.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that when we arrived in Government around November 2023, there were approximately 3,300 households in emergency housing—and that number has come down to below 500—and we were spending in excess of $1 million a day on people in emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and what I’m proud about is that that $1 million a day had a taxpayer cost, but the biggest tragedy was the social costs of actually putting kids into motels. I just encourage the members opposite: go back and look at some of John Campbell’s stories about the squalid conditions of those—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, this was the concern that was raised earlier from the question from their own side: 205/4 makes it really clear that Ministers should not bring parties into their responses that are not involved in the question. Now, whilst we accept your point earlier that they can refer to situations, in broad terms, that they’ve inherited, for the Prime Minister for the second time this question time to use it as an opportunity to challenge the Opposition to do whatever he feels like at the time is a breach of Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Tama Potaka: Speaking to the point of order, the member suggested that it was imputed in my question that I referred to the Opposition party. It was not imputed; in fact, I referred to a date—

SPEAKER: No, no, don’t go any further—don’t go any further. The line between a question to a Government Minister that is designed to facilitate attack on the Opposition is clearly in breach of Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I think where a question, as the question you posed, asks for a confirmation, then that is perfectly reasonable. To go beyond that, I’d just caution that Ministers need to be much more respectful of the Standing Orders of this House than might have been demonstrated so far.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are Ministers in his Government apparently the only people that cannot see the link between booting people out of emergency accommodation and record numbers of homeless people living rough on the streets, and why does his Government think that it is something to celebrate that there are fewer people living in emergency accommodation and more people living in cars, on the streets, in garages, and with nowhere to call home?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d correct the member by saying just go back and watch John Campbell’s documentaries on the motel accommodation, where he had 3,400 kids living in motel accommodation. We have taken 2,400 kids, and they’re now in proper, dry homes. Go look at the homeless data in Auckland from September last year—let’s go through them: 940 people homeless in Auckland in September last year. We’ve put $10 million in, another $14.5 million in, opened up 300 Housing First places. It went to 706 in January, and where are we in March: 586. Unlike the last Government, which made houses unaffordable for thousands of people; thousands of renters had to pay $180 more a week; 19,000 more people went on the social housing wait-list under your Government. You put 3,400 kids in motels and you didn’t care, and now you want to talk to me about homelessness. We do something on this, because we care about those people. We don’t do petty stuff and petty politics like that side.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary. He pātai tāpiri.

SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Just a minute. Hang on. [Interruption] Look this way. Are we done with this question, or have you got a supplementary?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary. Is the Prime Minister confident that he understands the process to access emergency housing; if so, why is it that he didn’t know until this week that there was no night shelter available in Auckland?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we don’t have night shelters in New Zealand. We don’t think the evidence works, where someone shows up for one day and moves on. What we have is we have a 35-bed service that actually is available and where people can get plugged into proper social support services. But I think it’s pretty rich from that side, when you had a Greens Minister for homelessness and it went—

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough! Sit down. Question No. 3.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You might need to correct that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How out of touch are you? I’ll take you to visit some of them.

SPEAKER: That’s good. Excellent. Do you want to go now? Question No. 3.

Transport

Question No. 3

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:17) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on the Government’s crackdown on antisocial road users?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:17): It was great to see the House pass the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill last night. We’re delivering on our commitment to crack down on boy racers, fleeing drivers, and hooligans on our roads. Our roads are not for racing. They aren’t a playground for antisocial drivers who terrorise neighbourhoods and put lives at risk. If you choose Grand Theft Auto - style behaviour, do not be surprised when you get real-world consequences.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is this new bill needed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Right now, the consequences for antisocial behaviour on our roads are not strong enough to act as an effective deterrent. Kiwis across the country are being forced to put up with illegal street racing, burnouts, intimidating convoys, disorderly dirt-bike gatherings, and—I’m told, in West Auckland—siren battles for far too long. New Zealanders have had enough. They put participants, bystanders, and police at risk, disrupt neighbourhoods, and create fear and frustration. For law-abiding Kiwis, the law now sends a very clear message: if you use our roads to intimidate or endanger communities, there will be serious consequences.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What do these serious consequences look like?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill creates a number of new offences and penalties to combat this problem. It includes the establishment of a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee police, street racers, intimidating convoys, and owners who fail to identify offending drivers. The bill gives police more powers to manage antisocial vehicle gatherings by closing roads and public areas. We’re also increasing the infringement fee by making excessive noise from or within a vehicle by 500 percent. What these changes mean in practice is that those who are convicted—fleeing drivers, street racers, and people participating in intimidating convoys—can expect to lose their vehicles through destruction or forfeiture, unless limited exceptions apply.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What do these changes mean for law-abiding New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Across the country, Kiwis have had enough of this obnoxious, dangerous behaviour. Excessive noise, siren battles, illegal street racing, and fleeing police is not harmless fun; it’s intimidating and disruptive and places people at risk. I refer the House to an incident in Levin last year.

Tim Costley: That’s right.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not in relation to this bit—a crowd of 1,000 people and 200 cars filled Levin, carrying out exactly this kind of antisocial behaviour. The organisers of what was titled the “Levin Invasion” say that boy racers just need somewhere to go. Well, my message to them is clear: go home, otherwise you’ll be going to court and your vehicle will be going through the proverbial crusher. New Zealanders have had enough, and I’m proud that this Government is taking action.

Education

Question No. 4

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:20) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Ministry’s contracting of Australian company Learning First that “Whether or not the Ministry of Education go out and contract them is not a matter for me”; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:20): I stand by my statement in the full context it was given. Any good Minister, along with their staff, meets with education experts all of the time, and it’s standard practice. Separately, the Ministry of Education contracts providers for services. I’m advised by the Secretary for Education that the ministry followed relevant Government procurement rules. All decisions made went through the appropriate internal processes and approvals, and I’m advised by my officials that this happens regularly. The ministry has advised that using the exemption process is not unusual and has been used as necessary under all administrations.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When was she or her office first advised that three Ministry of Education officials had, in fact, travelled to Melbourne in July and August of 2025 to work with Learning First?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I was first advised of that when a written parliamentary question was asked.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did it take her more than six months and public scrutiny to reveal that her officials had travelled to Melbourne to work with Learning First?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because that information is contained by the Ministry of Education. They incorrectly advised me in the written question. They subsequently found out that the information was incorrect. They told my office, and we corrected the answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she justify spending millions on the services of an Australian company, including jetting officials back and forth across the Tasman, when there are providers here in New Zealand who have the expertise to do the work and never even got the chance to tender?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the Secretary for Education has advised me that they were well aware of the expertise that was available in New Zealand, and they did not feel that they could get the help they needed in New Zealand around a knowledge-rich curriculum and international benchmarking. They felt that the provider that they contracted had the expertise needed around knowledge-rich curriculum and international benchmarking.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, one more.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When was Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, appointed to her curriculum coherence group, and what was his purpose on that group?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have the exact details and dates available to me, but it sounds like that would be a good written question, and I’ll be able to provide the exact details.

Hon David Seymour: How could the Minister of Education not know that her own ministry has been travelling around the world learning things and doing business with our friends overseas, and what other outrageous, crazy things could they possibly be doing that she also doesn’t know about?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m incredibly proud of the Ministry of Education, who have pivoted to our six priority areas and who are actually raising their eyes up and looking to overseas about what other high-performing countries are doing so that we can make sure that our kids have the same opportunities to succeed as every other child in the world. That work has proved very fruitful, given that the results recently have shown improvement in student achievement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why doesn’t she just come clean and tell Kiwi parents that she contracted in the Aussies to write our school curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I reject the premise of that question. There were many, many, many, many New Zealanders and people here in this country who were involved in writing the curriculum. It’s in our schools; the English and maths is already being used. It’s enormously successful, evidenced by the fact we are raising achievement and closing the equity gap, and parents and teachers and principals know it.

Education

Question No. 5

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:23) to the Minister of Education: What update can the Minister provide on the modification of open-plan classroom initiatives?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:24) Well, Mr Speaker, last—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—sorry. We’ll move on if you can’t ask the right question. It’s on the sheet. We’ll go to question No. 6—Chlöe Swarbrick.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No one speaks—no one speaks, other than the person called to ask the question.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:24) to the Prime Minister: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. 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) (14:24): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why has he not accepted the Green Party’s 15 votes, offered two months ago, to just get on with establishing the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme to support solarising households and lowering power bills?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, we welcome their support—it’s fantastic that they’re getting behind a National Party policy—but it’s just a timing issue, because we won’t be able to get it through the House before we break for the election on 24 September.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why can his Government put the House into urgency to prioritise watering down workers’ health and safety but cannot find House time to prioritise passing the ratepayer assistance scheme to lower household bills before the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just reject the assumption in the first part of that question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why has his Government decided to spend $7 million on consultants for energy policy this term but not the $7 million necessary to establish the ratepayer assistance scheme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of the fact that we spend less on consultants with this Government. We said we would reduce it, and we have.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the Prime Minister’s explanation to New Zealanders who are confused about his Government preventing progress on passing the ratepayer assistance scheme this term of Parliament when, right now, we have the party votes that are able to pass it to make it happen before the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’m really excited about the fact that the Green Party is supporting our policy; that’s fantastic. It’s just a traffic management problem, as we work up the legislation we need to get done before Parliament breaks. I’d also encourage the party to support fast track, to support the Resource Management Act, and to support tax relief and mining.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not the Government would welcome the Green Party’s support for the advancement of urgency in order to clear up more House time so other pressing priorities could be advanced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We would definitely welcome that. I think less use of ChatGPT in questioning would be helpful so that we can free up time in Parliament and get more bills passed.

Science, Innovation and Technology

Question No. 7

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (14:26) to the Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s goal to “brutally commercialise our science system”, and what does that mean for public-good research?

SPEAKER: I have been advised that this answer may be a little longer, which would mean that the supplementary answers will be shorter.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology) (14:27): Certainly, Mr Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, I agree with the Prime Minister that we need greater commercialisation of our science system. In answer to the second part of the question, this Government wants to maximise the value of public investment in science, to address societal issues, improve environmental outcomes, improve the health of our people, and drive economic growth to help support higher-value jobs across the economy. It would be remiss of me, in answering a science question, not to acknowledge the Prime Minister’s Science Award winners, announced last night: Jesse Rumball-Smith, a future scientist; Associate Professor Nic Rawlence, Science Communications; Nan Walden-Moeung, science teacher; Dr Luke Harrington, emerging scientist; and the overall science prize, which went to the late Professor Alistair Gunn and his team: Professor Laura Bennet and Associate Professor Joanne Davidson. Once again, I congratulate them all.

Reuben Davidson: What does “brutally commercialise” actually mean in practice for our scientists, universities, and public funding?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, it means that we are absolutely focused on ensuring that there is a pathway to commercialisation, that our researchers are better connected with their communities and the industries, and that they are able to use the public investment in a way that benefits New Zealand the most.

Reuben Davidson: Is disestablishing Callaghan Innovation, leaving in limbo the jobs of more than 150 scientists, an example of “maximising the value of public investment”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Disestablishing Callaghan, who did have a role in commercialisation, enables us to ensure that that focus on commercialisation and getting maximum impact and maximum benefit goes right across the whole science sector, not just focused in one part of it.

Reuben Davidson: Why, when she could not name a single blue skies science project at scrutiny week, should New Zealanders have confidence that she is absolutely focused on the science sector?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I recall that I was asked if I could name five blue sky research projects which I endorsed or supported, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to do that, given that research funding occurs independent of politicians.

Reuben Davidson: How, when media reporting tells us there have been over 700 science job cuts, can the Minister claim she is focused on higher-value jobs in the science sector?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course, two-thirds of our research occurs in industry, and we know that industry funding or industry expenses occurred almost double from 2018—I think, from around $2.1 billion up to $4.1 billion, from 2018 to 2025—so we are very focused on ensuring not only that the public sector is focused on commercialisation but also that, through the R & D tax incentive, the industry and private sector are able to grow their research and development also.

Tourism and Hospitality

Question No. 8

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (14:31) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements have been made about celebrating the excellence of New Zealand hospitality and reinforcing the Government’s commitment to this sector?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (14:32): Last night, I was delighted to attend the announcement from the Michelin Guide in Auckland, recognising a total of 110 outstanding New Zealand establishments and their dedicated staff. New Zealand now has its very first two-star restaurant in Essence, and 14 who have received one-star recognition. Our Government congratulates the recipients in all categories, and every single member of their teams for these achievements. New Zealand is the furthest that the Michelin Guide has travelled, and this is the guide’s first presence in Oceania. This truly was a milestone moment for the hospitality sector, and one we’ve been very pleased to support through Tourism New Zealand.

Greg Fleming: How will this support New Zealand hospitality, tourism, and the wider economy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Michelin Guide’s presence in New Zealand will help reinforce the opportunities for hospitality both at home and abroad. It’s not just about fine dining. The guide highlights everything from neighbourhood favourites that Kiwis enjoy visiting regularly to world-class dining experiences with a global reach. The guide gives overseas tourists considering New Zealand 110 more reasons to put a visit to our shores on their booking list, keeping restaurants humming and the reservations coming. Hospitality is vital to New Zealand, and the sector is a major part of our economy, contributing about $9 billion to GDP every year. The most recent figures show 155,201 people employed in the hospitality sector; each one of those people works incredibly hard, and our Government is delighted that they now have a chance to shine and share in the pride of this sector.

Greg Fleming: Why has the Government made this investment in Michelin?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We already know the quality of New Zealand’s culinary offerings. We feed $40 million people across the globe through world-class exports such as our dairy, red meat, horticulture, and wine. For our farmers and growers supplying produce for hospitality, the guide represents a very real boost in increasing demand. International visitors attracted here by the guide will only increase demand when they return home and demand New Zealand products on their shelves. The global reach of the Michelin Guide will help take that culinary story even further to the world and raise the profile of what New Zealand is selling.

Greg Fleming: What commentary and reaction has she seen in support of the arrival of the Michelin Guide in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Unlike some in this House who yesterday questioned the value of the Michelin Guide, we’ve made this investment because we value the skill and expertise of hospitality workers like those recognised in the inaugural New Zealand guide. Outside Chris Hipkins’ disappointing negativity, overall commentary and reaction to these awards—and the people who have earned them through hard graft—has been overwhelmingly positive. Kristy Phillips, who’s the chief executive of Hospitality New Zealand, says, “While it’s significant for those recognised, it’s also a milestone for Aotearoa’s hospitality industry, celebrating and building recognition for New Zealand as a hospitality destination.” Dish Magazine says, “After a tough few years for hospitality, this feels hopeful. A chance to shift the spotlight back to the creativity, resilience and extraordinary talent shaping dining in Aotearoa, and to the manaakitanga that sits at the heart of it all.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. I was in all honesty waiting for you to intervene then, but because you didn’t I thought I’d better raise a point of order. You have already warned the Government today not to use patsy questions to attack the Opposition. The answer there started with “Unlike some in this House who…” and then named a member of the Opposition and called them negative. Now, that should not have been allowed to stand.

SPEAKER: Yeah. I was dealing with a small matter that’s been brought to my attention and I missed that, but I’ll look at the Hansard and make a call on where to from there.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I seek leave to table a range of additional supportive comments and responses—I won’t mention anyone in this House—who clearly value hospitality and the hard-working teams in the sector who deserve recognition.

SPEAKER: Was there any objection to that course of action? Right.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Housing

Question No. 9

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (14:36) to the Minister of Housing: Will the Government’s decision to increase rents for public housing tenants by 20 percent worsen or alleviate the cost of living for low-income public housing tenants?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:37): The Government’s fixing the social housing system to make support fairer, go further, and be more targeted to those who need it most, for the time they need it. I acknowledge these changes are not easy and are not supported by everyone, but tough decisions are required. We are aiming to reduce the cliff between the cost of social and private housing. That’s why we’ve also increased the accommodation supplement weekly payment by $10 to $30 per week, which will support low- to moderate-income households. Many of those households pay a lot in weekly take-home pay, when it comes to rent.

Tamatha Paul: Does he understand that the fairness argument is based on equal assistance to those in equal need; and if so, does he understand that those in public housing have greater needs on various metrics compared to those living in private rental housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That is true in some circumstances, and it is true that people in social housing have greater need. Part of the problem with the system at the moment is that those who are in greater need do not receive that support—because they are on a wait-list waiting for public housing—while people who do not necessarily need that support are in the social housing that could be taken up by the person in the greater need. The member has actually neatly highlighted precisely the Government’s reform objective, which is that the system should be targeted at those in the greatest need: with people with disabilities, people with addiction support requirements, people with mental health challenges, people who are victims of family violence, for example, and people who have formally left prison who are currently languishing on the wait-list. Those are the people most in need, and we’re going through a pretty robust exercise and working with the Social Investment Agency, and using the data we’ve got, to make sure we focus support on those in need. But in relation to the member’s point around equality, I’ll just read this out to her—

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a very long answer so far.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s a very important issue, sir, because—

SPEAKER: Well it is, but so’s question time.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: While a sole parent beneficiary with one child in Rotorua in social housing pays $163 per week, the same person not in social housing—the same person in private housing relying on their accommodation supplement—pays $345 a week in rent. They’re in the same circumstance. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So build more public housing.

Tamatha Paul: Yeah, exactly. Does he accept that the length of time that people spend on the wait-list has been prolonged because he chose to cancel thousands of public homes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, both points are wrong. Firstly, the number of people on the wait-list has actually decreased by 6,000 under this Government; and secondly, you can’t cancel projects for which there is no funding available. The last Government might have promised, or at least pretended that there will be thousands of homes built, but they’d attached no funding to them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not your view on the roads, is it? You can build roads; not houses.

SPEAKER: Hey—woah. Tamatha Paul only.

Tamatha Paul: What work have his officials, who have advised him that about 29 percent of public housing tenants can afford lower-quartile market rents, done to ascertain whether there are lower-quartile rentals available in the areas where those people are?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member is right to highlight that the 29 percent figure is a point-of-time analysis of what people in social housing pay in terms of rent and in comparison to the private rental market. It makes the point that often there are people in social housing who earn enough money, in an affordability context, leaving aside some other challenges they may have, which is a separate conversation, but they earn enough where they could access a lower-quartile rent. Clearly, whether or not those rentals are available in a particular area will depend on the time and it will depend on the particular area. So it’s an average. But it is also true to say that the rental market, I’m pleased to say, is enjoying a period where depending on where you are, rents are flat to falling after six years of quite sustained growth. And long may that continue because that is improving affordability for Kiwis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does the Minister think of the idea of public housing tenants lowering their rents with the cost savings from defunding the police?

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s—look, we’ll let that fly.

Tamatha Paul: How, if at all, will he ensure that the $373 million that is being taken from public housing tenants’ rents to increase the Accommodation Supplement won’t be immediately captured by landlords increasing their rents?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m pleased the member asked that question, because in 2018 the previous Government increased the Accommodation Supplement as part of their Families Package, and then they commissioned a report by Motu Economic Research, which is a very comprehensive report, and in fact so comprehensive that the Minister of Social Development at the time lauded the report and noted its findings that the vast bulk of increases in the Accommodation Supplement flow to renters, not to landlords. That is what the economic evidence supports, because the Accommodation Supplement, by design, is essentially an income support mechanism that flows to renters. I note the Opposition seems to have changed its perspective and is now describing the Accommodation Supplement as a subsidy for landlords. Apparently it’s a good thing when Labour puts up the Accommodation Supplement, but when the National Government, which is actually supporting low to middle income working New Zealanders, does it, it’s apparently a terrible thing. I invite members of the House to reflect on that comparison.

Justice

Question No. 10

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:43) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions about the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:43): Yes. I especially stand by my statement on 14 May that the “government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and building a future where everyone feels safe to visit, [to] work and [to] live in our central cities.”

Camilla Belich: Is the Minister concerned, then, that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development warned that move-on orders may increase danger to rough sleepers, particularly women and children?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am concerned about the current dangers to rough sleepers. It’s not a safe place to be, and that is why this Government invests very large sums in helping provide opportunities and places for those who are in need. Separately from that, we’re still also determined to fix the basics in law and order and build a country where people feel safe in their communities.

Camilla Belich: What steps is he taking to address concerns raised by Auckland City Missioner, Helen Robinson, that there isn’t genuine access to enough appropriate support for people subject to move-on orders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I would point to the many, many ways in which the Government does provide support to people who are in need. As a country, we’re always very focused on helping those New Zealanders who are in need. We have, as I’ve said, one of the more generous welfare States in the world. We have huge investment in housing support. We have huge investment in mental health support. Of course, there is still further work to do, but we’re also very much mindful of the needs of people who live and work and visit our CBDs and our town squares and their right to be able to feel safe in their environment.

Camilla Belich: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there are no night shelters in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I always find it’s useful to agree with the Prime Minister, and we’re not getting into some nomenclature around these things. There is much support available to those who are in need. In particular, the Government funds a bed service in Auckland, the immediate access transitional housing programme, which provides 24/7 access to emergency accommodation for those who need it. We do have things available to help, but, of course, the move-on orders are about much more than homelessness; they are about antisocial and disorderly behaviour in our town centres, and if the Labour Party do not think—

SPEAKER: No, no, you can’t speak for anyone else. Talk about what the Government is doing.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m just giving some context, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It might be context as you see it, but not as I do.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. I seek leave to table a document that was produced for me and is not publicly available that lists the night shelters available in New Zealand, including Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Masterton, Napier, Tauranga, Hamilton, and New Plymouth.

Hon Member: Embarrassing.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I wanted to respond to what you’re suggesting, but I can’t, because of the position I find myself in. Does anyone object to that course of action? There appears to be no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Camilla Belich: Where does he expect a person ordered to move on for rough sleeping in central Auckland to go at night, given that the Auckland City Mission closes at 5 p.m. and there is no night shelter in that city?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’d expect that they’d follow the instructions of a constable and move on to a further distance, as is obliged by the move-on order. I’d also point to the many opportunities that there are, such as the immediate access transitional housing programme that operates in Auckland. I’d also point to the extra $14 million that was spent to help with homelessness issues in this country, most recently by this Government, and I’d just make the point to all New Zealanders that we have many tools available to help those who are in need, because that is what we do in the society in which we live. What we don’t have is a useful tool to deal with antisocial and disorderly behaviour in our town squares. Others might not think that’s an important priority; we do, and we do think that restoring law and order and making our country a place where people feel safe visiting, working, and living within our CBDs is important.

Camilla Belich: If move-on orders are really about addressing antisocial behaviour, as he has just stated, why is he insisting on including people who are peacefully begging and rough sleeping?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because we have a broad approach to the move-on orders in order to create an environment where people feel safe, and my empathy lies with people who put their life savings into a small business, a little shop, in the town square and get up every morning at 7 o’clock to try to make a living and find three or four people lined out in front of their shop yelling or abusing people as they try to enter. Those people, I think, deserve some help. The member might not think there’s an issue here, but we do, and we’re responding to it.

Camilla Belich: How can he justify continuing with move-on orders when concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Justice, the Auckland City Mission, the police, the Treasury, the Department of Corrections, Auckland Council, and even his own colleague the Attorney-General?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because I listen to a wide variety of sources, and there are also many, many concerns raised by people who live in our cities and who work in our cities and who visit our cities and find those are places where they are not safe. I listen to the little old lady who is too scared to go and watch a concert in the evening in downtown Auckland because she doesn’t feel safe in the environment. I listen to the young worker who has to join a walking bus to get to her train station at 5 o’clock at night because she doesn’t feel safe in our downtown environment. I listen to all those concerns, and we have responded and we’re sending a clear message that we’re a Government that listens to those who have a perfectly reasonable request—that is, to feel safe in their communities.

Prime Minister

Question No. 11

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:50) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:50): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to remove Te Tiriti references from legislation, despite widespread concern from Māori that doing so weakens Treaty protections?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his Government weakening statutory protections to achieve health equity for Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I stand by this Government’s efforts to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders, Māori or non-Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by claiming to have eased the cost of living while electricity prices continue to rise for all New Zealand households?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of the efforts of this Government to control spending, to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, to get the economy growing, and, ultimately, to lower unemployment.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by pursuing imported liquefied natural gas and expanding oil and gas exploration without a coherent national energy strategy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, because we want to lower power bills for New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by claiming regional development is a priority while regional communities continue to lose manufacturing and processing jobs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of this Government because we do believe in regional economies, and strengthening regional economies, and that’s what we’re doing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his record on improving outcomes for Māori in health, housing, employment, and income after nearly three years of his Government being in power?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and I’d also point to education and the improvement in education results for young Māori students, too.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to make economic development a core aspect of the conservation system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re wanting to make sure we balance environmental and economic outcomes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by reducing access to emergency housing while community organisations report increasing homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree that that’s what we’re doing.

Health

Question No. 12

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:52) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about aged residential care funding?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:52): Last month, the Hon Simeon Brown and I announced that aged residential care providers will receive a 4 percent funding uplift worth around $79 million in the 2026-27 financial year. This will bring the total estimated spend on aged residential care to just over $2 billion this financial year. Alongside a base increase, this additional funding represents targeted investment to improve service delivery, strength and responsiveness to demand, and enhanced access to care. Central to this additional investment is the timely admission into residential care, including over weekends when it is clinically appropriate to do so. New Zealand’s aged-care sector is supported by dedicated providers and staff delivering quality care every day. This additional funding helps them to remain responsive to demand while we continue to work to deliver a sustainable system for the future.

Jamie Arbuckle: What work is under way to deliver a sustainable aged-care system?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve previously said in the House, we recognise that tweaking existing settings or simply providing more funding won’t solve the challenges within the aged-care system. We need a whole-of-system response. That’s why I established the Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group, and I’m expecting their final report to be delivered this month. Their independent advice will provide the whole-of-system perspective needed to transform New Zealand’s approach to delivering aged-care services. To be clear, there won’t be any easy fixes, and it will take time, but this Government recognises that a system response that balances keeping people well longer with delivering the right care in the right place at the right time is the practical, common-sense response we need.

Jamie Arbuckle: What are her priorities for the aged-care system?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Caring for people where they are is going to be critical. I have heard many times that people want to be able to age in place, which means the communities and spaces they know. We also know that that is cost-effective. It is better for care and for our investment. I also want to see greater focus on transitions. We know that aged residential care doesn’t always need to be an end point. I want to be able to see a system that supports transitions so that we can receive the right care in the right place at the right time.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We now resume with Government orders of the day. [Interruption] We’ll just take 30 seconds while those who need to leave the House, leave the House without conversations on the way.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (14:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is an absolute horror of a bill. This bill weakens the protections that keep people safe on the job, it risks more injuries and deaths, and it does nothing—absolutely nothing—to reduce New Zealand’s already unacceptable rate of workplace fatalities.

This bill comes on the back of a tsunami of poor workplace relations legislation that this Government has put through this term that will only hurt workers across this country, and workers are fed up and have had enough. But in this particular bill, it is not only workers that are saying how bad this bill is: it is business, it is employers, it is academics, it is workers, it is people that have worked in the health and safety system for many, many years. There has been absolute, widespread condemnation of this bill.

In fact, I got an email this morning from someone who has been working in this area for 48 years, who has worked in this area because he wants to make a difference, to make our bad statistics better. He said to me in that email, “There has never been a moment in the health and safety space in Aotearoa New Zealand where Kiwi workers stand to have their existing health and safety protections diminished by a piece of such poorly considered legislation.”

That person is not alone in what they have said to me through that email. I have had so many people engage with me throughout the time that this bill had its first reading, right through to even today—people that come from all walks of life. And what has the Minister done with these concerns?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Nothing.

Hon JAN TINETTI: One thing, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, is nothing; but one thing that happened during committee of the whole House was that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety met these concerns with sarcasm. She belittled them. She said that they didn’t understand. She then went on to take political potshots at the members of the Opposition who were trying to ask genuine questions about this bill on the back of the consultation that we have had with those people who have been contacting us after select committee with their concerns. It was almost like they weren’t being taken seriously by this Minister.

While I was pleased to see that New Zealand First were able to have negotiations to have the implementation of this bill delayed, I’m also incredibly disappointed that we’ve got to this point. I’m disappointed that this bill is not being killed in the water here. It will be, because of that delay in the implementation, but that also brings another part of the disappointment. Why have we spent so much of the House’s time and Parliament’s time and Parliament’s money on something when there have been widespread commitments across the House to repeal this bill after the November election?

This is completely wasting taxpayers’ money, but it is wasting the time of the people and the members in this Parliament. This is a complete waste of time and money, and there’s a sense of frustration that not only I am feeling but people in the wider community and the wider health and safety sector are feeling right at this moment.

The bill is a backward step—it is a backwards step—especially for small businesses and those who work within them. This came through loud and clear, not only at the Education and Workforce Committee, but by the number of people who have engaged with us—and I say “us” meaning people across the House—from the time of this bill’s first reading. This bill is creating a two-tier system. It is extending more health and safety rights to people who work in businesses that have 21-plus employees in them.

Senior Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety Dr Chris Peace told the select committee that 650,000 Kiwis would be disenfranchised of many of their health and safety rights through this bill. Now, Dr Peace is someone who, again, has worked in this sector for quite some time, and brings the academic lens to it, but he is also someone who is completely passionate about improving our health and safety record in this country. At the select committee, and in meetings that he has had with many people in this House, he has consistently said that this bill will only make things worse.

We have to look back at that committee of the whole House. That committee of the whole House phase showed just how bad this bill is. Many of the questions that we had went unanswered, many of them had a very light-touch answer to them, and it almost seemed like we’re just creating this because we’re going to simplify this—people have misunderstood, and so we’re simplifying it. But I go back to my second reading speech: making something simple doesn’t make it better; in fact, in the case of health and safety, it’s likely to make it worse.

The figure of 20 people is an arbitrary figure. We’ve heard that it appears elsewhere in legislation, but what that answer doesn’t give is that it doesn’t answer, well, are those businesses that are under 20 less safe? The answer in many cases is no. In many cases, they are running some of the most high-risk industries that we see in this country—such as contracting firms that might work in mining or construction; such as people that work in adventure tourism. That is something that is unbelievable—that the Minister would still keep progressing this arbitrary figure of 20 and taking away many of the health and safety rights of the people that work within those companies.

Now, something else that I want to touch on in this contribution is how ACC have claimed that this bill will increase their costings, and it will increase accidents that happen. We heard from officials, and we heard during the committee of the whole House process, that this couldn’t be costed—but submitters gave costings. We had submitters who gave those costings, and we wanted to verify them, but we were blocked from getting that verified. We couldn’t ask ACC those questions, but ACC have said that 50 percent of claims by cost were from injuries that would not fall under the critical risk, and 75 percent of their claims came from small to medium sized enterprises. That tells me that they already have a really clear idea about the potential costs that this bill will afford to them. But we wouldn’t check that, and I think that that is an absolute mistake that we got blocked from asking those questions.

I’m really concerned that this particular bill has the potential to cost people their lives at the worst and cost people their ability to keep working through serious accident—that we’ve had a Government here that doesn’t listen and hasn’t listened to the stakeholders. These concerns are being expressed every single day, and I urge Government members to take them seriously. I’m not standing here saying this because I am on this side of the House; I am standing here because I have a huge concern about what I am hearing. People are not misunderstanding this. They know from experience the potential for risk that this bill will cause.

In the last 30 seconds, I want to send a message out to the people who have advocated against this bill the loudest and the most, and that is Stand With Pike. They are totally worried about this bill, and I say to them, we will get it right; we will repeal, and your men did not die in vain.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (15:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on this bill. The Greens utterly oppose this bill. The proposed changes weaken the systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy. New Zealand already has disastrous, bad workplace health and safety outcomes, and this bill is likely to make it worse. It is reasonable for people to expect that when their families go to work, they come back safe, that when they come back from work they come back unharmed, and that this place passes laws that strengthen workplace health and safety, not the opposite.

The range of submitters that we heard over the duration of this bill was wide. We heard from businesses, we heard from workers’ organisations, we heard from workplace health and safety experts as well, and I was on the steps of Parliament when the Pike River whānau showed up, and who said, in no uncertain terms, in that this Parliament should vote this bill down. It is disappointing that it has progressed in the way that it has. It is disappointing that we have got to this point, and the only amendment that managed to get supported was the Government one, which was to kick out the commencement date—particularly when we had the range of submissions and concerns coming across from our communities.

This is being debated under urgency. When things are debated under urgency, you’d expect it to be urgent, but here we have a Government that has supported an amendment just on the commencement date, kicking it out to next year as opposed to pausing, reflecting, and thinking about what is best for the country. It was extraordinary last week during question time, when we saw that the actual coalition partners didn’t know whether they met on this issue or not—the differences of opinion that they had or not—and it was alarming. It was alarming because we got to see and the country got to see that that side of the House is not organised on the important issues that really matter: work, health, safety.

I know that the whānau of Pike River came, and they engaged across the House, as well. It looked like pressure was being felt on that side of the House, as well. But if pressure is being felt, then that is reason for us to pause—that is reason for this House to reflect and to get good legislation. It’s incredibly disappointing that the outcome of the committee of the whole House stage was just that one amendment. There were some good amendments—some good amendments that would have strengthened this bill, made it less worse and less terrible, but, unfortunately, what we are seeing is a pattern of behaviour on that side of the House. It is a pattern of behaviour of anti-worker legislation that comes through to the select committee. We try to knock off some of the sharp ends but, by and large, it’s anti-worker legislation, which is terrible for the people.

I don’t know who needs to hear this on that side of the House, but if we’re going to put New Zealand first, we have to put workers first. I reflect on some of the tabled amendments that we put in at the committee of the whole House stage. Some of them were around the concerns that we had and, of course, that a range of people had around the carve-out of the persons conducting a business or undertaking—this arbitrary number of 20. We had a tabled amendment to strengthen that up, to make sure that clause 7, section 16, was actually more reflective of something that we heard from submitters, something that would address the removal and the development of a two-tier system, which we have heard through the development of this debate, creating that two-tier system, where you have one group who has 20 workers or less and another group that is larger, and apparently that’s going to make things clearer. It won’t. This amendment would have strengthened that.

Other amendments included making sure that we have certainty, because, if you read the language of the bill—and I was reflecting on one of my tabled amendments that went up, which was around clause 9, new sections 22A and 22B, where the suggestion was to replace “if likely to result” with “will result”. What this would have done is actually provide clarity. It would have provided clarity, so that it’s not just arbitrary and subjective whether something is likely to result; it is to sharpen it up, so that we know that, if something does happen, there will be accountability. What concerns me and, I think, a large number of people across the country is that that side of the House is trying to help businesses—some businesses; because we had a number of businesses come to the select committee who also had very, very strong concerns about this bill. These things have not been addressed.

We also had tabled amendments to put in around the codes of conduct, making sure, in our amendments, that there would be a five-year review clause. Whenever you’ve got something in place, you want to be able to review it and make it stronger. This was another tabled amendment that that side of the House could have actually supported. It would have made this legislation a lot stronger and a lot clearer. It did not get the support of the House. Of a number of amendments that would have been supported right across the country, that side chose to pick a random one: to kick out the commencement date, under urgency, when actually, if there are concerns on that side of the House—and I look forward to listening to the call from the New Zealand First Party to explain to New Zealand. If they were so concerned, where were the rest of the Amendment Papers? Where were the rest of the Amendment Papers to strengthen this legislation? Why is this being done under urgency when, actually, we could have done a better job—we should have done a better job, because that’s what New Zealand deserves—to make sure that we went through this in a sensible way?

The concerns around ACC were also not addressed. We have had engagement with ACC, and my concern there continues to be, as I talked about in my second reading speech and also illustrated across the House as well, that because responsibility is not going to be picked up by anyone, by the looks of it, it will actually be passed off on to ACC, a system which is already overburdened, which already has concerns as well. What happens to musculoskeletal harm? What we heard from ACC was that they oppose the carve-out because they pay out more than $3.6 billion on musculoskeletal harm. That’s a lot of money. That’s a massive chunk of change. If, all of a sudden, these PCBUs get to kick that to touch, who’s going to look after people? Are we going to push it on to ACC, a system that is already heavily burdened? It looks like that is the case. Mental health and workload management, as well, are also unlikely to be captured by this new focus on critical risk. I know, for many people, that is a growing concern, because often, when you’re in the workplace, it’s not a particular moment when you are feeling absolutely stressed that could lead to injuries, sometimes fatal; it can happen over a period of years. Where is the support? Where is the accountability and liability within this bill? It doesn’t exist.

All we’ve got here is a rushed job by that side of the House, who have been pandering to who knows who, who have not been talking to each other to find solutions that are good for everybody—to find solutions that make sure that everybody who goes to work comes back alive, that everybody who goes to work comes back unharmed, that this place does the best it can to look after workers as they go out to their worksites, that we find systems that are not confusing, like this one is—it’s confusing; even they don’t agree on it—and that we find ways to actually slow down the process so that we can have a better, proper, thorough look at it.

This bill is terrible. It is bad for workers. It will lead to worse work safety outcomes. People have said it across a wide range of groups and organisations, from workers’ organisations, businesses as well, and my concern continues to be that we have rushed this bill, that we have not done it due diligence, that there were concerns raised at the last minute between the coalition partners. Those concerns should have been enough for this bill to be paused, and it hasn’t been. We do not commend this bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill at its third reading. I can assure members and anyone listening that this bill has been through a fulsome and proper process, and I would like to make the point that businesses are incredibly favourable of the approved codes of practice, an aspect of this bill that is an incredible asset to our health and safety at work reform. I want to add that this Government is focused on fixing the basics and building with the future, and with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (15:16): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which brings into effect a coalition agreement between the ACT Party and the National Party. It is no secret that New Zealand First has reservations about this bill. We do support the Minister absolutely in her intent to have less bureaucratic and burdensome, and ultimately more effective, workplace safety legislation. We must reduce harm and death in our workplaces. Our stats on this are absolutely appalling, and behind those, lies human misery, lost productivity, and eye-watering cost to the State.

New Zealand First are not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee, but we became increasingly concerned as we saw the overwhelming weight of evidence being presented to the select committee, and that was in opposition to these changes. Employment relations bills are inherently partisan. Submissions can be reliably split between two camps: there are the workers’ representatives on one side and the employers’ groups on the other. This bill was unique in the regard that the overwhelming breadth of consensus was submitting against these changes. Instead of making the regime simpler, it was said that they would add complexity, and were described as unworkable. New Zealand First has heard these voices.

At its core, the issue is the arbitrary nature of the differentiation between small and large businesses. While admirable in its intent, in reality the size of a business is in no way a proxy for risk. In fact, the stats appear to show that the opposite applies. It also fails to fully recognise that small and large businesses often interact, and operating under different regimes adds complexity and confusion. It risks this Parliament sending a poor signal. Health and safety is as much a workplace culture issue as it is a rules-based issue. A culture of turning a blind eye to small risks can inadvertently lead to cavalier attitudes to high risks.

Politics, Mr Speaker, as you well know, is the art of the possible. It has not been possible to convince our coalition colleagues to make substantial changes, and we are compelled to vote for this bill via the coalition agreement. We take our responsibilities extremely seriously. What we have done is bring the most precious of commodities in politics: time—a delay in the implementation date—and we do thank the Minister for her acquiescence. New Zealand First intends to use this time to campaign on sensible changes that come into effect before the implementation date of this bill. We know we have our colleagues in the National Party, some of whom share our concerns, and we look forward to working with them after the election to change these settings, settings that preserve the intent of this bill but in a way that won’t unduly compromise our most precious resource: our people.

SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:20): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to, obviously, speak in opposition to this bill. There are a few things I’d like to share. There are times in the history of Aotearoa when we have had the unintended consequences of learning from other people’s trauma of what determines the culture of how we look after our people—our workers—and there was a time in the history of Aotearoa when we woke up to the disaster of Pike River, and it came into everyone’s lounges, into everyone’s lives, when we watched intimately the trauma of whānau who didn’t know if their sons and their husbands and their dads were returning home from work.

It was such a horrific time, and I remember watching at the beginning, when all those who belonged to the company were extremely concerned and were taking on all sorts of commitments. As the nation was waiting with anxiety on whether these workers were alive, we seemed to go through a stage where those that owned the company stepped aside, and we were then more intimately working and walking beside those whānau who had the horrific grief of knowing, eventually, that their family members were never going to return. I remember going into different kaupapa, and I’d hope, when I’d got out, that there was news that they had been found and that there was news that they were going to be recovered. So, this year, when we had to meet and speak with some of those family members, they shared the intimacy of the trauma that only those who have lived through this experience could know. When you have the lessons of that as a nation, and they’re actually opposing this bill, that is enough for me. Because I have had all my sons and daughters and husbands and fathers come home from work, I haven’t had to have the lesson that they have. That is enough for our party to oppose this bill.

We have had experiential, horrific lessons from whānau. We’ve had officials, we’ve had experts, we’ve had ACC, and we’ve had stakeholders all tell us that this is a really bad bill. I’m struggling to understand why we don’t take their lessons as being enough for us to know that this is not only a bad bill; it’s not a bill that suits this nation to be rushed through urgency. No matter what its intent, something that we should, as a nation, decide is what is the culture of us? In this House, what is the culture that we support for those who are working and for those who have had to live through the experiences that, again, none of us have been able to share?

I think when we stop listening to experts and we stop taking heed of warnings and advice from those who have lived this and are still living this and are having to, every day, watch a House like this struggle to understand why is it that we have a Government that refuses to listen to experts when it comes to the culture and the wellbeing of people, when it comes to the culture of the safety of people, and when it comes to the working habits and the culture of working habits as a people? We have a Government that listens to oil and gas experts, horse racing experts, fuel crisis experts, property developer experts, and fast-track experts, but as a nation, we have had the experiential lesson of those families from Pike River.

It is in that essence that I honour the memory of what they’ve had to live through and the lessons that they’ve had the generosity to share with us, and I absolutely oppose this bill. I hope, and give them hope, that one day we will repeal this bill and undo the damage that is happening to the culture of people and workers. Kia ora rā.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:25): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party in complete opposition to this bill. I just want to acknowledge, I guess, the catalyst for the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was the Pike River disaster back in 2010, and the hard work of the Pike River whānau to actually ensure that stronger legislation was put in place, and the work that they continue to ensure that it remains in place, and the fact that they were in the forecourt last week in opposition to this bill. We all know that, still, too many people die at work. There are too many serious injuries, and there are too many injuries, but when you make systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy weaker, the consequence will be that more people will suffer.

It’s extremely concerning that, as a country, we have a fatality rate that is 1.7 times higher than Australia and 6.5 times higher than the UK. We should be strengthening our legislation and regulation, not winding it back. It’s been really interesting of late to see the fallout from what’s been happening between New Zealand First and ACT, and I’m extremely concerned when I hear the opposition to the bill from New Zealand First, but yet they continue to vote for it. They vote for a bill that’s going to become legislation very shortly that will see more people harmed at work. To not vote for it today, right now, would actually be a sign of your commitment to workers. To vote in favour of this bill that will see more harm to workers is an absolute cop-out, and workers should realise that you do not actually stand for workers and the health and safety of workers.

SPEAKER: Sorry. The use of the term “you” has got to be—

MIKE DAVIDSON: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: When you’re referring to yourself, then that’s fine, but anything else, just—

MIKE DAVIDSON: Apologies.

SPEAKER: No worries. Carry on.

MIKE DAVIDSON: It’s been interesting how rushed this bill has gone through lately when we have gone from second reading in committee of the whole House and now into third reading, all within a very, very short period of time. This morning in the committee of the whole House, when we were asking some really important questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and putting forward some really important amendments, I felt her comments were very, at times, condescending to MPs that were trying to at least improve a bill that is really, really bad. The fact that the Minister also talked down, I think, to experts in the field because they did not support her agenda and her narrative was also very, very concerning. I have seen, through this bill, that their ultimate aim is to reduce cost. Unfortunately, when you focus on reducing costs, that comes with a consequence, and we know the consequence of that is harm.

Health and safety in the workplace should not be seen as a cost; it should be seen as an investment. When we place an emphasis on health and safety, not only will people not get injured as much nor die; we will see an increase in productivity—that is good for work. This bill is not actually about cutting costs; it’s actually about shifting costs. We have not been able to get proper information from ACC around the actual cost this bill will actually create for that ministry. The bottom line is that this bill will see more workers harmed in the workplace. That is unacceptable, and the Green Party opposes this bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (15:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are all on the side of more effective health and safety regulations for New Zealanders. It’s about getting the balance right, it’s about supporting productivity, and it’s about improving how we achieve that outcome. As I said yesterday, National will continue to look for further improvements in ensuring health and safety in the workplace and engaging with business, industry, and workers to achieve that. In the meantime, as National continues to focus on fixing the basics and building the future, I commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:31): Well, what a mess. This bill was something that nobody asked for. It was born out of the ideological desires of the ACT Party during their coalition negotiations and a single-minded Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety who chose to ignore workers, businesses, health and safety experts, people who have had friends and family injured in workplace accidents, economists—essentially, everyone was opposed to this bill apart from the ACT Party.

If one wants to look for an example of wasteful spending, look no further than the hundreds of hours spent on this terrible bill, the reams and reams of paper spent writing and analysing the impacts of this bill, when this bill is a dead duck. It is going nowhere, and the reason it’s going nowhere is because people outside this building have continued to pressure those who are in power in order to get them to see sense and not pass a bill that will end up hurting and killing New Zealanders. That is not hyperbole; that is evidence that we received on this bill.

I think it’s important to go back to the beginning of how we actually managed to get into this terrible, terrible mess. Many other people have mentioned it, but I want to acknowledge those friends and family who lost loved ones at Pike River. I’ve been down there, I have looked at the memorial, I’ve looked at their names, their ID tags still hanging on the hook waiting for those workers to come home. It is not many New Zealanders who can go there and leave with a dry eye, because it is a terrible indictment of the health and safety legacy that we have in this country.

Now, those families didn’t want that to happen to anyone else, understandably. I am so sorry to Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne that even now, even decades after Pike River, they have to come to Parliament to tell politicians, “Please don’t pass laws that will injure workers and hurt New Zealanders. Please don’t pass laws that take our health and safety backwards. Please pass laws that mean that other families won’t have to go through the terrible anguish that they had to go through.” I am so sorry that they continue to have to do this. We should know better, and this House should do better by the legacy of Pike River.

Unfortunately, that is not, as we know, what has happened. When this Minister came in, she decided to go on a roadshow nobody asked for, a tour of New Zealand asking people who didn’t want to engage with her and didn’t have an agenda to do so what they thought about health and safety. She said that she talked to many workers, and I imagine the conversations went something like this: “Do you feel that you are hampered by green and red tape?” and the worker says, “Yes.”, and that is the evidence that has been used to pass this bill. It is not based on anything that has been brought to the Government. There’s no study, there’s been no royal commission; it is something that was only desired to be changed by the ACT Party through their ideological agenda that small government knows best and that for the Government to be out of people’s lives is the best thing for all New Zealanders. Well, the evidence in health and safety says the opposite.

So this roadshow went on all over New Zealand, and the Minister came back and, blow me down with surprise, the premise that she went into it with is the premise that she came out of it with. So none of those conversations that she had—and in good faith, I, along with Teanau Tuiono, hosted a forum at Parliament; we invited workers to come and speak to the Minister. Those workers, in good faith, told their stories about how health and safety is so important for their work and how we need stronger, not weaker, laws in New Zealand.

The Minister ignored that. She pushed forward, and we see now today that she doesn’t even have the support of her own coalition parties. She doesn’t have the support of the New Zealand First Party; they have made that perfectly clear, and we wish that they had been able to stop this passing today and we wish that they had been able to stop this getting to this stage. But we also see now that the National Party is giving very lukewarm speeches in relation to this bill too, and I am not surprised at that, because the evidence is overwhelming. There is nothing in this bill that actually improves health and safety, and, in fact, the evidence is that it will lead to further deaths and further injuries. I’ve heard speakers on the other side of the House speak in support of bills, and that is not the tenor of their advocacy today.

Thankfully for them and their consciences and their legacy, this bill will pass today, sadly, but New Zealanders now have a choice. New Zealanders have a choice, and they can vote for parties that have always stood up for health and safety at the election. If they do—and this is very relevant to the commencement of the bill—this bill will not become law, and that will save lives. That will save lives in New Zealand.

The situation of health and safety in New Zealand is not good as it stands, and when the Minister announced that she was doing a review, I thought, well, maybe this is an opportunity to improve the situation. The reason I thought that is when you look at the statistics, they are diabolical. The Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum states that New Zealanders are 6.5 times more likely to be killed at work than those in the UK—6.5 times more likely; that is an outrage—also, 60 percent more likely to be killed then Australian workers. That is a national shame.

To fix this system, we need better laws and better regulations, but this bill does the opposite. This bill means that small employers of up to 20 will only have to have a look at critical risk. They won’t have to look at all of the other types of harm that can occur to people in the workplace, and there are many, many, many types of harms that can have huge impacts on people’s lives that would not be considered critical risk. That is a huge shame. In fact, if we look at the number of New Zealand firms in New Zealand that would not be covered by this, it’s 97 percent. Why change the law to make health and safety laws weaker for 97 percent of the companies in New Zealand? It just doesn’t follow logically that this is going to improve health and safety.

When we raised this with the Minister, she said the objections to this bill were vibes based—based on vibes. That is not a comment of a Minister who is taking responsibility for the serious decisions that she makes as part of the executive, and it is a shame.

It’s important to note that the people who this bill is meant to help, who the ACT Party allegedly stands for, do not support this bill. We have had many submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee, including from organisations like Retail NZ, who should in theory be supportive of changes to take away health and safety red and green tape from small businesses. Retail NZ do not support this bill and, in fact, said that headcount alone does not define risk. That is true.

We look at other organisations who would usually support these kinds of regulatory changes in a way that is allegedly, according to the ACT Party, supportive of business, but we see the Employers and Manufacturers Association, one of the biggest employers’ organisations in New Zealand, say that the bill “may unintentionally increase harm, complexity, and compliance [and] uncertainty for businesses and workers.” So not only is this bill going to increase harm, but it actually might increase costs. We’ve seen evidence from economist Shamubeel Eaqub to suggest that this might mean decreased productivity in small businesses, decreased profits, meaning that they are less likely to be successful. So even on that measure, this bill fails.

I want to end by acknowledging all of those people who have sadly been injured or who have had friends or family killed at work. Everyone deserves to come home safe, everyone deserves to have their family members come home safe. New Zealand has a terrible record of health and safety; we must do more to ensure that health and safety is improved in New Zealand. Unfortunately, this bill takes us backwards, it was misguided, it was not based on evidence, it has lost support from business, it has lost support from unions, it has lost support from workers, it has lost support from everyone in New Zealand including the ACT Party’s own coalition partners. This is a waste of time, this is a terrible bill, and we do not support it.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (15:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. After sitting through the full process—I’ll remind you we’ve been through a full process on this this bill—one of the great things that I learnt from the bill and one of the really strong pieces of advice that’s come through and we had a lot of support for was the approved codes of practice. Small businesses in particular were very keen for these to become front and centre as part of their health and safety plans. And with that, I make note of the fact that we’re in the process of fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend the bill to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:41): This bill weakens the protections that keep workers safe. It shifts New Zealand backwards at a time when workplace injuries, deaths, and mental harm are already far too high. We are in a situation where we have the most anti-worker Government that this country has seen in years. We have had cut after cut after cut to workplace rights for workers and now the Minister comes in with her swansong of the biggest hit of all, cutting health and safety practices for workplaces and workers.

We’ve had the cutting of pay equity where thousands of women are being paid less than men, and now we are making people less safe at work. Labour supports keeping workers and workplaces safe, and this bill takes us in the wrong direction. We are going to have more injuries at work under this bill. We are going to have more deaths under this bill, and nobody wants that.

That’s the interesting thing about this, that I can be confident that nobody wants people to get hurt at work. We’re all people who want people to come home after work. Yet, despite that value and despite the evidence that has come before this House in this process, still the Government continues to push through this legislation. New Zealand already has disastrous, bad workplace health and safety outcomes. We are losing workers every single week when they are getting killed at work. Every 15 minutes, a worker suffers an injury that requires more than a week off work. An estimated 750,000 New Zealanders will die from work-related health illnesses and injuries, far above that of Australia and the UK.

I want to speak to previous speakers from the Government parties who have spoken about the long process of this bill, that they’re not rushing it through urgency, the process has been going on for some time. Well, I would like to let you know that the process has been going on for a decade and acknowledge the incredibly brave people who have been working on this mahi since the terrible Pike River disaster that killed 29 workers. I want to acknowledge those people who have worked hard to ensure that we have health and safety laws in this country that look after our workers and people at work.

After the Pike River disaster, the Pike River royal commission of inquiry and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety created our critical piece of legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act, as well as the primary regulator, WorkSafe. This was designed so that the employee and the employer, the person conducting business or undertaking, the PCBU, could work together to ensure that workplaces were safe at work. I don’t think that there is an employer who doesn’t care if their workers get hurt at work. They don’t want workers to get hurt at work. But speak to any employer who has had a significant injury in their workplace and they’ll say, “It’s important we have good health and safety law and we don’t use cost-cutting exercises at the expense of our workers.”, because the cost of having someone injured at work and the devastating effects of having someone killed at work far outweighs the initial cost of ensuring we have good health and safety processes in the first place. No business wants workers hurt at work and we have seen that through the submissions and the multiple organisations and groups of people who have spoken actively against this bill.

We want to keep workers and workplaces safe. This Government is anti-worker and this bill should not pass. They are taking New Zealand backwards and there will be more injuries in our workplaces because of it.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (15:46): Look, keeping people safe at work will always be the National Party’s number one priority. We support practical, sensible regulation, which of course gives businesses certainty and keeps our people safe at the same time. So, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:47): Thank you. This is an area I know quite a lot about because I worked in the area and I would say that one of the first lessons I learnt was our big employers, often they’ll overkill on health and safety. They might have issues around proportionality, but our small employers are often really scary in some of their practices. That’s a natural learning curve that happens, but we’ve got to be there to support them with the right boundaries. Those boundaries are to protect our people because that is the most important thing in this country, and it’s certainly the most important thing to the Labour Party.

Now, I can tell you war stories from this area to support this, but I’ll restrict myself a little bit. I can tell you about a man who was driving home from work after doing several shifts in a row because he wanted the extra money. Now, his employer should have understood that doing that many shifts in a row makes you really tired. He drove off the road and he was killed. That left his family with no support, and it was a deep, deep tragedy. It didn’t matter whether his employer was big or little. It was more likely under this legislation that a small employer wouldn’t consider that risk at all because it wouldn’t be seen as critical. It’s just simply not as obvious.

That was a case I was involved with because WorkSafe had trouble colouring in the lines as to whether that was a work injury, because he drove off the road afterwards, even though it was caused by his work and his work hours. It took a little sorting out. So imagine a little employer trying to do that without decent guidance.

Now, his family was just as hurt. That’s my point. It didn’t matter if it was a little employer or a big one. His family deserved the protections of our law to make sure that the interests in his safety were paramount in the minds of that business. Now we know, because ACC told us, that this piece of law will hurt our country financially, and guess what ACT? It will hurt our taxpayers. They will end up fronting the bill. They will end up paying a lot more in ACC.

But I want to talk about those employees who slip under the radar, because I met one of those the other day. She was a woman who was selling things at my local market, and she was just selling little bits and pieces to make ends meet. She had worked really hard all her life, but she’d worked in hospitality—so, I’m guessing, fairly small employers. She was carrying loads that were just too heavy and, as a result, she’d injured herself, and so she couldn’t do that work. Her employer hadn’t really wanted to think about the consequences, so she had not put in an ACC claim in time, and it had been rejected, so she was working at the market, just selling these little things.

That’s what happens when things slip through the net that aren’t safety critical, because that woman’s income is impacted for the rest of her life. Now, it’s not the great tragedy—and I want to tell you about the great tragedy in a minute—it’s not the great tragedy in the eyes of this House, but that’s everybody’s life right now. Everybody’s scraping by. They don’t need this. They don’t need not to be looked after when they take the first job they can get. They don’t actually have that much choice about where they work at the moment. They can’t wait for it to be the big companies, the Fonterras. That might be the life that most of the people in this House have led, but it’s not the life of most New Zealanders. It’s completely out of touch to think that it doesn’t matter—those little injuries—because those are the things that glue our people to wages, and we need to look after them. We need to make sure that we’re looking after them all the time.

Now, I want to tell you about a big employer. I know everybody’s talked about Pike River, for a really good reason, and it makes me shudder. But I’ve talked before in this House, and I spoke almost directly—although, of course, I’ve got to be very careful about that—to New Zealand First when I talked about the Port of Auckland. When I had spoken last time about how many lessons there were to be learnt from the Port of Auckland, I thought I’d better do something about it, so I went on something called a business attachment, where you can go and you can work in an industry. I knew a lot about the port because I’d been there and watched terrible events happen at that port in health and safety for many years not be dealt with appropriately, and I knew that that port had turned things around. I know it can be done, that we can address our terrible rate of fatalities in this country, and I wanted to see how they’ve done it.

It’s a really interesting story, because we had deaths by crushing of containers; we had terrible deaths for their workforce. It was absolutely terrible. Eventually, the CEO was actually charged, and so it’s all a matter of public record, because he killed people with his behaviour. It was a top-down approach and it was cavalier. There’s now a group in there managing at the port, and one of them’s a guy called Roger Gray. He’s definitely not a friend of the Labour Party. He’s probably a member of the National Party. But you know what, Roger Gray’s spent a lot of time getting to know and working with the union in there, and he did that with the absolute genuine intention of rebuilding that relationship. Now, it’s the union and the management and the workers at grassroots level who fix the health and safety problems in their workforce. They are there working together to do that. It’s a powerful story, because they have really, really impacted on health and safety at that place.

One story that was told to me was by one of the managers who decided to go and do the lasher programme. She went and worked as a lasher on the waterfront, and she did that and she discovered what the workers were saying was that the health and safety rules written in that situation weren’t fit for purpose because they didn’t actually practically work. The people who’d been writing the law weren’t the people doing it, so they didn’t know how far you needed to stand apart. They were able to amend those rules by a group working together in what’s called “high performance, high engagement”. That resulted in a much safer practice for everyone. They also told me one thing—and this was management: “You know, actually, it’s not all about productivity. Sometimes, those things go together; sometimes, they don’t—and when they don’t, it’s health and safety that wins.” So I was really impressed by what I saw there, because it involved everyone. It wasn’t combative in the way that the law often is.

What I would say about this law is that it’s, again, missing the point. It’s super top-down. People have talked about the disrespect for exports. What about the disrespect for workers? What this Minister did was create a law based on her view of the world. It was ideological and, as a result, we’ll have deaths in this country we wouldn’t otherwise have. We will have people die because somebody is blindly adhering to an ideology which just doesn’t fit reality, because she forgot, on those tours of the country, to actually spend enough time talking and listening to the people around her who were in the throes of dealing with these problems.

I would love to see some health and safety reform in this country. It’s by no means perfect, given the rates of fatalities and the rates of injury. I think we can do better; I’d like to see some concepts in this area looked at. I think that’s a good thing. But I see nothing in this law that is wise. I see someone blind to the reality, not very interested in talking and listening, who’s come up with an inhumane law that will kill people.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (15:57): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the final speaker in this third reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. Some of the highlights of this bill, I think, will be the approved codes of practice, which have been called for for a long time across many different industries. This will enable the implementation of real health and safety workforce and culture in all different-sized workplaces. This is one of the key elements that had been missing, and this is part of how National is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Offshore Renewable Energy Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, the preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to present the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill for the committee of the whole House stage. Offshore renewable energy has significant potential in our energy system, and this bill delivers a regulatory regime to enable it as part of the Government’s Electrifying New Zealand plan. I want to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for considering the bill and to acknowledge everyone who made submissions.

There are a couple of Amendment Papers that I have put on the Table, which I would like to just take a moment to speak to. The first one, and the key one, is an Amendment Paper that I’m proposing that would make the bill more directly address spatial conflict between seabed mining and offshore wind, as recommended by the select committee. This Amendment Paper creates an ability for the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, acting jointly, to issue a notice designating specific marine areas where there are time-limited restrictions on seabed mining approvals.

In these areas, there would be a pause on the ability to apply for and grant new seabed mining permits or approve area extensions to existing permits under the Crown Minerals Act. This would cover prospecting, exploration, and mining permits, but excludes permits for petroleum. Ministers will be required to consult with persons who may be affected and ensure that restrictions were not in place for longer than is reasonable or cover areas larger than necessary to achieve the purpose of the designation. The proposed amendments will help create clearer pathways for development, ensuring that offshore wind potential can be realised without undue regulatory friction. The first Amendment Paper also includes a minor technical amendment to clarify the regulation-making power in relation to setting levies on permit holders. This is a minor wording change to make it clear that the levy can be specified as either an amount or a rate.

The second Amendment Paper is a minor technical amendment to clause 118, sharing of information with agencies. That amends the reference to the Ministry for the Environment to Ministry of Cities, Environments, Regions and Transport—a very happy birthday to that new department.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:02): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for those overarching comments. As in various stages of this bill, and indeed at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Labour is supporting this bill. In fact, this was work we had under way when this Government came in. It is work we would like to have seen back on the floor of this Chamber much sooner, because there is an enormous opportunity for New Zealand in the area of offshore wind, and it’s fair to say it’s been sitting around for quite a while, so it is a relief to see it back.

I note the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 of the bill, and we’ll speak to that amendment when we get to the debate around Part 2. I’d just like to highlight that I have tabled an amendment to the amendment in terms of what we do in terms of what we do around the competing uses in Part 2, but I won’t speak to that now.

The purpose of the bill, I think, is something that has driven the fact that there is broad support for this bill. If we have a look at it, it’s around giving that investment certainty that we will have people who will crack on and will build what, in a decade, are going to be an immensely important sources of generation for New Zealand. We already have commercial interest in this area; we have a number of players that are or were looking at opportunities—particularly, Madam Chair, I’m sure you will be more than aware, off the coast of Taranaki and up into the Waikato.

I think it is unfortunate that we have already seen some of that investment driven away from New Zealand—that international investment—because we haven’t had this consenting regime in place, and we have dragged the chain on this. This was something that we could have had in place two years ago, and we could have been getting on with actually looking to that future. I think we can all agree around the purpose.

One of the things, looking through the regulatory impact statement, that I find interesting is, in clause 3(b), “allow the selection of ORE developments that best meet New Zealand’s national interests”. I think one of the things that comes up between the original bill and the regulatory impact statement that went with it and the subsequent Amendment Paper is that flip between developer-led and Government-led approaches to how we do this. Around the world, we are seeing Governments move either in one direction, letting the developers lead the way, or Government taking more of a hand in it and deciding what areas are going to be open for prospecting; what areas are going to be concentrated on; and, with that, is there open data that will accompany it, and what are we doing to attract that investment, because there is international competition for this. There’s quite a lot of discussion in the advice that the Minister received around the development led and Government-led approaches to this, so I would be interested in comments from the Minister in terms of the shift to a more Government-led approach that we are seeing with the amendments that have been tabled.

We’re also told in the regulatory impact statement that during the consultation phases, in both rounds of public consultation, there was generally support for an assessment that considers both the capabilities of applicants and the impacts on New Zealand’s national interests more broadly. I would be interested to know from the Minister, in this purpose clause, which is about the national interest test, what was the policy work that did or didn’t happen in terms of a broader understanding around what the national interest in relation to offshore wind was? That is something that is fundamental. I think we can all see the immense value this will be to our country, but as we work our way through the bill, I think it would just be useful for the Minister to give some detail around some of the policy considerations that went to broadening or not broadening that concept of what the national interest is.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:06): Madam Chair, thank you. Like my colleague Dr Woods, I am really interested at this stage in the purpose of this bill. Dr Woods has looked at some questions around New Zealand’s national interest. I want to go to clause 3(c), “manage the risks to the Crown and the public from ORE developments.”

I want to understand in particular what the risks to the Crown are and what risks might be foreseen. I guess what I have in mind is the risks that the Crown has had to wear in respect of fossil fuels and offshore fossil fuels and the decommissioning of oilfields and the like, where the Crown has picked up considerable bills in that regard. In terms of the risks to the Crown around offshore wind, if the Minister could just lay out a little bit of what some of those risks might actually be around offshore wind. Clearly, it’s not going to be around the clean energy itself, but there must be some other risks around it, and I would like to hear a little bit more about that.

Then the risks to the public: it would be interesting to know how broadly that term “the public” is going to be construed. Again, what sort of risks might be sitting in there? There are clearly some physical hazard risks if any individuals—presumably there must be some people who want to go boating around offshore windmills. But what about the public in general? Is there a sort of risk to more than just individuals doing that? If the Minister could just set out what some of those risks are, that would be very helpful.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:08): I thank the members for the questions, and I just want to make the point that, obviously, this bill has been through an extensive select committee process, and members have had the opportunity to have officials in and ask many of their questions around the purpose statement, as with every other clause of this piece of legislation. The purpose statement has been well tested through that process, and it’s very clear, obviously, that it’s designed to do exactly what it says: give certainty for developers to invest, and to allow the selection which best meets New Zealand’s national interest—and that is to ensure that through this process, the decisions that are made can meet the interests of our country and manage the risks to the Crown.

Of course, with any physical infrastructure that happens anywhere, there’s an element of risk and impact. I note that it’s not just offshore wind, which would of course include turbines, but this could be to do with the renewable energy resource obtained from waves or tides or currents or light or heat or rain or geothermal heat. There is a range of different opportunities that exist and that are being promoted through this piece of legislation. I note that the select committee will have had plenty of time to discuss those in detail.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:09): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, given the work we put in through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to come to some success, I think, but we also heard a lot about the challenges that we’re facing. I want to talk to Part 1, clause 3, which notes that the purpose of this Act is to give greater certainty to developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. It is somewhat ironic that the time it’s taken for this bill to come through—the time it’s taken, when we were promised it was going to be delivered mid - last year—has meant that BlueFloat, for example, have floated away already. We’ve already lost one offshore renewable developer as a consequence of the time this has taken.

My concern is around the Amendment Paper that I thank the Minister for providing to us—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think the amendment might be in the next part.

SCOTT WILLIS: The next one—but my question is related, however, to what that amendment will address, which is around the seabed mining projects and how the Minister intends to give even greater certainty to the offshore renewable energy projects that could develop. We’ve been told through the select committee that these two developments or two projects are simply incompatible. The option, I guess, that we’ve seen with the offshore wind as a renewable project is something that we’ve seen elsewhere can’t coexist with seabed mining, and yet there’s some uncertainty still in this bill about where that’s going to fit.

Really simple—we’ve got quite a few more questions, but I’m really interested in the Minister’s giving us a hint, and we’ll get to that when we talk to amendments later down the track. But I’d like for the Minister to tell us some of the story, because I’ve got to say, this is something that really did work us through select committee, and we discussed it at length, and it was something that went back and I know that Ministers were discussing it. It’s something that we’re concerned to understand what has happened and how this is going to really work—if the Minister could explain. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:12): Happy to discuss the Amendment Paper in Part 2 during that debate. In terms of the overall Part 1 discussion, of course, as I said in the previous answer to previous questions, there’s a range of different types of energy resource. Offshore wind is one of them.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:12): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for answering the questions. I also take the Minister’s point that this bill has been through select committee and it has been examined there. I do note that when we move to Part 2, the Amendment Paper has not gone through select committee, so this will be the first and only time to question that paper on the floor of the House.

I also take the Minister’s answers around the purpose clause and the national interest. I think one of the important things is that when you look through the policy advice that’s been released alongside the bill in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), there’s quite a lot of discussion around choices that Ministers made—and it is Ministers that make those choices, not officials. This is the opportunity for the Parliament to get some understanding of how those policy decisions were made.

In particular, I point to the regulatory impact statement that came with the original bill, not the RIS for the Amendment Paper, where it talks about the assessment of the permit applications in relation to that national interest. It provides a list in table form, in a tabulated form, of the components of the national interest. What is appearing in the bill and what the Minister gave as his answer is a lot more complex in the policy papers, and this is the only chance that we have to understand the thinking behind that.

If we look at the regulatory impact statement, the considerations in terms of determining what a national interest is are: energy system benefits—I won’t go through all the points beside it; the technical and financial capability; the wider economic benefits, including national, regional, and local; decommissioning arrangements; iwi and hapū engagement; compliance record; existing rights, interests, or limitations; national security or public order risks. This is the list, the shopping list, if you like, that the Minister was given. I think what is not clear when we look at Part 1, clause 3(b) is: is there a hierarchy of these tests that will be used? Are they subjective or objective tests? How are they going to be applied? I think one of the key things is: is there a hierarchy? Are they “and”s or are they “or”s? Does there have to be three out of four, not bad? How many of them need to apply in order for there to be a determination of what the national interest is?

Given that this actually is probably one of the larger discussions of the national interest that I’ve seen in a set of policy papers like this, I think it is important that the House understands exactly how this is going to be applied. It’s not as simple as the Minister’s answer first told us. There is a lot of complicated thinking that’s gone on behind that, and we never, at select committee, had the chance to question the Minister in terms of his policy decisions around that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just three questions on Part 1. The first is on the purpose clause at 3, and (b) is allowing “the selection of ORE developments that best meet New Zealand’s national interests;”. I’m interested in this word “selection”, and it will come up in Part 2 as well, and in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, because I am interested in how the Minister sees the role of Government and how much work there will be in selecting the sites that are going to go to feasibility studies and how much mapping that will entail and how that will be funded. I think it would be really useful for the Minister, either in this part or later, to talk about the selection of those sites and how that will work in practice—would be useful to have on the record.

My other questions relate to the interpretation section and then back to the purpose. In the interpretation section, the offshore renewable energy (ORE) generation infrastructure is defined as being infrastructure that is “in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone”. That appears to be generation that is not in the CMA, in the coastal marine area. The question here is if the Minister considered referring to that coastal marine area at all in any of the interpretations or if that would be something helpful—again, it might be helpful for the Hansard to talk about why it is that we need this specific piece of legislation. It’s my understanding that there wasn’t a regulatory regime because it was out of that area and in this other area.

Then, my third question is: does the Minister agree with my pet peeve, which is that interpretation sections should come before purpose sections, and then you wouldn’t have a term used in the purpose section that has not yet been defined that is an acronym. “ORE” is there in the purpose section. The title is “Offshore Renewable Energy”. But there it’s mentioned—“ORE developments”—and then you’ve got to go down to the interpretation section rather than the other way around. It’s an argument I’ve had with the Parliamentary Counsel Office quite a lot.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:18): Well, it’s one way or the other, isn’t it? I think we take legislation as a whole to try and define it, I think may be the answer. In terms of the questions around the national interests and the approach, I think the purpose statement is clear in terms of what it seeks to put in place, which is to best meet New Zealand’s national interests. Of course, Part 2 then goes into more detail around how Ministers are to make their decisions.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (16:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very brief and specific question on the purpose clause 3(b): is it in New Zealand’s national interests to rapidly decarbonise our society, Minister?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:19): Madam Chair, thank you. I’d just like to say to the Minister I take his point about this having been examined in detail by the select committee, but it wasn’t a select committee on which I serve, so I, as an individual member of this Parliament, as we can all do at this stage—is to have a close look at this particular piece of legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine, as long as it’s not repetitive on what the select committee has reported back.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Right, OK, I’ll have a think about that. What I do want to understand, though, again, and this is sitting in Part 1. If we could just go to clause 6, and it’s the “Obligation relating to Treaty settlements and recognised customary rights”. Of course, we are in support of ensuring that obligations under existing Treaty settlements are met and so on, and that the customary rights recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and, indeed, the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act are recognised as well.

However, what I am a little concerned about is there does not seem to be a Treaty clause per se, a clause that sort of says, “Actually, this legislation will honour, respect, endorse, enact—whatever—the principles of the Treaty.” So it’s quite a narrow little bit of work that sits around the Treaty in here, in terms of Treaty settlements that have already gone through. What about the future? You know, there will be obligations under future Treaty settlements as well, but also what about just the obligation to the Treaty in general, not necessarily under Treaty settlements? So I’d like the Minister explain to me, as an individual member of this committee who has not sat on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as to why we don’t have a broader Treaty clause sitting in this legislation.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:21): I would just like to note a number of the questions that have been asked. It is in our interest to ensure we have greater electrification and more electricity generation, and this bill will have a framework to enable that to happen here in New Zealand.

In terms of the selection of sites, with how that will happen in practice, then the question of developer-led versus Government-led: I think many of the choices that were made as part of the policy decision were done in consultation with the developers, and that was certainly the preferred approach in the consultation; more of a developer-led approach. We’ll get into those future parts which are feasibility permits and the commercial permits. Ultimately, I think there’s general awareness around where those areas where offshore wind is of interest and the member Dr Megan Woods spoke about Taranaki and also the Waikato as being a couple of areas where there is significant interest.

I would also note that it’s not just offshore wind that this bill enables. There is a range of other offshore energy resources, and so allowing developers to look to what that technology is and how it enables is, I think, a really important part of how we’ve designed this piece of legislation.

In relation to the Treaty settlements, I think this has taken into account the areas of Treaty issues which are relevant to the issue in terms of future Treaty settlements. As the member will be aware, future Treaty settlements are enacted by Parliament and through that enactment of Parliament, if it requires any amendment to other legislation, that can happen as part of that process.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:23): I’d like to pick up on the kōrero of Te Tiriti. We do have a standing amendment to clause 6. It’s great to hear that the Minister’s been focused on providing certainty to the developers. Obviously, iwi, hapū, and Māori groups see themselves as requiring certainty of enactment of Te Tiriti as well. In fact, reading through of the submissions, iwi were very succinct in what their requirements of the legislation were, and particularly in Taranaki’s case, that’s based off more experience than any other iwi, specifically in the exclusive economic zone space.

One of the things that the amendment to clause 6 is proposing—and remembering that, yes, we have a iwi and hapū groups that are yet to settle, but we also have pending applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and also unresolved customary rights and marine interests. Again, taking on board the existing Treaty settlements, what we are wanting to do is make sure that it has explicit protection for those unsettled iwi, hapū, and Māori groups who are yet waiting for the Government to determine their unresolved customary rights and marine interests.

No doubt, it would be of absolute importance for the Crown to provide certainty to those who have interests and rights within this area that we see as having w’akapapa and kaitiakitanga. Most of those iwi who have submitted and who have proposed amendments are also those who inherit the projects way beyond the lifespan of their productivity. So I’d be interested to get the support from the Minister in this amendment, proposed to replace clause 6.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question really is about Part 1, clause 3(c), which is about managing the risk to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy developments. I note that the Minister made the point that this bill really has had a lot of developer lead to it, and I think I’m really relating or linking to my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s point here, because we’ve heard from iwi and hapū in Taranaki, who have certainly been engaged in the latter part of this, that they want more engagement from the Government on the finalisation and implementation of this legislation.

I’m wondering what has happened since and how that’s taken place because if this legislation is developer-led, is there some risk—because if we’re managing the risk to the Crown and the public, is there some risk that with developer-led we are not taking into account all the voices who might well see their concerns overridden. To the point made by my colleague just now: these are long-run projects; they may well have consequences that we can’t foresee. Has there been the type of engagement—and will there be further engagement—to ensure that a wider number of voices can be considered, rather than simply this being developer-led?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:27): I note the questions from the members around the debate and developer-led versus Government-led. I note that Part 2 goes into a lot of these questions around feasibility and consultation and all of those requirements; happy to have that debate then.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister around clause 4. Now, usually I would not be one to go through the interpretation clauses of a bill in a committee stage, but it is also highly unusual for there to be a reasonably substantial part of the select committee report and the discussion of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee around definitions in clause 4. If we have a look at the select committee report, the report’s been around—the submitters told it was unclear whether permits would be required for infrastructure that would generate energy not directly intended for commercial gain. It went through a list of criteria: there’s demonstration; there’s aquaculture that might have some solar panels; a size that was put on it, I think it’s 30 megawatts was the limit in terms of it not being for commercial gain.

Now, my question is: there’s been quite a lot of time between the select committee consideration of this bill, and clearly a lot of advice to the Minister from officials around changes that needed to be made, particularly in response to questions that came up to select committee. Now, those amendments were made from the submissions; they appear in the amended bill that we are that we have back on the floor of the House, but my question for the Minister is: did we get this right? Has there been further advice in the many, many months that have languished between this work being completed by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the Minister seeking more advice from officials? Is 30 megawatts the right threshold? Is the list that we’ve put in there in terms of the excluded activities broad enough? Are we in danger of some things, or is the regulation-making power that in there, does the Minister see that that will catch it?

Now, this is actually important in terms of how this is going to run because as we get through this bill, we’ll see that feasibility studies are an absolute critical part of the process that goes here. Actually having these excluded activities for demonstration purposes to understand potential is going to be critical. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:30): Thank you. Just referring back to my question about the coastal marine area not being answered—it doesn’t seem to be referred to in the bill—it might be useful for some Hansard on this point. Clause 8 is the area of application, and that refers to the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. The definition of “territorial sea” goes back to a piece of legislation from 1977 and is quite convoluted. It would be useful to know why it is those terms that are used and not exceptions or references to other terms that are used in this similar environment. That’s the question there.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:31): I just thought I’d do a bit of a round-up for the new Minister in the chair, given that there are several outstanding questions that the committee is still waiting for answers on. There are the questions that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking put, but then there were the questions about excluded infrastructure that I went through, just really for the Minister in the chair, giving him time to catch up with where the committee is up to on these, because when we do get into the more substantive parts of this bill in subsequent parts of the bill, these are going to be critical questions. We can come back to them there if we know what questions haven’t been addressed, but I think it would be more useful for this debate to have answers at this stage.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:32): I was going to do a closure motion myself, but anyway, we can’t do that, can we, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, no. We’re just waiting for some answers, and they’ll come sooner or later.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Good. Very good. Hey, look, firstly, how good is it to be able to get this legislation passed? One billion dollars of economic growth will come as a result of this legislation in the future, opening up a huge amount of energy for this country. This is a very good bill and I’m sure all of those in the Chamber will agree with that.

To the Hon Dr Woods in regards whether the exclusions are broad enough, yes, I am confident that the exclusions within the bill are sufficient. The Minister also has the ability to make regulations to futureproof it as well.

Dan Bidois: Madam Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is the member about to take a call?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:32): 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 question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment replacing clause 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.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Regime for offshore renewable energy permits and infrastructure protection

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 10 to 68A, “Regime for offshore renewable energy permits and infrastructure protection”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. This really is the substantive part of the bill. It is also the part where the Minister’s Amendment Paper is landing in terms of the feasibility permits. I’m just reminding everyone that this Amendment Paper has not been through the select committee process. This is the first and only time that there is a chance for a consideration of this Amendment Paper.

Now, I think some context for this amendment is incredibly important, and I would like to give credit to the incredible work of those involved in offshore energy who put a huge amount of effort into demonstrating that the bill that came out of this House into select committee was wrong, that it was not going to do what it needed to do, and that was to give the certainty for people to invest in offshore energy in New Zealand. We could not have the competing interests of seabed mining occurring in the same place as offshore energy. It is simply not the case that they can coexist. That was the belief that sat behind the first bill.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee—and I’d like to acknowledge the chair, Andy Foster—worked really hard around this issue in terms of how we could find a solution. What was patently clear to every member of that select committee sitting there was you simply could not have a flourishing offshore energy regime operating in New Zealand while we also had the prospect of mineral sands mining happening in the same area. Now, there are a lot of technical reasons why that can’t happen. As I alluded to in my speech, what that caused was a rethink from Government. I think it became so clear that they had to backtrack. I welcome that backtrack, because the first iteration of the bill was wrong.

We will support this Amendment Paper because it does strengthen the bill. However, I do not think the Amendment Paper goes far enough, so I have put an amendment to the amendment. This sits in this part of the bill.

What the Minister’s amendment does is it says that joint Ministers may consider—I’m just looking for the exact wording here. Yeah—“The joint Ministers may, by notice, designate 1 or more areas of the exclusive economic zone or territorial sea (or both) as areas in which restrictions related to seabed minerals apply if they are satisfied that a designation notice is for the purposes” and then it goes through some subparts.

In essence, what the Amendment Paper is doing is saying that we’ll let Ministers maybe make a decision about whether or not we do need to designate these areas. Now, I think it is really important that we give as much certainty and clarity as possible. This is billions of dollars of investment in much-needed energy generation and infrastructure that we are going to need for the future. One of the things that the regulatory impact statement says is the energy system and the benefits to the energy system should be taken into account when assessing the benefit to New Zealand test. Considerations would include the volume and location but also where the generation is intermittent or comes with a firming solution.

Now, while offshore wind, for example, is still technically intermittent—it’s wind energy—the capacity factor of offshore wind is so much greater than onshore wind. It has a much more firmed profile going into our energy system than its onshore cousin. This is something that needs to be taken into account.

But while I welcome the changes that the Government has made, I have put an Amendment Paper up that actually puts the application for the permit to the chief executive and puts into the legislation what the criteria is around that.

It’s a much firmer way of us making sure we are giving the certainty to the investment community, that we are saying to those people that are still here that haven’t already packed up their investment and moved on to other lands where a regulatory regime was put in place and the chain wasn’t dragged, and there was that guarantee that they weren’t going to invest money, do feasibility, get a feasibility permit, and then someone starts seabed mining in the same area and scuppers their project. That is the certainty that we need to give, and them scarpering with their money isn’t theoretical.

While the Minister says that it is a great day that we have it here—it is, Minister, and I only wish we’d had this great day sooner—this work was well under way at the beginning of the term of this Government. They told us that we were going to have this regime in place, I think, more than a year ago, but still—

Suze Redmayne: Well, let’s get on with it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yeah, let’s get on with it—that’s right. We could have got on with it and we could have projects under way. The billions of dollars of investment that has left New Zealand because we did not have a regime in place, we did not have the certainty around competing interests, is something we will regret as a nation. We should have had this on the floor of this House earlier. The fact we’ve got it in the last sitting weeks of this Parliament is not a situation that we should be in.

So we will support it, but I would like the Minister to consider an amendment that gives even more certainty and says to the investment community: “We welcome offshore wind in New Zealand. We know it’s taken a while to get our regime in place, but finally we’re doing it and we are giving you that certainty that you need to invest in New Zealand.” Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the member, just for the sake of people watching at home, I am a Mr Speaker—just in case there’s some confusion.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:42): Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Hon Member: “Mr Speaker”.

Hon Members: “Mr Chair”.

Hon SIMON WATTS: God, there are a lot of Chairs in the room today, aren’t there?

Right, Dr Woods took a while to get there, but, in the end, we won’t be taking on board your amendment. I appreciate the effort, but the reality is that developers and industry support the amendment that we’ve put on the Table. The proposals that you have outlined would enshrine how competing uses are dealt with in the legislation and not provide flexibility for how this is dealt with in the future. That’s going to be a major issue. You’ve got to think about how technology will change, for example, which will be a key issue with your amendment you’re putting on the Table.

The amendments that we are looking to do—and it is important that we have taken on board feedback—are targeted, they are pragmatic, and they provide flexibility in the context of being future-proof, which is a point I’ve noted. The use of secondary legislation is driven by the principles of best practice legislative design. Using a secondary legislation notice to put the restrictions in place allows the timing and area of any restrictions to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the impacts on broader users and the specifics of the situation. It also allows us to make amendments quickly and efficiently when this is appropriate. So, as the member noted, looking forward to progressing this bill with pace.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions on this Amendment Paper 571, and then I do have some on the rest of Part 2 as well. I note the Minister was looking at his members opposite there as if to say he’d had enough of this debate on a very important piece of legislation that we’re very happy is here, but of course we have some questions about it and it’s useful always to get things on the Hansard as well.

On this amendment, what happens is that the Ministers in charge of this Offshore Renewable Energy Act, as it will be, and the Crown Minerals Act, get to, if they want to, decide to designate some areas through the secondary legislation. So, again, my question—similar to that I asked in the purpose, not now specifically on this—is: how does the Minister envisage that process happening? We heard from the other Minister who was in the chair that there are some areas where developers have already gone to and have been talked about. We know specifically that Taranaki is an area that’s been talked about a lot. Does the Minister foresee this working that it would be area by area? The developers are interested in Taranaki, so then the Ministers think about designating that area, or is the Minister thinking that the officials might look more throughout the whole country and where different areas would be to designate? Or is it going to go bit by bit? Then again, this does seem like quite some work for the Ministers to do together. Is there a funding mechanism for undertaking that work? That’s my question on here.

Then one further question, actually, is at new section 62C(1). It says that the area that’s going to be designated can have restrictions related to seabed minerals apply if they are satisfied, and that goes through. I’m wondering why this word “restrictions” is used. Can a restriction go as far as a prohibition? All of the discourse on this is that the two activities are incompatible. You effectively have to prohibit the seabed mining for the energy to work. Does the word “restrictions” go far enough to enable that prohibition on the seabed mining for the area to be successfully designated as an energy area?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:46): In addition to the comments I made around Amendment Paper 571 previously, to the question in regards to how the designation of the area will happen and whether that will be an area-by-area approach, the short answer is that the decisions in regard to that have not yet been made. Consultation will be required, including with stakeholders such as iwi and broader developers.

The instance of the scenario that was in play in the Taranaki region with the proposal around seabed mining, obviously that proposal and the developer has signalled that they are withdrawing that. That doesn’t mean that it will never happen, but the imminency of that definitely happening is not in play at the moment. That was the only instance that provided a clear example of where, in effect, there were two competing options in play between seabed mining and offshore wind. Obviously, as a Government, we want more abundant renewable and reliable energy. We want to increase generation of that energy. As the member the Hon Dr Woods noted before, the context of having offshore wind is a significant advantage for New Zealand because of its propensity to deliver so much energy, in contrast to and in combination complementing with other energy sources onshore.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would note the point made by my colleague Megan Woods that we have gone through a very robust select committee, and hats off to Andy Foster for chairing that work because it was a very productive process. My question is about Part 2, Subpart 1, clause 11, because in clause 11 it notes that feasibility purpose permits mean the permit holders have an exclusive ability to apply for a commercial permit in relation to the feasibility permit area. We can see that to assess the feasibility of an offshore renewable energy development, the permit holder proposes to carry out on the permit area and have the exclusive ability to apply for a commercial permit in relation to that proposed development in the permit area if the permit holder chooses to do so.

So does this, effectively, mean that in essence feasibility permits also grant the holder exclusive rights to a certain area, seeing as the right to a commercial permit for the area is implied from a feasibility permit? If the Minister could give a response, I’d appreciate that.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:49): Yeah, so just in the context of that and just to clarify for the member, so there’s a two-step process. You’ve got the allocation of the feasibility permit and then there is, subject to the work being undertaken and application for relevant environmental consents, including resource and marine consents in the permitted area. Then after feasibility it moves into that a commercial permit must be obtained subsequently from that. So in regards to the member’s questions, there are two phases, and, in effect, depending on where you are on that phase will determine the point of his question.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:50): I’d just like to raise Part 2 and propose a new clause 13. One of the lessons that we had in Taranaki—and iwi were extremely involved in the development of the regulations for the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)—was the fact that despite how the Government would often ignore what local iwi and communities required, the private businesses didn’t. In fact, we found ourselves in a situation of developing the best practice engagement manual for communities and oil companies because of the fact that there was better engagement between the private companies and iwi. No matter how legislation comes out, the companies that want to stay around for a long time and that have a lot of money to invest will always go to the extra effort of making sure they engage with the local community and iwi really well, and you’ll see some of that in some of the social licence and relationships that they had, including the likes of OMV—I’m not going to look at you, Steve Abel.

But one of the aspects that we’d like to recommend based on that experience—and based on the certainty that this legislation is wanting to achieve—is proposing that there is a mandatory cultural and environment impact assessment. That measures the cultural and mātauranga aspect, it’s something that the companies will end up having to do if they want to stay around a long time anyway, and the bill doesn’t currently require that type of assessment or that type of certainty or consideration with iwi. I did hear the Minister say that we’re going to engage, but, again, this is taking on board the lessons of the oil and mineral sector and the lessons of activity that, to be honest, is going to be more in the EEZ than anywhere else. Again, it’s something that could happen before the permits are granted and this amendment will address that gap, and I’m sure that that would please a lot of iwi.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:52): In regards to the Amendment Paper on clause 13, we won’t be progressing with this tabled amendment. The reason why is that as it’s drafted, it would duplicate existing considerations that are already in place, such as engagement with iwi Māori, as part of the consenting regime, and so there’s no point just looking to duplicate that. The bill that is on the Table here is deliberately designed in order to work in parallel with and alongside with—but not in a duplicative way—the regime in regards to consenting, and, on that basis, we won’t proceed with that amendment.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to “Subpart 2—Feasibility permits” in Part 2. Reading this through—and I haven’t had the benefit of the select committee process, so I’m examining it as an individual member of the House—it says that you can make an application for a feasibility permit during an application round, and “The Minister may launch an application round”. Surely, there must be more to it than that. I mean, it can’t be the case that the Minister is going to wake up one bright sunny day and go, “I know what, today I’m going to launch an application round for offshore renewable energy.”

Reading through, you’d think you’d find maybe some regulations or some suggestions as to how often the Minister might do this, when the Minister might do it, or what conditions the Minister might do it. So we’re going to have regulations about criteria, guiding principles, and consultation requirements, but what would also be interesting to know in that—that’s in clause 13(2A)—is just how often we might expect that the Minister might launch an application round. What becomes the process? Is it a perceived need? Is it that there have been a number of entities who want to engage in offshore renewable energy (ORE) who have come knocking on the Minister’s door and said, “Hey Minister, it’d be good to launch one of these rounds.”? I’m just wanting to get a sense of how often this might happen, what certainty there is from investors wanting to do ORE that they are going to get an application round in due course, and so on.

Now, obviously, once you’ve got those regulations set up, that will specify how long these rounds last for, and so on, but I really want to get a sense of the flavour of what those regulations are going to look like and, in particular, a sense of how often the Minister is actually going to launch these application rounds for feasibility permits. Are we anticipating that it’s going to be annual, semi-annual, biannual—what sorts of time frames are we looking like at for these application rounds?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:55): Well, the reality is that the Government has a clear strategic objective to ensure that we have abundant, affordable, and reliable energy, and so the consideration discretion around how often we launch one of these processes lies with the Minister and the Government. But it’d be fair to say that we’re going to be working as fast as practical to ensure that we remove the barriers for investment and new generation, in regards to offshore wind in this country. It will be in the context of making this easy for communities and developers to work together to make this happen, and, obviously, we’ll choose the areas and the regions based on the consultation with the development community and the opportunities in order to do that. But we want significantly more energy generation in this country, we want offshore wind to be part of the mix of energy generation in this country, and we want that as fast as practical because our having more supply of energy will have a downward pressure on price.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am again going to the Amendment Paper, and particularly the policy advice that has been supplied to the House in the form of the regulatory impact statement. This isn’t policy advice that we got to consider in the select committee phase. This is interesting. As I’ve said, we support this amendment, but I’m just really wanting to understand some of the other thinking around it.

As we’ve outlined in discussions around earlier parts of this bill, internationally, offshore wind regimes sit on a continuum between developer-led and Government-led. At the Government-led end of the scale, it usually involves marine spatial planning and there is sometimes accompanying feasibility, environmental work, things that have been prepackaged there for industry.

One of the interesting things that the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the Amendment Paper says is that “The Bill has been designed to accommodate a shift to a government-led approach to the selection of ORE sites (should government policy and legislative change improve spatial planning in the marine environment), but it cannot address this current issue (which includes existing rights).” So I would like to hear from the Minister exactly where the Government envisages that this sits within that broader context. It says that the bill has been designed to do that, and so has work already begun in terms of that more marine spatial planning approach to what is happening?

The other piece of information that is in the regulatory impact statement says, “The investment context has changed since consultation on the design of the regime. In particular, the listing of the Trans-Tasman Resources’ seabed mining project in the Fast-track legislation has created the potential for spatial clashes between seabed mining and ORE off the Taranaki coast.” One of the things I’d like to know from the Minister is this. All through this document, it shows how it is that particular inclusion in the fast-track legislation of the Trans-Tasman Resources’ seabed mining project in the fast-track process. Did the Minister advise colleagues of the potential risks before that was included in the fast-track regime—because, surely, all of the offshore wind developers were raising it. This was not a new concern when they came to select committee. Something that we had raised with the Government was the jeopardy that this was putting our offshore wind industry in, and so I’d like to know from the Minister whether that was something that was raised. All through this, it says that the key policy objective in terms of giving certainty was being undermined by the fact that there weren’t exclusive rights when a permit was in place. So there are two questions for the Minister.

The other question that I have is around new section 62C(4) on Amendment Paper 571, where it is around the period of time. It’s one of the things that I’d just like the Minister to clear up, because the bill is quite specific. The bill reported back from select committee adds two timelines in other places. For example, feasibility permits are seven years; that is specified. Commercial permits have a duration of up to 40 years; this is exactly what you would expect if you’re looking to give certainty for someone to make very substantial investment decisions, because they know that they’ve got enough time to look fairly at the project, assess whether it is feasible, and not just put in a whole lot of feasibility as a way of blocking other developments, which is what we’ve seen in some other regimes around the world—that it’s a “use it or lose it” kind of approach—and something that needs to be looked at.

I am concerned that we don’t have the specificity in the amendment around how long the developers can have that exclusive-use guarantee. “The joint Ministers must ensure that areas are not designated for a period of time that is longer than reasonable”—what does that mean? Does that line up with the seven-year period that is specified in the main bill around the feasibility permit? Is it 40 years, the duration of a commercial period? I think that is something that we would very much be looking for an answer to, among other things, from the Minister.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:01): I’m now repeating myself. I said previously in response to the similar question that we would undertake consultation in regard to the detail around that point with iwi Māori and others—to the question by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer before.

In regard to the other question from the member around the marine spatial planning approaches, this approach is still developer led, but it would allow a Government-led marine spatial planning approach in the future.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:01): It’s good to hear the Minister of Climate Change mention marine spatial planning, and, of course, that would be good if the Government was doing some marine spatial planning there, but I know both options are on the table.

Talking of spatial planning and maps, at clause 13, the “Application round for feasibility permits”, it mentions within here geographical areas that the Minister may launch an application round, and then there are regulations at new subclause (2A) that may prescribe measures that apply to the launching of their application. I’m wondering if the Minister could tell me if he expects that there will be maps included in this process, either in the description of the geographic area or, in fact, what the regulations are prescribing. Also, if he wants to comment and go into that spatial planning; if there is a role for spatial planning here in the feasibility permits. So that’s one question: maps.

The second question is: am I correct in my understanding that the application for a feasibility permit can only be made during an application round? That is what the words say—the Minister has to decide to do an application round before you can even get into the process, because you need a feasibility permit before you can get a commercial permit, so we are very much relying on the Ministers deciding to do this work. That can be yes or no.

Another question is going back to clause 12. This is the “Prohibition on undertaking ORE generation infrastructure activities unless person is holder of commercial permit”. I realise that a lot of the clauses in this bill refer back to the definitions, and the definitions are a very important mechanism in it, but, on first reading of it, it looks as though there’s a suggestion that resource consents would only apply to commercial permits and not to feasibility permits. In fact, the way that the definitions work, that’s not what the clause is doing, as I understand it.

It leads me to a question, then, about this interaction between resource management consents that are still needed—and I’ve got questions further along on this point—and if the Minister can tell us what sort of resource management consents might be needed for the feasibility permits. I can see from the definitions of infrastructure for commercial permits what the type of resource-consenting requirements might be, but for feasibility, the definition is very vague, and the feasibility permit doesn’t have this prohibition clause that the commercial permits have at clause 12.

A couple of questions there; one is about maps, and one is about this link-up with the Resource Management Act for feasibility permits.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:05): In regard to the last question, working backwards: environmental consents would be an example. In regard to the question on clause 13(2A)—I answered that previously, but, again, it was around maps: maps is possible and permissible. A decision has not been made. As I said, we’ll do consultation.

Dr Megan Woods’ questions around the time for the restrictions in clause 62C(4) in Amendment Paper 571: the time for the restrictions is designated to give certainty until the point that the consent is made, and the designation notice will, obviously, specify the time. Again, I’m repeating myself, but the consultation will deal with that point.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of very, very simple questions, and we may already have an answer; I’m not quite sure. It really relates again to clause 12, in Subpart 1 in Part 2, that my colleague Rachel Brooking just mentioned. Clause 12 concerns the prohibition of undertaking offshore renewable energy generation infrastructure activities unless the person undertaking them has a commercial permit, as we’ve just heard. It says here that person must not give effect to a resource consent or marine consent by undertaking any offshore renewable generation infrastructure activities unless they are a commercial permit holder. Now, the question is: is this exactly what that means? Can we get clarity on that? Is the understanding correct that, if a person has a marine consent or resource consent, they’re still unable to undertake any offshore renewable energy generation activities unless they have a commercial permit?

The subsequent question to that is: what type of discussion—because, I guess, we’re sort of assuming that, when we’re talking about offshore renewables, we’re talking about offshore wind, but, actually, this is a bigger bill than offshore wind. This is offshore renewables. My subsequent question is: what is the Minister thinking about the type of tidal generation that could be employed? We know that there’s interest, and there are things like, I don’t know, the UK models—Spiralis Energy, etc.—that may not want a commercial permit; they may want to generate. Where is this quite sitting? We’re in this zone of trying to establish a new regime, so what type of work has the Government or the Minister done with those potential developers? Has it simply been in the wind energy space, or has there been a wider scoping before this was developed? Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:08): I thank the member for that question. It’d be fair to say that the predominant focus of this legislation is in the context of offshore wind. I mean, the New Zealand energy market, as the member knows, doesn’t pick winners and doesn’t have any—you know, we want all forms of energy. The drive in the market determines that by the lowest price point in order to generate that energy. We know that with tidal energy, while possible, it is significantly more expensive to produce energy versus other options, including offshore wind.

In regard to clause 12, when the member asked around the point between the feasibility and the commercial permit process and, in effect, can someone—you know, what kicks in? The short answer to the member’s question is yes. It ensures that, when the entity gets a commercial permit, it’s got the appropriate decommissioning obligations and, also, the financial securities around that, which would need to be in play if they do decommissioning of generation capability.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to jump forwards in the part, but I think other colleagues are going through in a more clause by clause way. I want to talk about new clause 24A. This is the “Pre-application consultation with Transpower New Zealand Limited and Electricity Authority”. This is something we did consider at select committee, because, unless you’re doing power to X with your offshore wind energy, actually, you are going to have to hook this up to the grid, both the transmission grid and/or the distribution network.

Making sure that there is alignment and that Transpower in particular can see what’s coming down the line, and that you can effectively hook up this generation, is incredibly important. It’s a very small clause, but I think a mighty clause, and one of them that will actually be critical to the success or otherwise of this regime in New Zealand that we are planning for when we’re planning over the longer term, for what we do in terms of building out the transmission network, where we kind of increase the capacity in terms of those intake points.

My question is, really, what work has the Government done in the many months this legislation has been sitting around while Cabinet went back and did more policy work to fix it? What work has progressed with the Electricity Authority and with Transpower around preparing for this? I think this is a critical part of the legislation that we get right. Has the Government considered whether or not there’s going to be a specific funding track for this? Of course, building out this capacity for something that is in the longer term—how are they going to cope with that? Has a funding and financing regime around that been considered? That’s Transpower. In terms of the local distribution networks where this may impact, has there been any progress in terms of conversations and/or policy work that would sit around that?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:11): The member the Hon Dr Megan Woods is right; this is a critical point in the ability to plug in the new generation that will be put in play as a result of the legislation that will pass—hopefully before the dinner break, all going well.

In the context of Transpower, yes, a lot of discussions in regard to them. Transpower will not be a barrier or a blockage in regard to offshore wind. They have been very clear around the fact that they play a role to make sure that they can unlock the ability to plug in, and from a capital aspect and all of that. They have been very clear and are engaging with the sector and industry and developers that they will not be a barrier to that. They will work with industry, not against it, to make this happen.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:12): I thank the Minister of Climate Change for the answer on that. Yes, Transpower were really clear that they are very keen on this—they want to see the increased capacity that offshore wind can give us in terms of generation—but my question to the Minister was more around whether there’s going to be dedicated price pathways.

I think we all know that they think it’s a good thing. It’s not the “motherhood and apple pie” discussion; it’s about what work is being done to shore up whether or not there is the funding in place to make sure that we can have those upgrades happen; whether or not the Government has progressed any of that work in terms of setting its expectations with Transpower or the distribution network—and updating the House on this, given that it is a long time since the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had the opportunity to discuss this with Transpower.

This was a bill that was reported back from the House I don’t know how many months ago—more than a year—so I would have expected that the Government would have done some more work on that in the meantime.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:13): With respect, if the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods had listened to my answer to the question, I said that Transpower has advised us that they are not capitally constrained in regard to putting in place the required infrastructure to enable offshore wind. They will do what is required in order to build what is necessary.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (17:13): Just for the sake of clarity, this bill was reported back—let’s see; it was referred on 17 December, so it must have been July last year that it got reported back, so it’s sat around for a long time.

I do want to go back to these application rounds for feasibility permits, because there’s a particular clause I want to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that’s clause 14. Clause 14 says that, before someone goes ahead with an application for a feasibility permit, they have to have consulted “any relevant iwi authorities, hapū, and Treaty settlement entities, including iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū that are parties to relevant Mana Whakahono ā Rohe or joint management agreements … the tangata whenua of any area … any relevant protected customary rights groups, customary marine title groups, and applicant groups … ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, if the permit area is within [the particular area affected]”.

That’s a lot of pre-consultation that is required to be done before a feasibility permit can even be put in. I previously asked the Minister how often these feasibility permit application rounds would be occurring, and these two things are linked. Nobody’s going to go ahead and go and do all this consultation unless they know that a feasibility permit application round is going to be under way sometime soon or soon-ish. I’d have thought that, before anyone engages in that kind of lengthy consultation and does all the work around it, they’d want to have reasonable certainty that an application round was going to be open or opened in a reasonable time frame from that.

When I asked the Minister to give some indication as to how often these application rounds would be open—it wasn’t just going to be a matter of the Minister waking up one morning and deciding it was a good idea for that day, but there would be some indication going on—it wasn’t a frivolous question. It’s actually a serious question, because businesses will want certainty. We hear from that side of the House—they think to lecture us on what businesses want, and they tell us that businesses want certainty, as if none of us has ever run businesses before, but a lot of us have. We know that that’s the case. I’ve run a business, and I know the importance of certainty to businesses—

Hon Andrew Bayly: What did you run?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —and cashflow to businesses, and so on. Now, I suspect that businesses, before they—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: She was an accountant, for goodness’ sake!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, I was an accountant. I suspect that businesses will want that certainty.

To set it out quite plainly for the Minister: given the amount of consultation required, could he give perhaps a more certain answer about how often these feasibility application rounds would be set up?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just further to that question, which is a really important one, from the Hon Deborah Russell, I’m just wanting to know if there’s been any further thinking that, in many ways, the Crown Minerals Act and the regimes that were put in place that enabled fossil fuels provided a bit of a template for the regime that happened here—that is about granting people rights to explore, which is feasibility, and then to produce, which is the duration of the permit.

One of the things that we’re talking about here is really a process that is akin to what, in the petroleum sector, would be called the Block Offer regime. Under the Crown Minerals Act, there was always an open market, competitive process clause as well—it was an “and”. It wasn’t just a Block Offer—a Block Offer could be offered, in terms of the petroleum sector—but there was an open market, competitive process regime that could be there as well. I want to know whether any thought has been given in this year to whether or not there has to be the kind of two-track, in terms of the ability to come, or does the Government think that we can assess the benefit to New Zealand more comprehensively by having a Block Offer regime where you can kind of line up all the options and think “What are the best ones for New Zealand?”

Given that we’ve seen so much of the investment capital leave New Zealand in the time that this legislation has been crawling its way through the process, I want to know whether or not there is now a case for there to be a parallel open market, competitive process there as well.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (17:18): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a follow-up. Given that the Minister hasn’t yet answered my colleague Deborah Russell’s question around the pre-application consultation requirements, I have an expansion on that question.

Given that we applaud the effort of the legislation to make sure that there was proper engagement with impacted iwi from the get-go, it is genuinely our view that that is the best way to ensure that we have a well-structured development process and basis for offshore renewable energy. How is it that an applicant will correctly identify which groups are capture by clause 14? It’s substantial in terms of the iwi authorities, impacted tangata whenua, those who have customary rights, those who may be entitled to customary rights or have an application. If we have, for example, an overseas renewable energy company that simply may not have a concept of who is captured by those requirements, how will they be informed of that?

A follow-up to that is but a small part of clause 16. I don’t want to go into the substance of clause 16 yet. Clause 16(ca) requires that a record is included of the consultation that occurred in section 14, and would you not agree, Minister, that the more thorough a delineation of who must be consulted with and included in that process of development the easier it will be for any applicant to fulfil their obligations under the subsequent clause 16?

My final question in that regard—and I don’t know where it best belongs, but given we’re speaking about that consultation with iwi and hapū—are there processes and pathways by which there can be direct benefits to those impacted iwi, from the project itself, should it proceed? That would be a very useful thing in terms of these big offshore renewable energy projects. Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:21): Thanks, colleagues, for these questions. Just in regard to the question around the concept of an open-market approach or what’s been referred to as a block-offer approach, the consultation with development community has similarities to a block-offer approach—in effect, a clearly stated opening date and a clearly stated closing date. People need to ensure that their applications for feasibility permits are put in as part of that period. What is submitted as part of that process will be considered, and a decision will be made around that. We’re not following, in effect, an open-market approach in that context.

Clause 20 also deals—just to the point that was raised around ensuring that there’s good, competitive tension in regard to that process. In regard to clause 14, around iwi Māori engagement, that process is already heavily under way by the development communities, even pre-feasibility, and, actually, in some cases, some of the arrangements include iwi Māori in equity ownership as part of that broader mechanism, potentially, as well. This is a significant opportunity for iwi Māori and all the business community in New Zealand. The key here is to get this legislation in place so we can get this feasibility permit process open, and let’s get on with it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question this time for the Minister relates to clause 19(3), which is “Before granting an application for a feasibility permit, the Minister must also have regard to whether the applicant poses, or granting the permit could pose, any significant risk to national security or public order and whether that risk can be adequately avoided, mitigated, or managed.”

This was an amendment that was inserted through the committee process, but, again, given the time that has passed, the world has fundamentally changed in that period of time in regard to energy security and in terms of the kinds of considerations in national security that countries are giving around the security of their energy systems. I would like to know from the Minister whether Cabinet—or, indeed, the Minister—has received any advice from their own officials or have had security briefings around anything that may impact on this.

We’re seeing around the world that there are countries that do have offshore wind that are having to think about how they protect that infrastructure and ensure that it isn’t a target in terms of national security. I want to know whether or not there’s been any further advice in the current geopolitical climate around that.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:24): The short answer is yes. Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, received a wide range of briefings advice, from a wide range of officials, including in the context of the points raised under clause 19, and it goes without saying that Ministers will take on board that advice as part of the decision-making process to protect the sovereign interests of this country.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister of Climate Change for that answer, and I fully understand that the Minister can’t stand in the Chamber and tell us everything that was in the nature of those briefings, but what I am interested in is whether or not that clause is now sufficient in terms of the national security concerns that we need to be thinking about in terms of our offshore energy regime and whether or not we do have enough protection and we are making sure that we’re not exposing ourselves to risk and whether the Minister is confident that that clause is adequate.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:25): Yes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:25): Thank you. I’m just reminding the Minister of Climate Change that he hasn’t answered my questions on whether restrictions can equate to prohibition—that is for the Amendment Paper and the restrictions on seabed mining in a designated area—nor has he given me any clues about the types of feasibility activities that would need permissions under other legislation. That would be good. Then I’ve got two more questions here. One of those is on clause 32, which is “Minister may impose conditions of commercial permits”. I would assume that there will be many, many conditions on these permits, and has the Minister given any consideration to having some more detailed provisions in the legislation about what those conditions might be? There just seems to be one clause on the discretion to impose conditions.

Then I have a separate question. Permits may be revoked at clause 53, and there’s some fairly sensible reasons for revoking a permit, such as failing to comply with one of those conditions I was just referring to, but I am interested for the Minister to comment on paragraph (c), which is where someone’s gone to the effort of getting their commercial permit but they’ve failed to begin generation infrastructure activities within a reasonable time following the permit’s start date, and that can be revoked. That seems like quite an onerous power for the Minister to have. I was thinking that, perhaps, the Minister could give us some commentary on the sort of time frame that he considers would be sufficient to have clause 53 invoked to revoke.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:27): Thanks, Mr Chair. In regard to clause 53(c), the reality of that clause does give the powers to the Minister to avoid, I guess, the concept of seabed banking in the context of offshore. Is there a timer? No, we’ll take it case by case. It just gives the powers for us to make sure that there is tension in the model in regard to developers actually following through with their commitments.

Just to go back to some of the questions asked previously, clause 16(ca)—would it be better to include a record of who’s been consulted?—this is what the clause will require amongst other details, so this is confirmation of that.

Rachel Brooking asked a question in regard to restrictions—what does “restrictions” mean? It, effectively, acts as a temporary prohibition mechanism. There was another question on clause 32—could there be more detail in the legislation?—again, from Rachel Brooking. The right conditions will depend on factors. I raised this earlier as well in response to a similar question around a technology area in a particular project, and prescribing that in legislation would not enable them to be bespoke enough. I spoke previously around the lack of flexibility, so, again, I’m repeating, but there we go.

There was a question on groups captured by clause 14—how will developers know who to engage with? The short answer is that relevant groups will need to be determined by developers case by case, so there we go.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (17:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to tease apart some of the regulations around the duration of feasibility permits. In clause 22, we have “A feasibility permit [lasts for] 7 years”, except that, elsewhere, you’ve got to actually meet the various conditions and, elsewhere, that feasibility permit can be withdrawn. Going through to the clause that my colleague Rachel Brooking was focused on, clause 53, on the revocation of permits, if the permit holder doesn’t comply with the condition, then the permit can be withdrawn. And here’s the interesting bit: it turns out that, with a feasibility permit going back to clause 21, it’s quite a tangle here. There must be some offshore renewable energy (ORE) feasibility activities that must be commenced within 12 months of the permit start date.

Clause 53(b) originally had, “in the case of a feasibility permit, the permit holder has failed to begin ORE feasibility [studies]”. Now, that clause 53(b) has been struck out, so I’m assuming that the supposition is that the other clauses around that are enough, in terms of law, to make sure that someone who doesn’t engage in the ORE feasibility activities—so clauses 21 and 22 and the general revocation in clause 53(a) is enough; we don’t need clause 53(b) as well in order to make that all work. There’s a little bit of a tangle there. I can see how it probably is enough without clause 53(b), but why not leave clause 53(b) in there? It’s a bit of a belt and braces kind of approach. This is actually where I disagree with what the select committee has done, and I just invite the Minister to consider clause 53(b) and whether putting it back in might actually be worth it under a belt and braces approach to make sure that the Minister really does have the capacity to withdraw a permit if those ORE feasibility activities have not commenced, instead of relying on the permission in clause 53(a).

Then, of course, this all begs the question of what an ORE feasibility activity is in any case. You go to the definitions section and “ORE feasibility activities” means “activities that are for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of ORE infrastructure activities”. That all begs the question of how much is enough. An ORE feasibility activity might be as simple as a desktop cost-benefit analysis. Is that enough to count as an ORE feasibility activity, because it says it’s for “assessing the feasibility of ORE infrastructure activities”? If you go to that definition as well, it means ORE generation infrastructure and ORE transmission infrastructure. The point is: just how much is enough of an activity? The way the law is written it could be that the merest amount of activity is enough to enable a permit to continue—so the merest, smallest amount of activity.

Now, I think, sitting somewhere there might be that you can specify in the permit what activities need to take place, but I guess we want to have some—I think I read that somewhere, but I’ve just gotten a little bit lost. You have to remember this is the first time I’ve had a chance to look at this bill in detail. I think the feasibility permit does say what feasibility activities must be commenced within 12 months of the permit start date, but, again, even then, we still want to know what is going to count as enough. Surely, it is more than just a cost-benefit analysis. Surely, there would have to be some substantial activity. I guess the Minister gets to judge that. Is there going to be a process of the feasibility permit holder having to report back into the Minister or report back into whichever officials were doing it? It would just be interesting to know exactly, as I said, how much is enough and, before that, why not the belt and braces approach?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the Minister, I would like to push back a bit on the comment that it’s the first time that the member has had an opportunity to look at this piece of legislation. It’s not been put on the Table today.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:34): That’s right. And if you have a read of the select committee report, you’ll get most of the answers to the questions you’ve asked. But, anyway, I’ll help for the purpose of this.

Clause 53(b)—questions from the member in regard to that clause. The short answer is that the select committee did spend a lot of time on this. Developers said that the clause aspect was too uncertain for them. The other drafting was preferred. Therefore, the select committee, in their diligence and wisdom, took on board that feedback and made the changes to give developers more certainty—more certainty, more investment.

In regard to the feasibility permit, one feasibility permit is allowable in each area. To the member’s point around that, that enables exclusive use of that space for offshore renewable energy.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a question from Hon Dr Megan Woods because, having watched, I know her experience in this area and she has completely worked with Part 2 asking expanding questions, rather than things that happened at select committee. It’s time to get to the really nitty-gritty now.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:35): Absolutely. I am going to focus my questions back on Amendment Paper 571, which, of course, wasn’t something that was considered at select committee. This is the first time the House and members have to grapple with this. It goes to really what is the guts of this amendment, which is new clause 62C, which is “Joint Ministers may designate areas in which restrictions related to seabed minerals apply”. We’ve gone through some of the questions around that. One of the answers that the Minister of Climate Change made is that—and it does specify it in the clauses—there will be consultation.

The Minister specified some areas of people that will be consulted—industry, iwi, hapū—but my question is: will there be consultation with other people within the broader Crown Minerals Act family? Will there be consultation? What we’re not doing under these amended clauses is—it’s only seabed mining that is the excluded activity. It doesn’t address petroleum exploration. Will there be consultation with the petroleum industry, for example, when they come to the very subjective powers that Ministers have granted themselves in terms of this clause in this provision? Exactly who will be in the consultation group that goes there? I’m assuming seabed mining—they’re an affected party—but I would like to hear from the Minister whether or not, within those subjective powers, he would see that falling under that heading but also that broader activity that might have happened offshore.

That would, therefore, also extend to fisheries. Often, we’ve seen around the world in different regimes that this is one of the industries where marine spatial planning can take us a long way in terms of how you balance the rights and activities of offshore renewable energy with abundant fisheries and active fisheries, along with any other activities that happen in the sea. I want to know whether the Minister sees those groups as falling within the groups that would be consulted under new clause 62C.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:37): This is my fourth response in regard to Amendment Paper 571. In answer to the member’s question, if she looks at clause 62C(2)(b) of the bill, she will see that it says “any persons … who may be affected”. There’s the answer to the question.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a very specific question about the imposition of conditions under clause 32 regarding environmental protections.

There’s an obligation to the Resource Management Act—which is going to be phased out soon—and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act), which requires that marine biodiversity is protected. Of course, 80 percent of New Zealand’s marine biodiversity—endemic species, that is—are contained in the ocean. We know specifically where there’s a lot of interest in offshore renewable energy development in the Taranaki Bight. We have some extraordinary marine mammals living there: whales and dolphins, including the rarest dolphins in the world. What obligations are likely to be placed on the development of offshore renewable energy there to ensure there is protection of those marine species?

Let’s be clear that, in the instance of wind turbines, which is the obvious opportunity that is present to us now and is being implemented around the world, they are huge industrial structures that are required to be implanted in the seabed, which is exactly why seabed mining is a contrary activity. They require piledriving, for example. They require a lot of oceanic noise and disturbance. What sort of conditions does the Minister envisage putting in place to uphold those obligations under the exclusive economic zone Act and under other legislation that those second consents may be obliged to fulfil in regard to protecting marine species and the marine environment? Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:40): The member asked a question in a similar context previously, and the answer in regards to the conditions under the clause that has been noted is that the consenting process will continue to provide the mechanism in order to deal with the effects that the member is referring to. As I said before, the consenting process runs in parallel with this. It’s not the intent to be duplicative of those two aspects and the bill does not cut across those two points.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Megan Woods, I feel like there’s a—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: A follow-up.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, a follow-up, and just a bit more clarification.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. That was my fourth question on Amendment Paper 571, and it is not unreasonable for an amendment that has not been through select committee. It is quite a substantive change that does actually move the policy settings of the bill from what the committee agreed to. As I said, we support it, but when I asked the Minister about “consult any persons, or representatives of persons, who may be affected by the proposed designation notice”—which, as the Minister pointed out, is section 62C(2)(b), in terms of the Amendment Paper—I’d read that clause. I knew that to be the case.

My question, however, to the Minister was around the subjective nature of the powers that were being given and who were deemed affected persons. Given that this is just confined to seabed mining, is it just offshore renewable energy developers and the seabed mining industry, along with the other list of iwi and hapū that the Minister had talked about in an earlier contribution, or does it include what could be competing activities? Are they affected people? Is it fishing? Is it people who are seeking to do other commercial activities at sea—for example, the oil and gas industry, do they fall under the heading of affected person?

I think we can all read the clause, Minister, but we still need to know—given that this is a new amendment, that the committee hasn’t had a chance to talk to officials, and that there are a lot of subjective powers in there—exactly what does fall under that. That is incredibly important. When you look through the policy documents that have been tabled with this Amendment Paper that talk about shifting this policy intent from developer-led to Government-led, along that continuum—and it is a continuum; this is by no means marine spatial planning, with all the work done by Government and offered up for commercial interests. It’s by no means at the end of it, but it is the Government dipping its toe into the water of a more Government-led.

And that is quite a difference. When you read the regulatory impact statement from the original legislation that was tabled in this House and sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it was all gung ho about this being developer-led. The amendment says explicitly—and the regulatory impact statement, with that, talks about how the policy intent is shifting in that area and says that the legislation, indeed, has actually being designed to actually be moved further along this continuum. So this is incredibly important for the committee to understand, in terms of what the Minister understands affected people under this clause to mean.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:44): I’d refer the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods to, in new section 62C, inserted by Amendment Paper 571, the word “any”. “Any”, as the member can look up in the dictionary, will bring in scope the wide range of stakeholders that can be considered as part of that process.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (17:44): 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 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 13 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Decommissioning ORE infrastructure

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 3, the debate on clauses 69 to 97, “Decommissioning ORE infrastructure”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an incredibly important part of the bill, because it’s not only that we have to understand how it is we establish these assets in New Zealand but it’s also about how they are decommissioned and who pays for it and who carries the liability. This is something that we have learned only too brutally through the oil and gas regime; that the New Zealand taxpayer can be left holding the liability if we don’t get this right. So this is an incredibly important part of the bill.

One of the questions I have for the Minister is that, when we were doing this work, we went through the bill in terms of what is fair and reasonable for New Zealanders in terms of the kind of liability and who should hold it. Trailing liability was something, of course, that was discussed. Trailing liability is about the person who holds a commercial permit having an obligation, and this obligation continues even if the permit were transferred to a new permit holder—so that just because you’re transferring a permit, it doesn’t mean that the obligation around liability dissolves and, all of a sudden, the New Zealand taxpayer is holding that.

Now, it is fair and reasonable that the people that are reaping the profits from this infrastructure will continue to hold the liability for decommissioning and, if something goes wrong, that they will clean it up. My question is: when Cabinet came back to discuss the amendments to this, was there any discussion about the equity of having trailing liability in the offshore energy regime—which I fully support, I’ll put on record; I fully support—but, at the same time, we’re dismantling those obligations for the oil and gas sector so that trailing liability is being watered down when it came to the oil and gas sector in New Zealand. So I want to know whether or not there were any conversations that happened at Cabinet in the year that it took between the bill being reported back and us debating it here in terms of whether or not there needed to be any movement, either in terms of what was happening on the side of oil and gas, or what was happening with this in terms of having more alignment around that—because it is asymmetrical; it is a very different regime that we’re setting up. So: why would that be the case, and were discussions had in that area?

STEVE ABEL (Green) (17:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. The specific wording in the decommissioning requirements ensure that an acceptable financial security arrangement is put in place and maintained and is sufficient to cover the estimated cost of the Crown decommissioning that infrastructure in the event that the permit holder or other obligated person fails to decommission. What guidance have you had, Minister, on what is an acceptable financial security arrangement, and the scale of what that might look like? There’s an obligation for the applicant to submit decommissioning plans. Presumably, those plans will require the proving of that financial security, but I also presume that you’ve had guidance on what sort of moneys or security arrangements we’re talking about here. Perhaps that guidance has been borrowed from overseas experience. I wonder if you could give some guidance on what that advice has indicated to you, Minister.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:51): Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a pleasure to be able to take another call, although I did hope to be able to have some calls on the previous part. However, it is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Chair.

My question is on Part 3, Subpart 2, clauses 70 and 71. Clause 70 notes that the commercial permit holders have decommissioning obligations for generation infrastructure, while owners have decommissioning obligations for transmission infrastructure. It’s really just a query about how these two things interact. Why is it that the commercial permit holder has obligations for generation infrastructure, but the term “owner” is used for transmission infrastructure, noting that this doesn’t include Transpower as the owners? Why is there a difference in the language for this part? If the Minister could give me a response, I’d appreciate that. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:52): I was asking questions before about the conditions, and maybe it’s similar to this question, but if the Minister could take us through the hooks that get you to that financial security arrangement. I think it’s not related; the conditions are separate.

Then, in Part 3, anyone who holds a commercial permit has an obligation to decommission. That’s at clause 70, and then you turn to clause 79, and that is a person who has that decommissioning obligation—that’s clause 70—must ensure an acceptable financial security arrangement is put in place. Then, at clause 83, the Minister has to determine whether or not that security is good enough.

It seems like quite a separate process to the conditions. I’m wondering if the Minister can comment on that link and just confirm that I am right in terms of the hook—as soon as you’ve got that commercial permit, you’re then hooked into the decommissioning requirements and the financial security that goes with that.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:53): Just working backwards for the members’ questions, yes, in short, the commercial permitting aspect ensures that all the obligations on the party are done upfront, and therefore the context of those obligations would include the points which the member the Hon Rachel Brooking has noted.

To Scott Willis’ questions around clause 70—why the language difference in terms of owners of the transmission infrastructure?—the point there recognises that the transmission owner may not be the permit holder, hence why the language point is different.

If members could just note the clause that they refer to in the question, it would make it a little bit easier for the first two questions. The one around trailing liability from the Hon Dr Woods—the context is different: the offshore renewable energy obligations, as I noted in the answer to the question just before, are in place at the start of the development process, which is different in the context of the dismantling for oil and gas obligations.

Steve Abel’s question in regard to the guidance on what are acceptable arrangements: the bill actually states, and I haven’t got the clause in front of me, that it has to be enough—this is around the fiscal points—to cover the full cost of decommissioning, and further detail around that will be in the regulations.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, it’s time for me to suspend the committee for the dinner break, but, before I do, I just want to remind everyone—because it’s not appropriate to wear T-shirts in the Chamber, but I’ve got this “Everyone Loves Roland” T-shirt—that Roland’s farewell is on tonight, in the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were discussing Part 3 of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 69 to 97, “Decommissioning ORE infrastructure”. The question is still that Part 3 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (19:00): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just seeking some clarification from you in the approach that presiding officers are taking. Over the dinner break, I’ve looked through Speakers’ rulings, and in terms of the function of the committee stage, one of the things that a number of presiding officers have been saying through the course of this debate is, “That’s been dealt with in select committee.”

Looking through Speakers’ Rulings, there is no Speaker’s ruling that precludes members in the committee of the whole House stage going back through and asking Ministers questions. In fact, if we go back to a 1970 ruling by Speaker Jack, it points out that it’s the “nuts and bolts stage in which a bill is considered as drafted to decide, in effect, whether the detail clauses do properly incorporate the principles already agreed to by the House.” Subsequent Speakers’ rulings also go on to say that it is the time when the House genuinely is asking questions, and whether amendments are needed to the bill to meet the purpose of that. I’m seeking your clarification that this seems to be quite a different approach.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, look, I’m not going to disagree with the member, but I think there’s a clear expectation from committee Chairs that if a bill has not gone through a committee stage, there will clearly be much more of an extended process than there will be if it has been. I think the point I made before to one of the members was, yeah, it’s okay to go there, but we’re not going to redo the committee stage. Points of clarification on what’s in the select committee report are fine; bringing up things for select committee and, of course, the addition of a Minister’s Amendment Paper then expands that a bit further. So we’re not precluding select committee, we’re just saying that it wouldn’t be the expectation that we have a long stage like we do on something that’s all-stage urgency or didn’t have a full select committee.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you very much for the explanation, Madam Chair. One of the things that I’d be interested to know, when you’re saying points of clarification, particularly the Amendment Paper that hasn’t been to select committee—also whether, within your thinking, that includes members asking the Minister about whether or not he is prepared to amend the bill around different points that are brought up?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, that’s fine.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:03): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a little question from me here on the “Miscellaneous provisions”. In Subpart 4, at clause 93, there’s the “Ownership requirements for transmission infrastructure”—and so, the owner of that infrastructure must be a single entity. Then we go to clause 96, which is about liability, and it says that “if there is more than 1 person that, under this Part, must carry out, or meet the cost of decommissioning any infrastructure.”, then they’re “joint and severally liable”.

I’m just wondering if the Minister can explain why there are references throughout this part to a person—there’s a lot of obligations on a person—and how that fits with clause 93, with this requirement that there must be a single entity. Can we get into a situation whereby it’s not a single entity, or where is the liability going to be split if there is a single entity? That’s my question. How do those different clauses relate to each other and what is it that we’re expecting to see in terms of who is up for providing that security that this part is all about?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:04): The answer simply is that the prior owners or previous owners can be liable. So, in this case, that’s why it’s so clearly defining the individual that is held liable in this case.

Part 3 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 4 Administration and enforcement

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 98 to 171, “Administration and enforcement”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (19:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s just some clarification questions around this, and some of those are about how they interact with some of the changes, I think, in terms of Amendment Paper 571. We have the “Appointment, and termination of appointment, of enforcement officers”. What the Amendment Paper is relatively silent on—and I may have missed something—is really around enforcement regime, in terms of the period of time when there are the exclusive-use provisions in place, and what play that any of those enforcement officers may have in making sure that we do have that exclusive use within there. That would be my first question.

But then, also, the power to require information: how does this intersect with the Amendment Paper that has been put forward? Because, obviously, in making the decisions that are spelt out within the Amendment Paper, information is going to be required. Were there policy considerations around how that would interact with these powers that are granted under Part 4 of the Act; and what is the role of the enforcement team?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:06): I am looking at clause 109, clause 110, and so on. It’s the “Safety zone officers”. I’m just interested as to how this is going to operate, because by their nature, offshore renewable energy installations are offshore, so they’re at sea. It means that we need to think of who’s actually going to be responsible for getting out there in a boat of some sort and deterring people and other boats from going near the offshore installation.

I’m just thinking of the likely sites, because if we think, you know, of up my way, we obviously have the coastguard, which operates out of Manukau Harbour and out through the bar and so on. But I’m thinking of the South Taranaki Bight, which is one of the obvious places for an offshore wind installation. Who exactly is going to be the safety zone officers there? It’s not going to be the local cops, that’s for sure, because they’re not going to have boats. I’d just like a little bit of discussion or description from the Minister as to who we envisage those safety zone officers being. Elsewhere, and we see in these sections, there are various provisions that can be enforced, and the Minister can appoint enforcement officers and they can be local body people and so on, but it’s going to take a person with a particular set of skills to be a safety zone officer, given the nature of the offshore nature of these installations. Just some information there from the Minister, please.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:08): Thanks, members, for the questions. In regards to the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ question—I didn’t get the clause specifically, but in the context of the enforcement regime around seabed mining restrictions when they apply, those aspects are already covered under the Crown Minerals Act.

In regards to the question from Dr Deborah Russell around safety zones and who will be responsible, the answer there is that it is likely that we’ll use existing officers that are already out there, acknowledging that there’s already infrastructure that’s in play offshore that is being monitored in other industry aspects, particularly in the Taranaki region. Again, it will depend on the location in terms of the skill sets and the mechanism of gathering that information, as well. Clause 109, just for the member’s interest, does set out who can be an officer.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (19:09): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a follow-up to that same section around the enforcement of the safety zone. Given that section mentions section 63, I’m hoping you’ll suffer me to go back to section 63, which I had had a question on, but the debate sort of wrapped up. In terms of navigation of the sea—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, can the member just explain, you’re talking about clause—

STEVE ABEL: Sorry, so I’m on clause 64.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, we’re actually—

STEVE ABEL: Sorry. No, I’m not.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re on Part 4 now.

STEVE ABEL: No, you’re right. I understand that. I’m going to take you back there, though. “Powers of safety zone officers” in clause 110 in Part 4—if you go over the page to page 66—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah, now I’m with you. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: —subclause (3)(c) refers to “safety zone that contravene the restrictions declared under section 63”. Section 63 outlines that the Minister may declare safety zones. Now, this seems logical—500 metres is suggested—but it goes to the question of enforcement, because of course if we’re talking about wind turbines and we take 500 metres either side of a wind turbine and you have an array at sea, that takes up a vast area of the ocean.

What advice has the Minister received on rights of freedom of navigation in regard to enforcement of safety zones? Are those safety zones permanently regarded as such, or are there going to be requirements within those safety zones which will allow navigation—for example, through a wind array, given the expanse of space between them—or will it be an absolute restriction? Will there be the allowance of, for example, fishing vessels to pass that way, or anyone navigating the sea? I wonder what account you’ve taken of that.

The final question in that regard is the right to protest at sea. Does this element of the legislation—and this relates also to the enforcement—take into account the freedom of protest? I know that a previous Government in regard to offshore oil and gas exploration passed something that was dubbed the Anadarko amendment, which restricted protesters from coming within 500 metres of an oil exploration ship. I wonder what advice or consideration has been given to that right as well. My broader question is just: how do you deal with the size and expanse of ocean that will be impacted by offshore renewable energy and that 500-metre exclusion zone?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:12): While the honourable Minister’s getting up, I’ll just follow with a very short question. Back to clause 109 on safety zone officers, I note that it’s constables and someone in charge of the ship from the New Zealand Defence Force or someone under their command. That is why I think my colleague Deborah Russell referred to boats before. But I’m wondering if planes would also be involved, and the role of the New Zealand Defence Force in that—just thinking back to the fisheries enforcement action or certainly surveillance action that occurs on planes—if there’s been any thought about that. And also whether or not other Government agencies ,such as the Department of Conservation, that sometimes also have vessels would be considered to be included in here as well. Going to the protest point that was just mentioned, I think that was the previous, previous Government that did that.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:13): Thank you, members. The questions raised in regards to the safety zones and the protest points by Steve Abel—the safety zones will be provided in accordance and aligned with international law, and navigation will be taken into account when determining the size of the area and the way in which it will be applied. As the member will be aware, there’s a wide range of different types of offshore wind technology and array, and that will no doubt change in the future as well. The model is flexible in that context.

The point around protest is that the safety zones are in place to protect people and assets first and foremost, and they’re not designed, as a primary purpose, to prevent protest. I guess the point of difference in the consideration with, as the member will be aware, those turbines when they’re operating at full tap and speed, there’s obviously quite a significant degree of risk of getting too close around that, but safety will obviously take precedent in the context of that.

In regards to the member’s question around the New Zealand Defence Force, it is the expectation that all aspects and mechanisms to gather information, including other agencies, will be used in order to fulfil the requirements of the Act.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a very brief question in relation to clause 101, in Subpart 1 of Part 4—in relation, actually, to the question from my colleagues in Labour just before—who will be the enforcement officers under this bill? Because what we see under 101(1) is that “The chief executive may appoint persons who are employees of a government department, a Crown entity, or a local authority to perform or exercise 1 or more of the functions or powers conferred on enforcement officers under this Act.”

Will it be the Environmental Protection Agency, who currently do exclusive economic zone enforcement on oil and gas rigs; or will it be Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials; and which department, which entity, will this enforcement sit under? If the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, could help us understand—because it would give assurance if we could know what the Government’s thinking on this point. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (19:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions also relate to the safety zone powers, and just a point of clarification, really, from the Minister. If we go back—and I am dealing with the sections in Part 4 around the powers of the safety officers—to clause 63, where the safety zones are designated and the Minister may declare them, we also get through that the application of the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act comes into play, because that’s traditionally what we’ve had. But what I’m unclear on when looking through this—and it has been some time since we discussed it at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—is whether this equally applies to the land-based infrastructure for the offshore renewable energy in the same way it applies to the marine-based infrastructure, either the platforms or the moorings and the cabling, or are there separate provisions that the Minister would see operating under other statutes that would operate here?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:17): Thanks, members. In regards to the question around who will be the enforcement agents, it is likely that there will be a combination of agencies with relevant responsibilities, including and not restricted to the Environmental Protection Authority, Maritime New Zealand, WorkSafe, and also the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It’s likely that the mechanism, in order to coordinate between those agencies, will be something that will obviously be put in place.

Again, the question around—oh no, I’ve already answered it. That’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a clarifying question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, but we’ve spent a long time on safety zones. I’m just wondering if there’s—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I’ll be moving on.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Yes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Do you feel safe?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:18): I do feel safe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to direct the Minister’s attention to clauses 144 through—140-something or other; it goes a bit further—149, where there’s a variety of offences spelled out. Alongside those offences are a variety of penalties, with some such as imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $1 million, or a fine not exceeding $10 million, a fine not exceeding $800,000. It’s just sitting within these various offences, and if I could just have some reassurance from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, perhaps, or from his officials, that, in actual fact, these fines are consistent with fines and penalties that are imposed in other, similar legislation? It’s just a reassurance there.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:19): Yes.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep my question very brief, and it is on clause 115. Clause 115 notes that permit holders must keep records, and presumably this relates both to the feasibility and commercial permits, but clause 115(2)(a) notes that records must be kept for at least seven years. However, we’re talking about 40 years of operation for offshore renewable energy infrastructure. Is seven years going to be adequate time to keep those records? Why aren’t commercial permit holders required to keep information over the lifetime of that offshore renewable energy infrastructure, to ensure that there’s a clear record of information? That’s my question to the Minister.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:20): Seven years is the standard period of time for retention of records—particularly common with financial records as well. It does use the wording “for at least”, and, obviously, the obligations around that with technology, around electronic record keeping—the duration is less relevant than what it used to be in the context of paper-based records.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not sure if there’s a Hansard for this, but I’ll call Dan Bidois. I can take a closure motion if nobody stands up. So just for clarification for the Government members, taking a closure motion just installs another vote, but seeing as you’re so persistent, Dan Bidois, I’m going to call you to take your call.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (19:20): 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 question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Papers 571 and 643 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Amendments to other Acts, and Schedules 2 and 3 and proposed new Schedule 1A

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 5, the debate on clauses 172 to 180, “Amendments to other Acts”, Schedules 2 and 3, and proposed new Schedule 1A. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (19:22): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sure colleagues will have questions on other pieces of legislation that are being amended, but I have a very specific question for the Minister in the chair, Simon Watts, and that’s around the Transport and Infrastructure Committee changes. They were the recommended inserted clauses of 177C and 177D, which are in there to amend section 12(5) of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. It expands the definition of “offshore marine structure” to include “ORE infrastructure”—a perfectly sensible amendment and one that we needed to put in there. That allowed Fire and Emergency to respond to maritime incidents as part of our search and rescue region, should any incident occur on any offshore renewable energy infrastructure.

My question is, for the Minister, whether there has been any thought given—will there be a levy on this infrastructure in terms of contributing into Fire and Emergency New Zealand? What we have seen in other parts of the economy—and I know with my conversations that I’ve been having with our firefighters, for example, that we have quite a perverse situation where we have offshore insurance of forestry assets, which means no fire and emergency levy is paid, but we know that our fire service is called on frequently to ensure that we maintain fire safety in those areas and respond, obviously, to fire incidents. So, whether any thought has been given, if we get into a similar situation where, while we’re including the services of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—and we need to do that; it is a good amendment, but in terms of how it is that will be funded, whether any thought has been given to that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:24): Thank you. Moving on to a different Act that is amended, the Fast-track Approvals Act—what a surprise that I’m talking about this!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Isn’t it!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Maybe Winston Peters is listening; maybe not—he doesn’t appear to have listened to my other many hundreds of contributions on this topic, but anyway. What the Fast-track Approvals Act does is it lists ineligible activities—so, these are things that cannot come into the fast-track process. At the moment, listed is “an activity undertaken for the purposes of an offshore renewable energy project.” What these amendments do is they delete that and replace it with this clause, which is 177B, “Section 5 amended”. It includes in the definition of “ineligible activity”—so, the things that can’t happen in the fast track—an offshore renewable energy activity; I’m paraphrasing. So you would think that the fast track then doesn’t apply to this, but: “unless the applicant is the holder of a current feasibility permit or commercial permit”. So that means that they are eligible; they’re an exception in the ineligible list.

So I’m just checking that the point of this is that the fast track is available for offshore renewable energy, but only after they have already established a feasibility permit or commercial permit—their choice. So they have to do the feasibility permit / commercial permit under this legislation first before they can get into that fast-track process for whatever other permissions they might need, depending on what the activity is and where it is. So that is my question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (19:26): I’m advised, yes: so the bill amends the Fast-track Approvals Act so that feasibility or commercial permit holders are eligible to apply to build offshore renewable energy infrastructure through the fast-track regime, but they have to have, obviously, the feasibility permission.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendments to the amendments to Part 5 on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 571 inserting new Schedule 1A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (19:29): Members, we come now to our final debate, on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (19:31): I move, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Was there a legislative statement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the House for their support through the committee stage of this bill. This is an exciting moment for New Zealand as we pass legislation to enable offshore renewable energy here in New Zealand. This bill delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy as part of National’s Electrify New Zealand plan. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to help grow our economy, but also help us to reach the needed electricity generation to be able to support a growing economy and also our net zero carbon emissions targets by 2050.

I want to acknowledge all members of the House for their support of this bill, but also to acknowledge Minister Simon Watts, who has played an important role in this bill as the former Minister for Energy as well.

Offshore renewable energy fills in gaps in the current regulatory environment. The bill will give offshore renewable energy developers greater certainty and therefore more confidence about investing in New Zealand, as well as allowing the Government to select the developments that best meet New Zealand’s national interests. This bill will also enable risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

This bill has been through extensive consultation: not only the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who heard public submissions and recommended changes to improve the workability of the bill and increase certainty for developers, but also wide consultation with iwi and stakeholders and potential developers as well. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the preparation and passage of this bill.

It’s important to think about offshore renewable energy as not just about wind energy. I think a lot of the conversation in terms of the legislation is thought of around wind energy, but this enables all manner of offshore renewable energy infrastructure to be able to obtain permits, whether that’s wind energy, whether it’s solar at sea, wave energy, tidal energy. It allows for the innovation of our energy sector to be unleashed here in New Zealand through the obtainment of permits—first, feasibility permits and then commercial permits. The feasibility permit will give the holder certainty that no other offshore renewable energy developer is able to be approved to develop that same site when undertaking feasibility studies, giving them the exclusive ability to then apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental consents, resource or marine, in the permit area.

I expect we’re going to see people applying for permits shortly. My intention is, once the bill is passed—well, as the bill says, the commencement is the day after Royal assent, which I think is the appropriate commencement date—I intend to introduce feasibility permit and cost recovery regulations as soon as possible so that the regime is able to become operational. Developers will be able to then apply for feasibility permits once a round is opened, and I think that’s an exciting economic opportunity for New Zealand as well as the opportunity for these companies to be able to look at the innovation and the opportunity that is available in our offshore areas.

Once a feasibility permit has been applied for and granted and studies have been done, a commercial permit will then need to be obtained before construction begins, providing assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. This, obviously, is a really important next step for developers, and providing this certainty is exactly what developers need, so they can have certainty around the locations that they’re looking at and studying and then the ability to apply for commercial permits to be able to build.

This is a really important step forward, as I said, for the country. I do want to acknowledge every single member of the House who has played a role in support across the House for this. I think it’s a sensible change as we build the future of an affordable, abundant, reliable, and increasingly renewable energy system here in New Zealand. I’m excited about the potential that this is going to unleash across our country as we seek to grow the energy that this country is delivering.

Ultimately, that is what matters if we want to grow our economy. We need to grow our abundant, affordable, reliable energy opportunities in New Zealand, because, ultimately, that is what underpins a strong and growing economy. On this side of the House, we’re very clear: we’re agnostic as to what that development might look like. We want people to come to New Zealand, we want to seize those opportunities, and be able to unlock that opportunity in this country so that we can have the industries that flow from cheaper electricity, more affordable electricity: the jobs, the opportunities, the innovation—all of those good things.

This bill might just say it’s unlocking offshore renewable energy, but, ultimately, it is unlocking economic growth and opportunity in our country. It’s fixing the basics; it’s building the future. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (19:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with the Minister for Energy; this is an exciting day. I think it’s also fair to say it’s a very long-anticipated day that we are coming to finally get the legislation passed to put in place this regime. I still recall going to visit the global wind energy association in London, them showing me the maps when I was Minister, and them telling me that New Zealand was the “Saudi Arabia of wind”, that this was the potential that our country had in terms of economic opportunity. This work started in 2022 in terms of the consultation, so there was consultation that was carried out in 2022 and 2023. It was set up to have a regime in place by July 2024. I think it is concerning that it has taken this long to get here, but I have been more than happy to play my part across the House to make sure that we’ve got the kind of legislation that can actually unleash the potential of offshore energy in New Zealand.

We, too, are agnostic, but let’s be very clear: the projects that are front and centre at the moment, the projects where there is actually capital being deployed around the world and that New Zealand is in a competition to attract here, are in offshore wind. It is a shame that over the period of the last 2½ years, while we haven’t had the regime coming in in a time frame that was anticipated by the industry and was achievable, we’ve seen BlueFloat, we’ve seen Sumitomo, and we’ve seen JERA Nex bp all take their capital away from New Zealand and invest it in places where there is more certainty. That is what we have to give to investors, and why we have been more than happy to work across the House to make sure there is broad support to signal to that international investment that no matter who is in Government in New Zealand, there is broad support for this. This is a regulatory regime that is put in place that is going to survive changes of Government. This is something that people can agree on, and I think that is incredibly important that we do that.

I think that we can see just the potential that can be unleashed from this. There have been numerous studies that have looked at the potential and what can be contributed in New Zealand in terms of jobs: the number of jobs that can be put in place can be measured in the thousands, that can be stimulated by attracting this investment here, and that’s only for it as energy—that’s only for the energy it generates. That’s not thinking about the downstream effects of what us having abundant, affordable, renewable energy looks like; the opportunities that will open up in terms of our industrial sector when we have more affordable energy—so, that’s 5,000 to 30,000 jobs, are the projections from a PricewaterhouseCoopers report. This is big change that this is signalling. We’re also seeing the projections around GDP growth, ranging from $12 billion to $94 billion over the project lifetime, of having this put in place. Again, this is potentially truly transformative; this can really change the trajectory that we’re on and whether or not we have flourishing industries in this country.

Also, one of the things that excites me the most about this is the skilled jobs that will accompany this, and the ability to transition many of our workers that are working in industries that we are transitioning away from to work in this industry. A number of the skills that are associated with working in offshore oil and gas exploration can be transferred into offshore wind and offshore renewable energy projects in communities that have depended on those industries for a number of decades, and a number of generations of families have grown used to it. The potential for us to make sure that we are smoothing that transition, that we are making sure that workers and communities are protected, is one of the reasons why Labour in Government put so much work into making sure that this work began and got under way and that we were attracting investment in this area.

In terms of offshore renewable energy, regulate it and they will come. Establish the regulatory regime; give the certainty; tell people that you are open for business in this area and that you’re not going to put pet projects like seabed mining, which has been turned down by every court in the land, into the fast track and drive that capital away. That has to finish, and I hope the amendments that we’ve seen to this legislation, that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee worked through very carefully—we listened to the submissions. We heard submitter after submitter come and say that just allowing open slather—“You’ve got that big seabed mining resource going through; that’s not going to allow us to get on with it.” That’s not going to allow us to get on and establish the opportunities that we can all see in front of us here in New Zealand, so I was pleased to see that Ministers did pause and reflect that the legislation they had brought to the House was inadequate. It needed to change, it needed to give that certainty to the investment community, and I do thank the Minister for making those changes, because I think we would have put so much at risk if we hadn’t made those changes. That is absolutely critical.

One of the things that we also need to do is send the signal to everybody that the transition is actually about growth. This is where opportunity lies; this is where the jobs of tomorrow will lie. This is where the skilled jobs will lie. Actually, our transition to renewable energy is a cheaper, affordable, abundant source for our nation, and that is where our prosperity and our opportunity lies as we head into the 21^st century. We know that actually, in terms of getting this affordable energy, it is not expensive imported fossil fuels. Energy that passes through the Strait of Kaukau, the Strait of Foveaux, rather than the Strait of Hormuz, to get to New Zealand to serve us is going to give us that energy security that we need as we go through the 21^st century.

This is energy made here in New Zealand; this is energy made here in New Zealand, by New Zealand workers. It is energy for us that is secure—that we are not subject to the vagaries of the international winds; we are, rather, subject to the vagaries of the offshore winds that are a far more secure place for us to be. This is in so many ways a win for New Zealand, and I’m pleased to see that the legislation we are putting in place is going to come into place so quickly. The Minister has given his reassurance that he will get on and do the secondary legislative piece of work to actually put in place the regulatory regime, because it is so needed.

We literally have international capital camped down in New Zealand, waiting to see this, to unleash this potential, and I encourage that. I’m very pleased to see it come to fruition, and I’m very pleased to see that we finally have this regime. It would have been better if we’d had it sooner, but better late than never, and I look forward to seeing the opportunities that can be unleashed for this country to grow our wealth, to employ our people, and to give us the security that we need going into this uncertain 21^st century. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can say I’ve been a member of the New Zealand Wind Energy Association for well over a decade and this is a good day. It’s a good day when we can finally celebrate some progress on the electrification journey that we are on, regardless of the direction that parts of the Government want to take us.

I’ve been thinking about this Government’s recent enthusiasm for the electrification journey, and just to remind myself, I went back to National’s Electrify New Zealand document, which says: “National wants a future where buses and trains are powered by clean electricity, where we go on holiday in cars powered by clean electricity, and where industrial processing plants are powered by clean electricity not coal. But to do that, we need to double the amount of renewable electricity we [will] produce from New Zealand’s abundant natural resources—particularly solar, wind, and geothermal. National will make it happen.”

I can hear the catcalling from the other side of the Government because we know what they’ve done. Let’s forget liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the moment; the uncomfortable decision to force the big power companies to contract for LNG. Well, that’s not renewable. We’re told that National will make that clean energy transition happen. Well, except for the Government slashing the Clean Car Standard; except for putting in extra high - road-user charges on electric and hybrid vehicles; except for cancelling funding for councils to buy electric buses and ferries; except for offering a $200 subsidy for the fossil fuel sector, for the gas security fund; except—

Hon Member: $200 million.

SCOTT WILLIS: Two hundred million, yes; thank you to the member from New Zealand First: $200 million for the fossil fuel sector, a subsidy that the British are very concerned about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a good setting of the scene, Mr Willis, but now we might come back to the bill.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Except for all of that, apparently National will make the transition to clean energy happen, despite all the fossil fuels!

Let’s remember the offshore renewable energy legislation regime has been worked on for several years. Policy and public consultation took place between 2022 and 2023, and it took more than a year after taking office for the Government to finally introduce the draft Offshore Renewable Energy Bill to Parliament—more than a year. For a Government that claims it wants to make things happen, they certainly took their damn good time.

Meanwhile, we’ve heard that three developers floated away. Yes, the coalition Government at that time simply couldn’t make up its mind whether it wanted seabed mining or to support offshore renewables—

Tom Rutherford: Stop reading.

SCOTT WILLIS: —so, on 17 December 2024—thank you, Tom; thank you for that—the bill passed the first reading and was transferred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I want to thank Andy Foster for chairing that committee so well, because it was a really useful select committee where we could dive into the complexity of this argument. We could hear from the wind energy sector. We could hear from iwi and hapū. We could hear from communities. We could hear from people who had real concerns and had worried about where this bill was going and why it had disappeared and why it had reappeared. We got a lot of detail out of that select committee process.

We’ve got the Amendment Paper that turned up on 4 June; that was helpful. We could see that the Government had been working. The Government aimed to pass this bill by mid-2025 and here we are in mid-2026, near the very end of this parliamentary term. The first draft of a national policy statement on renewable electricity generation, requiring councils to issue consents within one year—that was supposed to be released within six months of the Government coming to power. How did that go, National?

A national energy strategy—something the sector is crying out for, something industry is screaming for to give certainty, something that manufacturing wants to understand how we can stop the de-industrialisation of our nation—has been ruled out by this Minister. This is crazy stuff. “National will make it happen.” Well, I think at this point National is in competition with Tui for the best billboard advertisements they could possibly get.

This Amendment Paper, which is helpful, reads like the compromise between the coalition partners that it is. Offshore renewable energy developers—clearly what’s at stake if there’s any chance of building offshore renewables is to stroke the ego of MPs if they can, because it was abundantly clear that seabed mining and offshore renewables were so incompatible.

Here we are. We’re going through the third reading of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill more than a year after it was promised to be delivered. While many more inconsequential bills have been promoted through urgency in front of this one, National will make it happen. The National Party really has become the manifestation of a Tui billboard. You really have.

So Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker. My apologies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s OK. It’s not the first time.

SCOTT WILLIS: I wonder, when this bill is passed, whether the coalition will say, “Job done.” I suppose it will at least be done. We will have some legislation. Better late than never. But does the Minister believe that when this bill is done, after all this time, that this bill is going to unlock offshore renewable energy projects that he’s so keen on? Every other jurisdiction that offshore wind, for example, has been built in has required not only a regulatory and consenting framework—

David MacLeod: Subsidies.

SCOTT WILLIS: —but also—that’s right—revenue-stabilising mechanisms, contracts for difference to guarantee a floor price for the generated electricity to shield generators from volatile wholesale market prices. That’s right—that’s right. It has never been developed without those additional elements.

I understand the Government clapping themselves on the back and saying, “Job done.”. but how we got here has been a long and painful journey, really. I understand that these big investments with big capital need additional insurance, but if we want to support the independent generation for wind development, if it’s offshore or even onshore, wouldn’t a contract for difference platform be useful?

Way back in 2020, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment sought submissions on their discussion document titled Accelerating renewable energy and energy efficiency. One of the questions was, “Do you agree there is a role for government to provide information, facilitate match-making and/or assume some financial risk for [power purchase agreements]?” It appears that through successive Governments, work has been done on ways to accelerate the renewables transition and yet much of it’s been shelved and Governments change or a Minister, such as this one, refuses to acknowledge things like a national energy strategy.

We do support this bill—we certainly do—but let me make some things very clear. It has taken way too long. Iwi and hapū have not been appropriately engaged through the development of this bill. We note that iwi and hapū in Taranaki have sought real engagement from the Government on the finalisation and implementation of the legislation. Attention needs to be given to this. It is the type of legislation that could help us develop a future where buses and trains are powered by clean electricity, etc. But if we do that, we have to throw out much of this Government’s fossil fuel agenda. Cancel the liquefied natural gas project. Provide renewable—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Just before I call the next speaker, I have to say there’s quite a lot of wind that we could capture on the Government backbenches tonight.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (19:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. Look, the member on the other side of the House is failing to recognise that we need to keep the lights on this winter, we need to keep people warm, and there is a transition process that the other side clearly failed to understand well. That’s why energy is so incredibly expensive right now in New Zealand.

If we are going to unlock New Zealand’s potential, we know that we need to be investing in more new technologies. This is an incredible opportunity for New Zealand. We know that a clean, green future is on the horizons for New Zealand and I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (19:57): Thanks, Madam Speaker. It’s great to get here. There is one thing I’m going to agree with the Opposition on: it’s taken a while to get to this point because, as chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that considered this, we reported this back in June last year. It’s taken quite a while to get there, and I did wonder whether we had actually forgotten about this bill, but we’ve got here and that’s great.

We need more energy. I think that is going to be something we agree about across the House. We know—and sometimes the generation industry is chastised, but we know that there is a lot more generation coming on. In fact, more generation is being built now than has ever been built in the past. Most of that is renewables—the vast majority of that—but we need firming too. This is where I part company with the Greens over there. Some industry actually needs gas because it cannot operate and it will not be able to operate without gas.

Of course, the Opposition over there did nothing for the gas industry, which has meant we’ve ended up with a whole lot of businesses closed down. We’ve ended up with a whole lot of jobs lost. That is the responsibility of the Opposition in this particular case. We need to keep the lights on, but we also need to keep businesses, we also need to keep jobs. That’s really important.

Let’s talk about offshore wind, because then I think we might get some agreement there. The offshore wind—we know there’s a lot of investment in onshore wind as well, but offshore wind, in theory, has a much higher level of generation. If the boilerplate number says it’s 100 megawatts, you’re likely to get I think it’s about 55 megawatts compared to something in the high 40s or the mid-40s for onshore wind.

This bill is about setting a framework for offshore renewable energy. As we’ve had pointed out, it’s not just wind, but the majority of that probably will be wind, at least at the moment. The key issue in this bill is security of tenure—security of tenure. You’re not going to invest tens of millions of dollars—and it is tens of millions of dollars in doing feasibility, or billions of dollars, probably, or at least hundreds of millions or billions of dollars—in actually building a wind farm offshore unless you’ve got security of tenure. This was probably the key issue that we, as a select committee, considered because there was an issue there which said, basically, that mining could come in over the top of an existing consent or an existing licence for an offshore renewable wind operation. That clearly was not going to be something—that would have turned every investor off, so you had to deal with that. That was a thing which we actually said, as a select committee, “Should we actually deal with that now?”, but we actually had to deal with not just the bill in front of us but other bits of legislation as well. We said that back to the Ministers: “Do you want to deal with that or do you want us to deal with that?” That’s why we’ve got the Amendment Paper here on the Table at the moment to deal with that issue, which basically says you cannot have those two things in the same place at once; they are incompatible—we’ve already heard that. It’s important that we make sure that there is, as I said, that security of tenure.

We had the idea, in the submissions, of a spatial plan. We’re very familiar with a spatial plan when it comes to the terrestrial environment. But they also said that’s necessary in the offshore environment as well. It might be it’s fishing, it might be it’s wind farms, it might be it’s mining, whatever it might be. Sometimes they cannot coexist, and so it’s important for us to think about that thing. That was beyond the scope of our ability to respond to, but it is something which we said should be given consideration to.

The other bit was—because there are some areas which are really, really important; have really good wind resource. The one that particularly is focused on at moment is the South Taranaki Bight. It’s really important that if you’ve got that licence, that you actually use it. You don’t sit on it for years and years and years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t have a licence, Mr Foster.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, sorry. Well, Madam Speaker, I know you love the Taranaki—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do, but I don’t have a licence.

ANDY FOSTER: You might have a licence, but possibly not. But anyway, my point is we want to make sure that the licence holders actually use the licences that they’ve got—so it’s a use it or lose it approach as well. There are a lot of technicalities which we considered in the bill around fishing policing, small-scale generation, which is also being talked about as well.

I just wanted to respond to couple of last things. Revenue stabilising that Scott Willis has talked about. There are issues about how the energy market works, but I do wonder whether, if you energy-stabilise part of the market, you might then say it actually raises costs overall—so probably it is going to have to do that. I’ll leave it there. I think that this is a very good day for New Zealand. It’s a good piece of legislation, it’s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (20:02): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I have this really daunting view where the rest of Aotearoa, particularly those in South Taranaki, are looking at Wellington thinking “About time you caught up.” While people in the House are patting themselves on the back, a lot of the people where I come from, Taranaki, have been engaging with companies, have already gone out and explored, they’ve already got a whole lot of knowledge, had already set up good mātauranga and good entities such as Te Ara Ake—which the Government has defunded—in expectation of some Government finally catching up.

For years, Taranaki iwi have been telling Governments—not just National-led; Labour-led ones as well—that there is no offshore renewable energy that would work while sea bed mining was on your agenda. Neither Labour- or National-led Governments would prohibit seabed mining, and so we’re here years later—15 years later—after they’ve been spelling out the obvious. Well done to Wellington for finally catching up on what the rest of Taranaki has known for decades: we have a finite supply of fossil fuels and we’re watching the Government—I’ve almost got whiplash. I really don’t know which way to look. We’re patting ourselves on the back for finally catching up with a renewable energy agenda, but still you spend billions of dollars on liquefied natural gas (LNG) because, you know, that just makes perfect sense. Really what we should have been doing is get this across the line, and make sure that we listen to those who are living there and are most affected.

These are some of the things that iwi said to any Government that’s going to listen. They came forward and said, “Do it properly.” They called for Te Tiriti to be recognised because they’re the ones that have more of the hands-on relationship than Government ever does, even though they think they control everything. They called for genuine partnership instead of consultation after decisions. They called for a regulatory system where iwi are not simply informed; we are part of making decisions from beginning to end because they live there beyond the productivity of the life of the project. They also made sure that they wanted to have a framework and a model that would ensure we could look after the communities that are most affected by all these entities coming into their moana. I really hope that there is room for us to be able to address the fact that we have communities that give and absolutely lift their weight in this sector and are still paying horrendous prices for energy. Those were some of the things of their experience that they’ve had.

Yes, it’s a great day for Government to finally have caught up. But the reality is if we listened more to the experts that are living there, that are on the ground, that had these relationships for decades after decades, we would have been able to land this a lot smarter, a lot better across all parties. There are jobs to be created—the electrifying of Aotearoa could bring 58,000-plus jobs in the last report I read last week. Now, in order to do that, we need to get over ourselves and we need to figure out how we do that quickly, efficiently, and holistically. I haven’t heard any of that in any of these speeches. What I have heard is the ridiculousness—I’m sorry—of Labour pretending that they were anti - seabed mining, when they weren’t, and the Government denying that they are so pro - fossil fuels. Your whole catchphrase from one over here is “Drill, baby, drill”. So I hope—

David MacLeod: Coal!

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: And coal—and coal. So I hope between the fossil fuels, the LNGs, and everything else that you’re doing, there’s some money that’s going to be put aside so that we can actually help this happen successfully and help it happen in a way that it is a grand day for Aotearoa and it’s not just tick or box—tick—tick boxing. Late in the night. That we’re not just ticking a box—I see it so much that I forget how to say it—

Hon Matt Doocey: Box-ticking.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —that we’re actually—thank you, box ticking, appreciate it. Appreciate it, Matt.

What I’m hoping: that we continue on with this legislation and invest in what transition will look like. Transition so we can get people ready to learn and they can train and we can transition jobs away from fossil fuels, we can transition infrastructure away from fossil fuels, and do renewable energy in Aotearoa well—show the rest of the world how to do it well. And stop talking about Taranaki without Taranaki. That’s a really big deal for me because, year after year, I’ve had to sit and watch Governments angst and say and make all these promises, and actually also watch firms leave here; private investors leave here. Let’s think about the holistic view of how we can do this and use this regulatory regime—what it’s been called—well, and do something that makes our mokopuna proud and the whole nation proud but also make sure looks after all New Zealand households. Kia ora rā.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (20:07): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s something of a kumbaya moment. I don’t want to overstate it because obviously it’s not perfect, but one thing I think is fascinating is that, on this issue, you see there is a pathway forward for us as a nation because one thing we all pretty much agree on is more renewable energy is a good thing.

Now, was it were that we sat down with that agreement and developed a national energy strategy that we could all agree on and this sort of legislation would be exactly part of it. That is where I think what industry are calling for, what the public are calling for, what everyone is calling for: for us to take that beauty as representatives of the nation, as parliamentarians, to find the common ground and find the way forward on this critical issue of how we provide our energy needs now and for the future.

I just want to comment that the concept of being agnostic regarding energy—as the Minister for Energy speaks of—unfortunately has the effect of denying climate change. Because to be agnostic about the impacts of different kinds of energy systems is to deny that some are markedly more damaging than others. It is also to be agnostic about the finitude of fossil fuels. Certain sources of energy don’t have an endless life; they have a finite life. Wind is one of those eternal energy sources. The wind will always blow. It may be intermittent, but you know it’s going to blow and keep blowing. Likewise, the sun will always shine—well, at least far longer than we are likely to be around for.

The opportunities in those infinite fuel sources are huge and we have means—extraordinary means—to capture the energy of the wind, to capture the energy of the sun. There is the way forward to us decarbonising. I asked a question very early on in the committee of the whole House of the Minister of whether it was, in his view, a national priority that we rapidly decarbonise. He replied that electrification was a priority. Well, that electrification must be based on renewable expansion, not on burning gas to generate electricity or burning coal to generate electricity. That is where we also have a way forward to energy sovereignty and security, because, if we are generating energy by which our society and our economy is powered, we are not subject to the vicissitudes of overseas conflicts, of overseas fuel price spikes. If we’re generating our own energy and electricity from our own renewable resources, we are all that more secure in terms of both the price and the supply and the sovereignty of the energy system.

This bill takes us a step in the right direction. I hope it does send a message to industry. It’s a terrible problem that we’ve lost already three companies. This is something that has cross-party support; the offshore wind industry and the offshore energy industry has a future in this country. It is predicated on, and I appreciate, the wording around the Treaty obligations in the legislation as they stand. I think the wording that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer proposed is significantly stronger, and that’s the sort of amendment we would make, the upholding of Treaty obligations. Any activity in this space must be done with not only the consent but also the active participation of local iwi and hapū in their rohe and in their waters.

The “everything soup” strategy around energy is not a strategy. We have to pick the trajectory we want to go on. Tonight, in this Parliament, we are showing that we are capable of doing that. The more we can sit down, as it is reported it was done so well on the committee that worked on this bill, the more we can sit down and find the common ground on the energy systems that are going to power our future, the more we can give certainty to the public, to industry, and indeed to the children who are going to inherit a climate-changed world if we in this generation don’t do something about decarbonising. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:12): This Government is fixing the basics and building the future. This bill unlocks one of New Zealand’s greatest untapped renewable energy resources: offshore wind. It creates the framework needed to attract investment, grow clean electricity generation, and deliver on our commitment to double renewable energy by 2050. This Government is backing practical solutions for affordable and reliable power. We can’t change which way the wind blows, but we can make sure we power New Zealand’s future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:12): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

I want to start by agreeing with a colleague and then disagreeing with a different colleague. We’ve just heard from Steve Abel, from the Greens, about the importance of decarbonising. That is so important. I want to say that I completely agree with him that we need to do that, and using offshore renewable energy can be one of the ways to do that, but we shouldn’t be doing, as he said, everything just all at once. We need to make our choices, and those choices should be no to fossil fuels—no to foreign fossil fuels. We need to decarbonise, and this is a way to do it.

Another colleague in the House was speaking before, Andy Foster, and he said, “That Labour Government, they did nothing for gas.” I’m going to agree with Andy Foster on that. On that point, I agree with him, because, of course, we had a Climate Emergency Response Fund, and a GIDI Fund, and were working very hard—

Carl Bates: Tell that to the workers on Heads Road in Whanganui—disgusting, what you guys did.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —to decarbonise and stop that reliance on gas, which is a foreign fossil fuel.

Carl Bates: That was disgusting—taking jobs away from people.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Now, I’ve been told that this is disgusting. Wowzers. This is from a National Party that campaigned on meeting the Paris Agreement and targets, and now it’s terrible that we weren’t supporting gas! Maybe that is because this Government is spending so much time and energy subsidising big fossil fuel companies with a liquefied natural gas terminal that’s just going to embed that use of foreign fossil fuels and do the opposite of what this bill is trying to do.

What is this bill doing? This bill is about generating our own energy in our own country—or somewhere near our country; it depends on what you call our country—out there in the offshore environment, and that is going to be able to be used to electrify New Zealand and to decarbonise New Zealand. Those two things go together and are really important. What the bill does—well, at clause 13 there can be an application round for feasibility rounds, and these feasibility rounds are at the discretion of the Minister. These bills rely a lot on regulations—secondary legislation. We heard from the Minister for Energy, in his speech, that he’s going to get on with it—that this is important. After this bill was reported back in June last year, in July this year, in real time, we’re coming back to it in urgency, so there’s some irony there, but better late than never.

We know, then, that the Ministers can set up their regulations, and they can also choose, in their own time frames, with quite a lot of discretion, what areas they want to open up for feasibility permits. They do that on a geographical basis. I would implore the Government to please use marine spatial planning when making these decisions and think about what is best for those marine environments. That would be a very useful thing to do. Also, obviously, it will be good if the Government gets on and does this work and opens up for these feasibility permits. Once the Ministers have done that piece of work, and it’s a significant piece of work, applicants, companies—they have to be entities, and it’s specified in the bill what sort of entity they should be—can then apply for a feasibility permit.

This is a two-stage process, and the first stage is the feasibility permit. This permit doesn’t have as many conditions attached to it as the next one, and we didn’t have really clear answers from the Minister about how invasive a feasibility permit might be—what sort of work would be needed to do the feasibility—but we do know that there are provisions in the legislation for a feasibility permit to also have other permissions under other pieces of legislations to deal with environmental factors. Once you have that feasibility permit, you can also enter the fast track.

These feasibility permits last for seven years. I’ve just mentioned the fast track there, and I think it is important, and I’ll come back to that in a minute. After you have your feasibility permit, which can last for seven years, you can apply for a commercial permit. You need to go in that step order, and these commercial permits can last for 40 years, but there’s been some issues in some of the world with seabed banking. I’m more familiar with the Resource Management Act and the land banking that we hear about in urban areas. Apparently, this can happen in offshore as well, so there is a mechanism for the Minister to revoke that commercial permit if not enough work has gone into building the infrastructure.

Of course it is also important to note that this offshore renewable energy is not just wind; it can be other factors that are listed in the bill. I, of course, and probably everybody else who first thinks about this, will be thinking about wind, because that is what we can see when we’re flying to other parts of the world or we’ve watched some Instagram or some YouTube—they pop up, and so we’re quite used to that, but it is not just wind. It’s also important to know that the Minister can declare a safety zone, and we had quite a lot of discussion about the safety zone in the committee stage. That was useful.

Now, we’ve also known—I’m talking about wind specifically here—that these large offshore wind turbines are incompatible with seabed mining. We’ve heard that from a whole lot of the industry. When this Government introduced the fast track and allowed an application that had been turned down by the Supreme Court to have another go through the fast track, we saw those wind generation companies leave New Zealand. They were like, “Nah. If you’re going to have seabed mining here, we can’t be doing this big wind generation at the same time.” It is a great shame that this Government, which is here telling us they are all about electrification and doing the basics, something like that, made a system that did exactly—through their fast track, they have done exactly the opposite of the purpose of this bill, which is to give greater certainty for developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. By one action, led by Shane Jones, they did one thing that had this consequential reaction.

That issue was raised in the TTransport and Infrastructure Committee, and the select committee report notes that there were some suggestions that you could just do some amendments, so that if there was a feasibility permit or a commercial permit—that I’ve already talked about—in an area, then you just block applications under the Crown Minerals Act. That was a suggestion in the exclusive economic zone Act. The Government members didn’t go with that. However, we did see Ministers go back and work on this with an amendment that we have supported today, and that is that Ministers—two Ministers: the Minister in charge of that Crown Minerals Act, and also the Minister in charge of this, what will soon be an Act—can, if they want to, designate an area and that area imposes restrictions on seabed mining. That is a good thing. It could have gone further, but it is a good thing to deal with that compatibility issue.

We are supporting this bill. As my friend Megan Woods said, it is much better to be talking about the Straits of Cook or of Foveaux rather than Hormuz. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:22): Well, it’s a historic day in this Parliament, and I can see we’re getting whipped up across the House in excitement about the passage of this bill.

This bill is all about energy security. It’s all about jobs and incomes in places like the great Taranaki, and it’s all about meeting our decarbonisation goals as a country. It’s been a real privilege to be a part of this process, to get this legislation to the House, to this stage. It’s all part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take an unexpected call on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, which we do support. It is absolutely a star. I’d like to begin with a summary of the contributions that we have had so far, because they’ve covered some great points that do warrant some recapping. I didn’t sit on the select committee to hear the submissions, but I’d like to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I think just the volume and the quality of the contributions that are coming out today has really highlighted the rigour that the select committee applied when considering this bill.

The Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, highlighted that growing the economy, and the energy production that underpins the way we can grow the economy, is going to unlock growth for us as a nation. That’s very important. It was echoed the Hon Megan Woods, and what stood out for me in her contribution was that New Zealand is the Saudi Arabia for wind. It’s overdue—and concerning, actually—that it took so long to get this bill to this point. That uncertainty can quite often scare investors. Having a unified approach that we can all agree on across the House can provide that certainty, so we don’t get a situation like we did with the ferries and things like that.

Scott Willis highlighted his experience in the Wind Energy Association—and then the House entered a period of intense debate, so I couldn’t actually hear everything that was being traversed there. At the end of it, he did highlight that it was a long time coming, and he mentioned something about a Tui billboard ad. I suppose we just want to have the second part of that, making sure it’s right. Never mind the year, just make sure what we’re doing here is right: it’s right for the nation and right for the country.

Laura McClure actually brought it back home, back down to everyday communities. This is all about being able to keep the lights on, keep people warm, and then also making sure that we can unlock our potential. Ultimately, that makes the power cost a lot lower for the consumer.

Andy Foster highlighted, again, the time it has taken to get to this point, and then offshore wind having a higher level of generation, which is right, because you get a good return for every dollar spent, comparable to other forms of power generation—also, highlighting the idea of a spatial plan, offshore spatial plan or marine spatial plan, for offshore development, which is very interesting. It would have been good to be in the select committee when that was being discussed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer actually highlighted, locally, bringing in the iwi and local communities to form their relationship with the Government, so we can help get what our communities need and keep the community the main focus of any decision we make.

Then, Steve Abel actually mentioned that this is a “Kumbaya” moment—the pathway forward and the need for a national energy strategy, which, ultimately, would be what the people of New Zealand would expect. Ultimately, a coherent strategy will pave the way for energy prices to come down, which is what we all want as a nation. And yet we get to pick the trajectory that we do go on, and we can do that from this House.

Carlos Cheung provided a very short call, did the National Party slogans, and that’s great. He didn’t actually quote his—

Hon Matt Doocey: At least he said his own words.

DAN ROSEWARNE: Hey, this is a debate, and I’m just recapping everything that people are saying. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, Mr Doocey.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why don’t you take a contribution over there?

DAN ROSEWARNE: Yeah, take a call. Take a call. Finally, Rachel Brooking just really highlighted the importance for our country to decarbonise and to say no to fossil fuels. We did have a climate response fund which was actually sending us off on a good course. Also, she was just highlighting that this bill is about generating our own energy, not relying on overseas imports and making us susceptible to a lot of those other pressures globally. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I think we might issue you with some scorecards for your next speech, Mr Rosewarne.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (20:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about controlling who, what, where, and how people should use our offshore environment for renewable energy. It’s long overdue to be able to get going in this space; it’s an untapped potential. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:29): This bill has had a very, very long process to get to this point. The work under it, for this type of work, for setting up a regime to ensure that we could properly control offshore renewable energy generation, started off way, way back in 2022, under the previous Government. Work was under way, working out what needed to be done. The policy process was under way, and eventually we had an election. The incoming Government kind of sidelined the work for a while, but eventually we did get the bill into the House. This bill came into the House, I think, in 2024—a long time ago. Then it popped out of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in June last year, and it has taken until now—it has taken until now—to have the committee stage and the third reading. And, rather ironically, having spent a year getting to this stage, we are now passing it through its final stages under urgency.

So it’s been a very long, long process. And for all the claims over on that side of the House that they are getting under way with the work that needs doing, it’s taken them a perilously long time to do it. It is, nevertheless—

Carl Bates: Did you get it done? No.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: You know, a man who didn’t declare his 25 rental properties should just be quiet.

It is a good bill. This is legislation that is needed, so we do support this legislation. There might have been the odd thing along the way that we might have done slightly differently around various clauses and tiny bits of policy. But, overall, this is a good bill and one where we do very much support it.

There are a number of reasons for supporting it. First of all, I want to be very clear that we support the Minister’s amendment, which came through just recently to ensure that there are exclusive zones that where offshore renewable energy is being built, then no other activities may take place. There’s good reason for that. Now, despite the claims from over here, Labour did start up a process around seabed mining because we knew that seabed mining was problematic. It was problematic precisely because it would interfere—well, all sorts of reasons, but one of the reasons is that it does interfere with other activities in the same area. In order to have good, effective, efficient investment in offshore renewable energy, the people engaging in those activities need not to have to deal with other activities in the same space. So that exclusivity, the way it’s been set up, that’s a really good change, and we have supported it.

But let’s remember that the threat of seabed mining being raced through—despite having been turned down by Resource Management Act processes, despite having been turned down in our highest court, it was then being raced through under the fast-track legislation. Let’s remember that that fast-track legislation, that threat of seabed mining via the fast-track legislation, actually scared off renewable energy projects—it scared them off. It meant that people like BlueFloat and Sumitomo took their money elsewhere, as they ought to if they could not carry out the projects they wanted to carry out.

So it’s a real shame that that coalition Government enabled that particular piece of fast-track permitting, which eventually was disallowed, to go into the fast-track legislation and to put a real barrier in the way of offshore renewable energy. However, that’s been sorted now—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Labour let it in.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I do want to remind Debbie Ngarewa-Packer that we did have a process under way. It might not have been your process, but it was a process.

I also want to speak about why it is very important, in some ways, that we make sure that that offshore seabed mining didn’t happen off Taranaki. It’s because the area of the South Taranaki Bight is fabulous for wind energy. It’s not just that it’s fabulous for wind energy there, but it turns out that in Taranaki, there is a really highly skilled workforce, an engineering workforce, that was available—

David MacLeod: 1,700 are gone.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, be quiet over there, “Temu Shane”. Those jobs—people who are skilled, who could move straight into the renewable energy sector.

It’s really interesting, even just visiting Taranaki and visiting something like the Te Rewa Rewa Bridge, the East End playground—you can see that the engineers have been at work. There are jobs available for those engineers, for those workers, for the electricians, for the tradies, for all the businesses that would be supported by all the engineers and tradies and sparkies. That work is available through renewable energy projects.

Now, as it turns out, oil and gas is a sunset industry. The jobs in that sector were disappearing already. Here is a beautiful project, offshore wind energy, that is perfect for jobs in the new economy, in a decarbonised economy. In fact, there are jobs going begging at the moment, where we can get people into work through renewable energy processes, into sustainable work, that helps us to achieve our 2050 net zero goal.

So there’s all sorts of reasons for supporting this legislation, and it helps us to achieve net zero by 2050. It opens up jobs in the renewable energy sector, in areas that need it. It provides the energy we need. The former Minister of Energy, I think, was fond of saying that there have been times recently when New Zealand was running on 98 percent renewable energy. It was not quite correct: our electricity system was running on 98 percent renewable energy. Of course, that’s quite a bit of the energy we consume in this country.

But we also consume a lot of fossil fuel energy, and in order for us to have a sustainable energy system, in order for us to have energy security, one of the ways to do that is to do it through renewable energy that is produced here in New Zealand. So instead of being dependent on fossil fuels, we need to do something like electrifying our transport fleet to make sure that we cut out the use of fossil fuels as much as possible. But in order to do that, we need electricity, and we need much more of it. So this type of offshore renewable energy is a fantastic project in that regard, too: it helps us with our energy security in the longer term. The more we can produce our energy here in New Zealand, and the more we can produce it from renewable sources, the better we are doing in terms of energy security, in terms of meeting our Paris goals in 2050. Those are excellent reasons for supporting this legislation.

So, having said all that, we do think this is a really good piece of legislation. And if I’m thinking about it, to me it represents the triumph of renewables over fossil fuels, the triumph of energy generated onshore rather than imported from elsewhere, the triumph of ensuring that we have our own energy security so that we are not vulnerable to whatever else is going on in the world. These are excellent reasons to support this bill, and that is, in part, why we have supported it all the way along.

A lot of work was done in the select committee, and a lot of work clearly done since the select committee stage, in order to ensure that the projects could go ahead reasonably well without being interfered with by other activities. A lot of work has been done all around this House, by both major parties and by other parties in this House, to ensure that this legislation has gotten into place and that we can go ahead and we can find ways to use the incredible wind resources that we have in this country—the incredible tide resources, the incredible offshore energy sources. I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (20:39): Establishing a legislative framework for offshore renewable energy is critical to the development of offshore wind farms off the South Taranaki coast. The bill is great news for the wonderful Whanganui electorate, which includes a large part of the Taranaki; for jobs; and for growth in our region. I won’t be long-winded about it. Let’s get this done. It’s part of fixing the basics and building the future. I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill.

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 33, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:41): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to members for the opportunity to speak briefly at the beginning of the committee of the whole House stage of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill.

This bill has been through a select committee process as part of this Government’s plan to ensure that all New Zealanders receive the timely, quality access to healthcare that they need. It makes changes to the legislation, which have been well canvassed through the select committee. I look forward to engaging with members now as we go through the committee stage.

There is one Amendment Paper that I have tabled, relating to clause 29, new section 65A, which is in relation to collective bargaining. This seeks to provide that the Minister of Health may give directions to Health New Zealand requiring it to delegate all of its collective bargaining functions to the Public Service Commissioner. This Amendment Paper replaces that power with the power for the Minister to make directions about how the Public Service Commissioner is to have oversight of or to be involved in collective bargaining conducted by Health New Zealand. It also adds a requirement for the Minister to consult the Minister for the Public Service before making a direction under new section 65A.

The intention of that Amendment Paper is simply to clarify the role the Public Service Commissioner could play and the way in which the Minister may make directions in relation to collective bargaining by Health New Zealand.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m sure we have plenty of questions for the Minister on this particular bill, also noting that I was not part of the Health Committee. While there was a select committee, this is the first chance we have to have this engagement with the Minister on this particular bill, so I’d be really grateful to hear from the Minister on some of these aspects.

I know that other members may have questions around clause 4, but I’m actually going to start with clause 5. One of the things that jumped out at me for section 3 amended, particularly in clause 5(2), is this new addition to the purpose of this Act. Now, I have no issues with this new addition, but one thing that did occur to me when I was looking at this new section 3(d), “ensure that patients get timely access to quality services”, was that it doesn’t specify that all patients should get timely access to quality services. The ambiguity here is a little bit concerning to me, so I just want to have the Minister on record say that this new additional purpose that has been added to this refers to all patients getting timely access to quality services; not some, either in certain regions or in certain parts or in certain demographics.

I do have an amendment for this particular part, just to insert the simple word “or”. I want to check if the Minister would be interested in accepting or if, potentially, what I’m referring to is already currently within the ministerial intent.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (20:44): I’d like to go back to clause 4, and also, we have something to add to clause 5. And I have proposed an amendment. I’m not sure if the Minister is aware of the whakapapa of “Pae Ora”. I’d like to propose the restoration of the mana of the reo of “Pae Ora” and replace “Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill” with “Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Amendment Bill”.

This ensures that we remind everyone that we are a nation that has tangata whenua and there is whakapapa and kaupapa to the depth of these names and what they stand for. I’m sure that the Minister would agree that we want a health system and legislation that is inclusive. The last thing we need to be doing right now is making it seem as though we’re homogenising our legislation, homogenising our health system, our health kaupapa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (20:45): I’m just supporting Debbie Ngarewa-Packer there. I have an amendment to that kōrero also, in terms of the deletion of clause 4. I want to know from the Minister: who did he talk to about changing the name, and why is the name and the reo so offensive to this coalition Government? What is the problem there?

Yesterday, I brought this up during question time, and I was clear to Minister Potaka: “Why are you using Māori names now in terms of organisations?” I called that out, and the Speaker was a bit upset. I’ve said that because this coalition Government’s made it very clear that they’re not happy with Māori names being at the front of organisations. So I’m going to give this, and then I was reprimanded by the Speaker, but he’s not—with respect—understanding where I’m coming from: that there’s been a drive to get rid of te reo Māori names, and this is a shining example of it. We want to preserve the mana of te reo Māori and the original intention of the Act.

Subordinating “Pae Ora” beneath an English title was described by submitters as a symbolic downgrade of Māori concepts within the health system. Given that’s the case, what drives the Minister and this coalition Government to want to change such a beautiful name as “Pae Ora” and instil and inject English first? I’m not understanding where this Minister’s coming from and where this coalition Government is coming from, particularly given when the Minister for Māori Development in every kōrero he said yesterday was calling organisations by their Māori name first and foremost. Can I ask the Minister why he agrees with this? Who did he consult, apart from Winston Peters? Was there anyone else?

Hon Mark Patterson: Who else does he need to consult? That’s enough!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Was it Mark Patterson? Who was the brilliant consultant on this? Why is this coalition Government so offended by te reo Māori? A very easy question.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (20:48): I also have questions for the Minister about two elements of clause 4—the change to the title of the Act. The first is to ask what Government resources have been spent on efforts to change the title of the Act and why this is a priority, relative to other uses of legislative time and Public Service resources?

In addition, this is the second time that this Government has amended the Act. In the same urgency motion, we will amend it again for a third time. Why is it that the Government is coming back to amend the title now, when they also amended the title previously? Why is this a priority to the Government?

I do share my colleagues’ concerns that there is a petty belittling of te reo Māori going on here—a deliberate shifting it two words along in the bill just to remind Māori that they’re second in line under this Government. It seems to me to be small-minded and not an appropriate use of the House’s time. Couldn’t he have just found something else to do?

The second question I have for the Minister is related to the concepts my colleagues have raised. They are much more capable of explaining te reo Māori than me, but I want to ask the Minister: what is the difference in meaning of “healthy futures” versus “pae ora”, and why has he named this bill “Healthy Futures”? To me, it seems like quite a clumsy translation. If I was starting from English, I wouldn’t name a bill “Healthy Futures”. I ask the Minister to explain why this centrepiece of health legislation, the legislation that governs the whole running of our health system—why he would give it such an awkward name in English? Let’s not forget: the direction of this Government is short term; it’s not long-term futures. In fact, all the things about the future are being taken out of the Act, and things that could help us have a healthy future, like tobacco control, this Government has dismantled. Why has the Government decided to call this “Healthy Futures” when it’s really, mostly focused on short-term management of the media cycle and not on health at all?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to, I guess, signal to you, Mr Chair—particularly in light of the recent conversation and guidance by the Speaker—that we are being encouraged to have a healthy debate. I’m just noting that the Minister of Health, even though quite a few members have now gotten up to ask questions of the Minister, both in terms of the intent with clause 4, the history and the whakapapa of “Pae Ora”—I think it’s important for the Minister to actually engage in good faith with those kinds of questions. I think, for New Zealanders, they are interested in why we’re having a switch in names. It is no different from what we’re seeing regarding our passports, and I’m still waiting on the Minister to respond to my question on clause 5.

While the Minister is processing all of those questions, I will move on to clause 6 for the time being, noting again that other people have a lot more to contribute regarding the history and to contextualise this in the broader context of our health sector. I’m looking specifically from the angle of statutory interpretation. When we’re looking at clause 6, section 4 amended, in terms of interpretations—and this has to do with clause 6(2), which is around “infrastructure” and this new aspect that we will discuss more, later. I’m interested here in terms of the definition for “infrastructure” that has been, presumably, inserted by the select committee. I want to check with the Minister if buildings, facilities, and land that are or may be controlled by Health New Zealand—whether this idea of buildings and facilities would also include fixtures. It is an important aspect when we’re looking at fixtures, within the broader context of infrastructure and facilities, because it does have a financial impact on day-to-day operations and operating expenses, as well as capital expenditure, for Health New Zealand in this case.

Again, both of my questions are more for clarification. If the Minister could indicate if that is part of the ministerial intent, that would be greatly appreciated.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:54): I thank members for their questions. In relation to clause 5, section 3 amended, adding “all” before “patients” in the purpose clause will not make any legal difference—singular equals plural in the Legislation Act, is what I’ve been advised.

In relation to the name of the legislation, our coalition agreement with New Zealand First is in relation to English first in the Public Service.

In relation to clause 6, the Government’s intention is to ensure that infrastructure is one of the key areas that we expect the Health New Zealand board to be focused on, and that is a broad definition of “infrastructure”.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (20:54): Thank you for the explanation, Minister. I guess I can only express the disappointment that our reo continuously gets traded off in coalition agreements, and hopefully we can become a nation that stops seeing that happen.

One of the things I’d like to do is bring up clause 5. Just as matter of interest, we celebrated Māui Pōmare’s anniversary last weekend, and in it, I was reminded that as a Māori politician he was the kingmaker to help one of them—to help the Reform Party, who is now the National Party—get into Government. He was really hot about trying to address disparity and poverty and inequity.

In clause 5, the purpose of this bill, I have put up a proposed amendment to amend section 3 to include “(d) to achieve equitable health outcomes for Māori and all population groups”, and “(e) to uphold and give full effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all aspects of health services: design, delivery, and governance”. The rationale is that we want to ensure that equity and Te Tiriti are core components of this bill and not optional considerations that we’ve often seen traded off recently, in the last three years, through coalition agreements. They’re critical aspects of trying to target issues, so that when a Government is so actuary-focused on future liabilities, we’re actually addressing the inequities as well.

A Government will never fully be able to achieve funding and investing in future liabilities if it doesn’t address inequities now, and that’s a constant battle that I think National-led Governments have chosen to not understand. Again, if we can address amendments that make sure an equity focus is something and Te Tiriti is not optional, we’re getting somewhere as a nation.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:57): In relation to the member’s question, section 3 of the Act includes “to achieve equity in health outcomes amongst New Zealand’s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for Māori”. We believe the intent of that is already achieving.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I’m struggling to hear the Minister replying, so he might need to bring that mic forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister might like to repeat, since you were answering the—

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I might just move the microphone down. In terms of the member’s point—I think it’s her second tabled amendment—the purpose section of the Act already addresses that point.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. The first comment I wanted to make—or question—is actually about clause 5, and it’s the issue of leaving out the word “health” in services. What’s the intention of removing the word “health” in terms of what patients get? What else is there that’s required? I wasn’t on this select committee, but I think it’s something people would want to understand.

The next thing I would like to ask about is clause 6, and that’s about the health principles and their removal, but also the removal of the charter. I’ve had a look at both of those things. The principles are pretty much common ground for New Zealanders: to be equitable, to engage with communities. I can see, if you are changing the Māori Health Authority, that you might not say “support Māori Health Authority”; you might put something else in, but that’s not what’s happening here—we’re removing them all. “Provide quality choice”, “promote wellbeing”—why would we remove those things, which are such common ground, from legislation when we’ve got so much else to do? When there are so many things going wrong, why would we do that?

Then, there’s the issue of the charter itself. I looked at the charter as well, and the charter seems to be based on some really good managerial principles, really—things like caring for the carers is on the charter, so looking after our health workforce; valuing that workforce; and collaborative services. Now, that’s something that makes a workforce productive—all of those things. There’s a lot of empirical data to say all those things make workforces much healthier and much more productive. Not only that, they’re good for the workers in them, and they’re good for the patients, I would assume. So why would we remove those things? Genuinely, why?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:00): As I’ve said in my first and second reading speeches on this bill, the health sector principles are a list of ambiguous and overlapping requirements that all statutory decision makers have to be “guided by” whenever they perform a function or exercise of power or duty under the Act. They include at least 21 different matters that must be considered, which can result in unnecessarily complex and slow decision-making and unclear priorities. And the New Zealand Health Charter, which I note the member’s read, doesn’t mention the word “patients”.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:01): Well, that doesn’t address all of the questions about the repeal of the health sector principles in clause—well, it starts under clause 7. Those principles are not designed to do what the Minister implied there, because the Minister has ample instruments to seek priorities in the health system: the Government position statement on health, the Budget, the letter of the expectations, not to mention day-to-day interaction with the agencies. But, absent those instruments , decisions have to be taken throughout the health system, and these principles are a guidance as to how those decisions should be taken. Those instruments don’t have the ability to guide the 80,000-plus people making decisions in our health system every day. I think it’s quite helpful to have these principles recorded for people who are acting under delegation from the Minister and the Crown entity.

The Minister stated a particular position that we disagree with, on Māori healthcare, but there are a lot of things in these sections that mention Māori, alongside others. It is worthwhile asking why the Minister has repealed these provisions for Māori, and also for all others. There are provisions around equity and access and levels of service provided in order to achieve equitable outcomes. Now, the Minister makes a lot of fuss about health outcomes, and I’m sure we’ll hear more about that later in the debate, but it’s interesting that he chooses not to prioritise equitable outcomes. This is all being stripped out of the bill. The principles required the Minister of the agency to engage with Māori and all other population groups.

We know that this is valuable, because, increasingly, people see their interaction through the health system through the prism of their identity, among other things. You’ll find, if you talk to groups—whether that’s Māori or rural people or the Rainbow community or migrants—they all have different experiences, but they have some commonality as well. Engaging with those groups would help health services meet the needs of those people. It’s not a small matter if you feel slighted in your interactions, if your trust in Government services is degraded because of how you’re treated, your access to service is compromised. That’s not OK.

The health system principles include the requirement for offering choice—“choice in services”. Well, that’s great, isn’t it? I would have thought that’s the sort of thing the party of the right who believes in free markets might have liked to uphold. I certainly, as a feminist, want to see women have choice in the healthcare they receive. Why is that being repealed from the Act? Along with it—and we know this is a bugbear of the Minister—out goes provisions around cultural safety. Well, I couldn’t think of anything that is more close to how you practise medicine and other clinical professions effectively. They’re making sure that you’re meeting their needs where they are, and that’s what cultural safety is all about, yet that’s coming out of the Act.

The principle of having a health workforce that can do the things we need them to do—that’s gone. Gosh, I mean that’s a pretty utilitarian thing to have in an Act, but this is another principle they want to take out. Clinical leadership: gone. I suppose that’s explained by the Minister’s recent attacks on clinical independence in the Medical Council. “Providing services that are tailored to a person’s needs”—well, what else is clinical care than looking after “that” person; not a generic widget in a factory line but “that” person. It seems like this is an effort to try and take the essence of healthcare away.

There’s more to say about this. It says, “promoting people’s health and wellbeing”, and I think this is particularly important. It is not just a matter of saying that the health system only deals with the treatment of disease. One of the areas that this is most important is mental health. Mental health has been shut out of the health system. Those services have been underrecognised and underdeveloped because we don’t recognise that wellbeing is part of healthcare. It’s really important to keep this in as a health sector principle, but that’s being taken out.

“Promotion and preventive measures to improve health”, that’s gone—so the health system should just feel free, under this Government, to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; to keep on costing more and making sure that we’re not investing early in preventing disease. I mean, that seems like a terrible way to run a health system and guarantees that it’s not fiscally sustainable in the long term.

It also says that this “removes the requirement for collaboration between agencies in order to make sure that we achieve progress on the social determinants of health”. Now, that seems terrible as well, because unless we act on things like housing or the built environment, healthcare will continue to struggle; because, actually, those factors determine 80 percent of healthcare. This seems like an unusual thing to remove from the bill, something that—

Arena Williams: It’s ideological!

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yeah, it is ideological. It’s also illiberal, which is in line with many of this Government’s changes in the health sector. This clause also repeals the Health Charter, and that charter—which the Minister will probably want to resort to a single talking point on this issue, because he can’t think on his feet—that chapter talks about how Health New Zealand should value its employees.

Health workers do an awful lot for our people. They have to work long hours, bring considerable skill, at times of pressure, into situations that can be incredibly distressing and life or death for the people concerned. One of the things that the charter does is recognise their value, seek to prioritise that their workplace should be safe and one in which they are recognised for who they are, and drive out what is a really negative culture—it has been part of my professional working life in healthcare—which is bullying, which is a real problem in hierarchical professions. This document states that it’s not OK. It is a thing that the Minister could choose to support in order to show that he wants to form a contract with healthcare workers to show that they are valued; and yet that’s out too.

To me, it seems like this bill seeks to rip out some of the essence of healthcare, seeks to reduce it to a set of factory outputs—not outcomes, outputs—to remove the very nature of caring for an individual as they are, whether that’s their individual circumstances, their complex needs, or their culture; to marginalise the workforce; and to do so in a way that justifies a relentless focus on short-termism and Budget cuts.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll just say, before I call the Minister, we’ve had some good contextual material now, which will set us up for the question and answers and collaborations that will no doubt follow as part of this debate, and I’d like to facilitate some questions and answers where they’re possible.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of points in response to that speech in relation to the health sector principles and charter. Firstly, I think the member the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall kind of answered her question at the beginning of her contribution when she said there are a number of opportunities for Government to set direction, whether that’s through the Government policy statement or whether that’s through the letter of expectations, and there’s a number of opportunities for the Government to do that.

Also, section 3 of the Act is very clear in that the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders, and to achieve equity and health outcomes among New Zealand’s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for Māori. The reality of the legislation is that it already sets a framework in place by removing what is incredibly—as the departmental comment said, it imposes “very broad and ambiguous requirements on decision-makers in the health sector. Many of these requirements conflict with others and could be read as providing justification for a very broad range of activities. Alongside this, the obligation in section 7(2) to be ‘guided’ by the principles, ‘as far as reasonably practical’ and ‘to the extent applicable’, is very general. When taken together with the very large number of requirements set out in the principles, the effect of the framework is highly uncertain, and is likely to result in a lack of focus to the health sector, and not the outcomes that many submitters say the health sector principles deliver.”

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister, because it does segue nicely into my question, which is precisely on replacement section 3, amended by clause 5. Then the Minister kind of pulled in sections 3(a) and (b); and I do want to discuss section 3(b), which is “achieve equity in health outcomes among New Zealand’s population groups”. I want to check with the Minister, following on from the context provided by the very knowledgeable Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall on this topic—I think it gave me a lot of thoughts around checking with the Minister what he would consider that equitable outcome could potentially look like now, through a truncation of some of the other areas into focusing on that purpose clause.

The example I want to check with the Minister is: it is my understanding that, only a few years ago, they realised the impact of skin tones and melanin on medical imaging in diagnosis, which has led to misdiagnosis and also a delayed diagnosis for anyone with pigmentation—whether you’re Māori, Pasifika, or any sort of Asian or African population or migrants of colour populations. How, then, would the Minister address that to provide equity for those people? Are we going to be looking at additional resources in terms of training? Are we going to be looking at additional, I guess, equipment that will be used to be able to upgrade? I’ve noticed that there have been some latest developments from Johns Hopkins University on this particular area, so I want to check with the Minister: what does that equitable outcome tangibly look like? I’m thinking of another example that we have heard, that my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has mentioned previously, around life expectancy for Māori. How are we going to address that to ensure it is equitable?

Which then brings me to my second question. I want to go on to clause 8, and this is an amendment by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon. Te Tiriti o Waitangi sets that baseline to ensure that it’s equitable for all in Aotearoa, but one of the things I see that is concerning to me now is in replacement section 6, amended by clause 8. I’ll give you an example. Clause 8(3) requires the board of Health New Zealand to take into account any advice it receives from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, not to give effect. They could be advised by the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee but completely chuck it out and not have to do anything with it.

This amendment by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon is to add an additional clause, clause 6. This is Amendment Paper 638, for your reference, Mr Chair. It shifts the language from minimal recognition to explicit active protection for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. By extension, all of the things we mentioned before that will have that equitable outcome. I would assume that, if the Minister is interested in equitable outcomes, the Minister would consider this particular amendment by my colleague.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:15): Just speaking to the member’s question regarding replacement section 6, amended by clause 8—that is, a new section after section 6(d) is being inserted requiring the board of Health New Zealand to take into account any advice it receives from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. It relates to the policy decision to enable the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to advise the board. Under the original legislation, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee did not have that role. It now has that role.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just following up on some of the kōrero tonight. I also just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t happy with the Minister’s response in terms of the name. I don’t think it was clear at all in terms of any respect shown to te reo Māori, with regard to clause 4.

I’m coming to clause 5 here. Just following up on my colleague’s kōrero with regard to equitable health outcomes for Māori, I want to ask the Minister: the obligations to Māori, clearly, in terms of how Māori see it, have been removed—why have those obligations been removed? That’s just a clear question for the Minister. If the Minister could explain why there is no reference or effect in terms of we’re giving effect to the principles of the Treaty. Māori in particular have looked at the areas of the three Ps, in terms of “protectionism”, “partnership”, and “participation”. Where can the Minister point that out in terms of this clause?

I’ve got an amendment up, in terms of that, which is clear about Māori having equitable health outcomes. Are we able to give effect to the principles of the Treaty? Has that ever crossed the Minister’s mind? It has been something that Māori have been adamant about, in terms of the health system, that has not delivered for Māori. Māori are dying seven years earlier than their European brothers and sisters. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to put a process in place, or are we going to continue down the track that we’ve been going?

The problem we have here with clause 2, and with the whole bill, is that the obligations to the partnership have been removed. I ask the Minister, what was the process in terms of removing those Treaty obligations with regard to this bill?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve also got some very specific questions around clause 8(4), which in the Act requires for iwi-Māori partnership boards to have a meaningful role in the planning and design of local services, whereas the amended text is for iwi-Māori partnership boards to engage with local Māori communities. I wonder what it is that led to this change, Minister, and why the word “meaningful” was removed. Is that because the Minister is seeking for iwi-Māori partnership boards to have a superficial, unimportant, perfunctory, token, minor, or irrelevant role in planning services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:19): The bill clarifies the role and functions of iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPBs). They are to engage with and represent local perspectives of Māori communities and health outcomes based on their needs and aspirations and communicate the results and insights from that engagement to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will use that advice to inform its advice to Health New Zealand and the Minister. Health New Zealand must continue to support IMPBs, including by providing information and financial support. It’s really important to note that one of the things the changes to the Act in section 6 are doing is giving a direct role for the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to provide advice to the board of Health New Zealand, something that was not in the Act previously.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (21:20): Thank you. I’ve got a couple of questions on top of the amendments. One of the things, Minister, that’s really hard to grasp in these legislative changes is that what we had was a manifestation of years and years of Māori health experts, and they were genuinely apolitical Māori health experts, and that’s not what we’re seeing around a lot of what the Minister of Health is promoting at the moment. There have been numerous Wai claims—2575—that actually highlighted the extent of racism and discrimination that existed within the current health system. In less than eight years after that Wai claim, and the acceptance of the recommendations, we are now finding ourselves in a really defensive position of trying to understand why the Minister has done things such as—and if you’ll bear with me please, Chair—done things like in clause 9 removed a section, which included the principles of equity—section 7—cultural safety, and responsiveness to Māori.

It makes no sense, and if I can carry on to the equity principles after section 13 where there has been removal of a provision that gives back the fairness and balance to the health sector principles. Clause 14—I am failing to understand why the Minister would look at changing things such as clause 14, which had a provision that prepared a health plan to consult with the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and the iwi-Māori partnership boards who report back to their communities, so that connection of having that whole holistic success model has been removed. Clause 15—the removal of the kaupapa Māori investment engagement—and again, making sure that the iwi-Māori partnership boards were successful on kaupapa Māori investment priorities and being able to be culturally appropriate. Clause 16—in the same theme, it’s a theme that runs through every change, so it’s really hard not to see that what existed hasn’t been whitewashed. I can see why health academics are setting up and standing at big kaupapa, like Māui Pōmare, and saying, I’m a Māori health expert, I’m a Māori doctor; I’m too scared to say the word “e” and the word “m”—the “e” meaning equity and “m” meaning Māori.

What’s happened to us where we’re having now to come to this process to sit there and say, again, clause 16—assistance for Te Tiriti understanding. Now, we have had all cultural Māori safety removed. That then creates the ignorance and the non-compliance, and the issue we had in 1919 when Māori suffered more from the Spanish influenza than any other culture, any other people in Aotearoa, because of their social determinants, because they lived poorly, lived in overcrowded houses and poor housing, and collectively. I’m struggling to believe that we’re normalising this. Again, trying to understand the Minister’s view on why we have got section 29, and it’s in my amendments where I’m asking to restore where we have the significance of the inclusion of local Māori leadership in health governance. If you look at it from clause 8 all the way to clause 19—I’ve got more—there is a systemic removal of every reference to kaupapa or to actual things that had been designed legislatively to protect the most vulnerable, to address what the Wai claim in 2016 came up with, to address the urgency. And now what we’re seeing is a pile-up of Waitangi Tribunal claims and urgency claims against this very Minister. It makes no sense in 2026 why we’re refusing to accept systems that were designed by experts, not politicians, and now, while we’ve politicised those very things that have a huge detrimental impact on my people.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:25): I thank the member for her questions in relation to many of those questions. I’ve already discussed the reasons why we are removing the health sector principles in the fact that they are a list of ambiguous and overlapping requirements that all statutory decision-makers have to be guided by where they perform a function or exercise a power of duty under the Act. They include at least 21 different matters that must be considered, which can result in unnecessarily complex and slow decision-making and unclear priorities. Health sector principles in charter are being repealed in favour of a system based on clear and focused targets. The Government’s policy is that this is the best approach for improving health system delivery that is focused on patients, and as I note in section 3 of the Act, the purpose of the Act is to achieve equity in health outcomes amongst New Zealand’s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: There’s just one question—through the Chair. There’s not a reply to what—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll give you a subsequent follow-up question.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (21:26): There’s one question I had throughout the whole thing. There were Māori health experts who advised on everything that happened. At no stage has the Minister of Health advised who are the Māori experts that you have that can counter the depth of the expertise of Mason Durie, the depth of the expertise of Paparangi Reid, of Elana Curtis, the depth of their expertise that actually navigated this country through some pretty heavy kaupapa, including during COVID. At no stage has the Minister disclosed the depth of those experts that he has to counter these Wai claims.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:27): As I said, one of the changes that’s being made is to ensure that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee has an expanded role, which is not only to advise me but also to advise the board of Health New Zealand.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (21:27): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Health a few questions about clause 13. Now, clause 13—this new clause—replaces the former section 13, and I want just to read from the new clause just to make sure that I am talking about this particular clause and not my own interpretation. This is about the objectives of Health New Zealand and the replacement clause 13(a) states that it is “to design, arrange, and deliver appropriate, effective, and timely services to achieve the purpose of this Act”; and subsection (2) says “In section 13(c), after ‘individuals’, insert, ‘(including, to avoid doubt, private healthcare providers)’.”

My question is about that particular insertion of “private healthcare providers”, because I believe this is a clear example of privatisation creep into Aotearoa New Zealand’s public health system, because it inserts into Health New Zealand’s statutory objectives an explicit reference to working with private healthcare providers, even though our current existing public health system already allows for contracting where it is needed. There is an ideological move that is being done by this particular new legislation because it normalises private delivery inside and within the purpose of the public health system itself.

My question is: why is the Minister writing privatisation language into objectives of the Health New Zealand legislation at all, when evidence from overseas shows that heavily privatised systems, especially in the United States, costs more, excludes more people, and produces worse equity outcomes than universal public health systems? This matters, Minister, because universal public health systems are designed with access to health services according to need, while heavily privatised systems ration access across to insurance status and people’s ability to pay. For our tangata whenua Māori, for Pacific, for our ethnic communities, for disabled people, for low-income people, as well as rural communities, this difference is not abstract. It shapes whether or not people receive preventive care early or present later to hospitals sicker, and with more costly needs.

Another question for the Minister: what evidence does the Minister have that this bill’s specific objectives for Health New Zealand to collaborate with private healthcare providers will not divert public funding away from public provision, particularly in areas of unmet need? Another question: can the Minister guarantee that this clause will not be used to justify contracting out public health services to private providers without the same accountability and equity obligations that apply to Health New Zealand itself? And why was the Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand’s specific concern about privatisation by stealth not addressed in the Health Committee’s report?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:30): The bill amends the objectives and functions of Health New Zealand so it is clear it is expected to collaborate with private sector health providers. Health New Zealand is already allowed to work with private healthcare providers; however, making this requirement explicit reflects the importance the Government places on using all approaches available to ensure that patients receive timely, quality healthcare. One example has been the Elective Boost, which is seeing a significant reduction in the wait-lists and wait times for people needing elective surgeries by making sure that we’re maximising service delivery to get on top of the big wait-lists left behind by the previous Government.

This is a change that is supporting that delivery, which patients expect. Ultimately, those services, as they’re outsourced, continue to be paid for. Those patients receive those through the public health system but they are contracted out to private providers.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think there are quite a few outstanding questions, and particularly from myself and the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. I want to check, because I think one of the things that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall mentioned that is really pertinent in here is whether we’re looking at equitable outcomes or output. The outcome versus output conundrum is a really important one here, because one has, to put it in the terms of this bill, a clear future aspect to it in terms of the population, whereas output can simply be indicated through KPIs and measures, and it could be quantitative as opposed to qualitative. So I think outcome versus output is a really important clarification, if the Minister wouldn’t mind addressing that.

I had another question regarding what that equitable outcome looks like for Māori communities, for Pasifika, and for migrants of colour as well. I mentioned an example of where current systems or current equipment may not be done in a way that allows for that equitable outcome. So what is the Minister intending on doing with this updated bill?

I do want to move on to clause 11, noting that others may still have questions for earlier sections. When we’re looking at political neutrality, clause 11 appears, on the surface, to be a reasonable ask. But I do want to check a few aspects of this, because what we have seen as well is while we have the Public Service trying to—as well as the judiciary, in many cases—maintain a degree of political neutrality, the chilling effect is that they are also being silenced because there is not the same level of accountability from potential political attacks. So when they are needed to maintain political neutrality, in this case, would, then, from the Minister’s perspective, there also be an aspect of politicians, and particularly the executive, not launching attacks on their own ministry? The other thing is: is there any sort of guarantee, when we’re looking at this, that while the Public Service maintains political neutrality, they would also be able to offer free and frank advice to the Minister, and the Minister would take that on board based on the expertise of Health New Zealand.

What we have also seen in other areas, like, let’s say, the Ministry of Education, for example, is we have seen the Ministry of Education offering that free and frank advice. It hasn’t been, for example, taken out by the Minister, which then has resulted in urgent hearings with the Waitangi Tribunal. These are some of the things I would like to tease out in terms of what the Minister’s expectations are for both Health New Zealand but also for Ministers when it comes to political neutrality.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:34): In relation to new section 11A relating to political neutrality, the bill clarifies that Health New Zealand, including the board, its employees, and individuals working as contractors or as secondees, must uphold the Public Service principles of political neutrality in the Public Service Act 2020, and follow the Public Service Code of Conduct. These obligations have applied to Health New Zealand and those working in it since the Crown entity was created.

It is important to be clear that for Health New Zealand, staff are, first and foremost, public servants who serve the Government of the day. They serve the Government of the day and hold themselves to the highest standard and work to meet the Government’s priorities. The code of good faith in the public health sector, at Schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act, and the collective agreement of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists enable employees to engage in public debate on matters within their expertise and experience, if they do so in a personal capacity or on behalf of the union. The bill does not change that in any way.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:36): I have further specific questions on new section 11A. There were multiple submissions at select committee on the impact of 11A, and concern about the chilling effect of the legislation on professionals advocating on behalf of their patients. I challenge the Minister’s use of the word “clarify”. It was not like prior to this, New Zealanders in the health system were wandering around, wondering, “I wonder if the Public Service neutrality provisions apply to me.” They were not. The fact is, it was of no one’s concern whatsoever except, potentially, this Government’s.

What has happened is that provision of Public Service neutrality—which is a very important and appropriate provision for the core Public Service; it’s certainly important for people who directly advise the Minister not to show that they favour one side or another of politics, because they have to serve both. But we are talking about not only the 80,000 employees that Health New Zealand has, but the probably approximately 200,000 people who contract to Health New Zealand. We are very, very far from our proximity to the Minister, and even the ministry, by this point.

I do want to ask the Minister: on what basis does Public Service neutrality apply to the entire workforce of Health New Zealand and its contractors? Certainly, there have been concerns raised about the ability of clinicians to advocate on behalf of their patients. That often brings you into the realm some might consider politics—you know, speaking out about understaffing, speaking out about poor pandemic preparedness, about systems that aren’t serving people, about the lack of standards in some areas; all of those. It’s important that clinicians can be a voice for their patients in those situations.

I know that’s uncomfortable. As a former Minister, I know it is uncomfortable having an assertive and highly expert sector who takes their role in advocacy seriously. But that’s a liberal democracy. Part of being in a liberal democracy is disseminated power. It is expertise. It is multiple sources of expertise that aren’t all controlled by the Government. So what is it? Why is it that this Government has sought to silence healthcare workers, to say that they’re part of the bureaucracy when they might be pushing a mop in a hospital corridor or nursing the night shift? They’re not public servants—they’re doing a public service, but why do they need to be covered by obligations of political neutrality, provided they’re not taking signs to work or something? This is a gross example of overreach, intolerance of other sources of power, and intolerance of differences of opinion.

It’s not dissimilar from the very good points that my colleague Jenny Salesa made about privatisation in replacement section 13, inserted by clause 13—another highly ideologically motivated amendment to an Act that is just about the running of our health system. We own barely a laboratory in this country, in our public health system; we don’t own any aged care or pharmacy or general practice. Possibly a third, if not half, of all healthcare expenditure goes on contracting out. What on earth is the problem that we are fixing by telling Health New Zealand to fund private services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. If the members were to read new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, it’s very clear as to who it applies to. It applies to “Health New Zealand as a Crown agent and to groups and individuals in Health New Zealand, including its employees, board members, the chief executive, and individuals working as contractors or secondees”. It’s very clear in terms of the legislation. In relation to the points made by the member, I encourage her to read the section.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:41): Mr Chair, thank you. I’ve got very different questions on, first of all section 10, amended by clause 10, about the overview of the Minister’s role. That’s being repealed, and I just wanted to know why, basically. Why would you repeal the rigour in section 10, which says, at paragraph (d), that it endorses the Health Charter? I have asked you about that charter previously. Why would you not want the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Refer to the Chair please, not directly to the Minister.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Speak via the Chair.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, Mr Chair. I’ve asked the Minister before about the Health Charter and why it would be removed. But why would the Minister not look at some sort of addition to that charter and remain responsible for leadership in that way? The question is really about what leadership the Minister envisages having in this area that the charter actually covered. The charter covered the kinds of managerial tools that have worked in healthy workplaces all around the world. It was integrally linked, and I totally reject what the Minister said about how that charter and those principles did not actually talk about patients, because they were all about making sure that the workforce was attuned to the patients. What is the Minister’s leadership in this area if this gets removed?

Then I’d like to ask a question about new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, and what I want to know there is not about the beginning of the section but the bits that are actually crossed out. You can see that there’s been a movement out of paragraph (b)(i) and (ii). Both of those things, when I read them, look like they’re obligations of Health New Zealand. Those were obligations they had to uphold political neutrality itself. Why would the Minister actually want to remove the obligation of the organisation itself to do that? Why would he also get rid of the second one, which was standards of integrity?

That really concerns me, because it seems as if, while the Minister’s trying to tie down every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Harriet who is working in health and not allow them any leeway to have a personal opinion or a political opinion, or do anything beyond what their job is—it ties them up—there doesn’t seem to be any correlation here in terms of the Health New Zealand obligation to those very principles that are being espoused. I’d really like an answer to that. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:44): In relation to the question around clause 10, that’s a consequential amendment in relation to the New Zealand Health Charter. Of course, the New Zealand Health Charter doesn’t mention the word “patients”; it only mentions the word “unions” 11 times, which is unsurprising for the former Government.

In relation to the question in relation to clause 11, the Health Committee has made some recommendations in relation to changes to that clause, and I encourage the member to read the select committee report.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for responding to, I guess, one of my questions, but still not some of the questions. I do want to check, because I think, on one of the questions from the Hon Jenny Salesa, we’re still waiting for a response regarding clause 13.

A follow-up question regarding clause 13—because I think this idea of private health providers is actually an important question to ask. We also see frequently that if we’re seeing contractors who happen to be from the private sector, it’s sometimes much harder as parliamentarians to also scrutinise some of the expenditures during the select committee process or during scrutiny or annual review weeks. One of the things I want to check is whether the Minister has an expectation that if there is a private healthcare provider, any sort of funding that goes towards that will be transparent as well, so, that way, the New Zealand public is able to know where there tax dollars are going to, even in the private sector. Often, that is obfuscated in the whole “Well, that is commercially sensitive.” kind of smokescreen. Even as parliamentarians, it’s hard for us to get any information out of officials around that. I do want to check with the Minister if that is also the Minister’s understanding regarding public funding that is being used privately.

I want to move a little bit further around clause 18. Clause 18 is quite a substantial section, and this in particular is relating to the fact that we have this new infrastructure committee that is a part of this. Now, I want to start by saying that—sorry, before I move on to 18, there is something I want to check with the Minister on replacement section 12, inserted by clause 12. This is the board of Health New Zealand. This is a substantial change from the existing clause. Currently it’s “only if the Minister is satisfied”, but now the wording has changed when we’re looking at boards. We’ll come on to the infrastructure committee later.

When we’re looking at the board of Health New Zealand, a lot of the older criteria has been removed, and I wondered, why has the Minister has removed some of the criteria around, for example, understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and cultural competence? I think more concerningly, it says, “The Minister must appoint only people who, in the Minister’s opinion.” That’s incredibly subjective. Could we get some guidance from the Minister on what that Minister’s opinion entails? It says, “appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience”, but what about the examples mentioned before? We have no way of knowing if those people with their experience would actually achieve the purpose of this Act—specifically on equitable outcomes—when equity is not a specific aspect that’s mentioned here in clause 12.

I want to check with the Minister, what is the point of a subjective opinion when it comes to appointment? Why has cultural competency been removed when it comes to clause 12, which I believe we haven’t touched on yet? Finally, if the Minister expects Health New Zealand to be independent, how would a ministerial and not an independent appointment contribute to that political neutrality? Mr Chair, just a note that I will have follow-up questions around clause 18.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:49): Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the member’s questions around the inclusion of the clause around working with private healthcare providers, this is something which has been traversed earlier in the debate, and the issue is that there is a range—and I think the Opposition’s spokesperson for health mentioned—of existing arrangements between Health New Zealand and our private providers, whether that’s private hospitals or whether that’s GPs or aged-care providers who provide capacity. A lot of this is, though, provided in a very short-term approach, and there’s an opportunity to have much longer-term arrangements which actually ensure that patients ultimately get seen faster and get the treatment that they need in a timely manner.

In relation to the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding the ministerial appointments for the board, this aligns this Act with many other pieces of legislation, such as the Crown Entities Act, the water services authority Act, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to see the Prime Minister here. He might want to take a call to have a bit of a kōrero about why the Minister thinks that he is the only person who should be able to appoint someone with the necessary skills. I’ve put an amendment up, though, with regards to what the Minister was talking about, and what I’ve got there is clause 12, amendment 10—after “skills” maybe put in “expertise in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori”, and insert a provision into the amendment that obligates the Minister to include expertise in the Treaty of Waitangi in the criteria for board appointments. I’m not sure what would be so wrong about that type of amendment. I’m talking about amendment 10, clause 12.

I’m wanting to come to the areas, again, in terms of equitable outcomes for Māori, which I know the Prime Minister’s very interested in because he always talked about targets and targets are good. There’s no argument on this side. We need targets, obviously, in terms of shorter waiting times and in terms of better immunisation rates. The question is: why can’t we have targets in terms of Māori? That’s one of the questions that many of our experts are asking. Dr Lance O’Sullivan, yesterday, was saying that he thinks that the system is “dangerous” for Māori right now—“dangerous”. That was just put out there yesterday. Why is it so hard that the Minister would not consider targets for Māori? Why has that all been wiped from the legislation and we’re not prioritising that side of things, particularly given the life span of Māori, that the vulnerability of Māori, and what’s happening in the cancer side?

That’s why I put an amendment up for the Minister to consider, which comes in at clause 13: “and it’s a duty to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori in performing its functions. Health New Zealand must take all reasonable steps to achieve equitable health outcomes for Māori. Health New Zealand must, when designing, arranging, and delivering services, address the determinants of health that contribute to equitable outcomes for Māori.” I ask the Minister to consider that because, surely, there must be some obligation from this Government in terms of targeting Māori, given the terrible health outcomes that we have at the moment, and, surely, that would fulfil some of the obligations that this Government wants to achieve in terms of Māori.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:53): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:53): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to turn to my amendments, but before I do, I’ll ask a brief question on infrastructure, which is: why is there the requirement for political neutrality at Health New Zealand, yet there is a clear direction from the Government to appoint political appointees to both the capital committee and to the board of Health New Zealand? If the Minister could explain that direction from the Government, that would be helpful.

As my colleague Mr Jackson said, we’re not opposed to targets, but we do want them to be representative of a well-functioning health system. Speaking to my amendments at clause 23, I have a number of measurements, which, were they to be adopted by the committee, would lead to improvements in our health system. One of the things that I am very concerned by is that the current targets that are in the bill are not representative. They don’t capture all the things that matter to New Zealanders about their healthcare. In particular, cancer survival rates, which are something we all know this country needs to do better on, are not included in the targets. They’ll measure how fast you have your first treatment, which is important, but not whether you live or die. I think that is a real oversight because, until we have visibility on that, we will continue to have poorly joined up services, and we’ll continue to under invest in in medicines, because we don’t track that. I know the Minister is fond of his phrase—he loves phrases—“You can’t improve what you don’t measure.” Cancer survival seems to be one of the most important things there.

Another really important issue which frankly doesn’t get the advocacy that it deserves is reduced cardiovascular mortality rates. Now, in New Zealand, working-age people in their 50s and 60s die or get serious disability due to heart attack and stroke. There was a report, last year, showing how much we underinvest in those specialist services for cardiovascular disease. There are simple things—I mean, I’m not talking about fancy stuff—science from the 1950s and 1960s, about how to prevent cardiovascular disease. Yet, for a large part of our population—particularly working-age Māori and Pacific people—we haven’t done that. If we measured reduced cardiovascular mortality rates, we would do a lot of simple things to make our health system run better and keep our people healthy, so, colleagues, I’d love it if you voted for my amendment to include reduced cardiovascular mortality rates. If we measured that, we’d realise that we need to prioritise smokefree, that we need to do something about alcohol and junk food, and that we need to make sure that access to general practice and medicines in your community for free is a priority that we really should take. Until we do that, this issue lies buried.

I also want to speak to a really heart-rending issue, which is the rate of perinatal and maternal mortality. Now, can’t we all agree that that is a target that we should measure? That is incredibly important.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Where’s that in the bill?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Did I hear someone, over the other side, who might be my colleague on the Health Committee say they have measured that? No, what the Government has done is they have stopped the Health Quality and Safety Commission from writing the annual perinatal and maternal mortality reports, so we don’t know where we are at, and we don’t know what to do about terrible situations where mothers don’t get sufficient care and where babies are born early or with disability, because we’re not monitoring the system.

I’d also like to point out another really important part of our health system, which is really important to older New Zealanders. It’s an invisible service if you’re young, but it is so important. It’s in-home care. In-home care services are what helps an older person maintain their independence, and there is a real problem with that care not being delivered. If a service that you depend on to stay healthy doesn’t come, then you can’t be independent. That happens far too often, and Age Concern and Grey Power raise this regularly, and these services get raised regularly, and yet there’s no accountability for the fact that they’re often not delivered. They are so important. They’re not just important to the person who receives them, but, often, the family member who is otherwise a support can’t stay in work, because people can’t get dependable services for their older relatives. This seems to me to be a critical service, and I’m sure there’d be a lot of people out in the community who would love to see this Parliament adopt a health target for the delivery of timely in-home care services.

Finally, I know almost all members of the committee want to see youth vaping reduced. Well, we could do something about that. We could have a target, and I know that my colleague Carlos Cheung cares about this a great deal—almost as much as he cares about catching the Prime Minister’s attention. But we could measure youth vaping rates, and that would be—

Hon Members: Snarky!

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: You’ve got to pay attention, guys.

If we did that and had a systematic target, then we would do things like, for example, we would fund youth vaping quit services. Did you know that, Prime Minister? We don’t have a single youth vaping quit service in New Zealand. If your kid is stuck on the vapes, there isn’t a service to help them get better. Maybe that investment would become more prominent if we had a health target. We could also have a target—and this is another amendment I’ve proposed—to improve access to mental health and addiction services for youth and rangatahi.

It is not that there is a problem with targets—they do drive accountability—but they should be representative of the breadth of services New Zealanders need and expect out of their health system. The health system is not just a factory production line which people are shunted along and given access to a one-size-fits-all service. It is far more complex than that. We need the ability to represent the breadth of services that New Zealanders need in these targets, and if they’re to be included in legislation, then we should be prepared to have a bipartisan approach to determining what those services are.

It does worry me that the Minister is deciding to include targets which are his Government’s priorities in this bill. Those are the sorts of things that could be determined through the GPS, the Government position statement, on health. But by choosing to entrench these ones, he’s entrenching a particular, small, narrow, conservative view of the health system. On this side of the House, we are proponents of accountability and a high-performing health system because we care deeply about people, but we do not endorse the view that the Minister’s five targets are all there is to healthcare.

I would like to see colleagues vote for those proposals, because otherwise we’d see that very important things—like perinatal mortality, youth vaping, services for older people, cardiovascular disease, and cancer—continue to be neglected in our health system.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:02): I thank the member for her questions, and it’s amazing to see the Labour Party finally agree that health targets are important after the first thing the last Labour Government did was to remove health targets and immediately see performance of the health system decline substantially. It’s been interesting hearing the debate tonight and hearing the members of the Opposition talk about the need for equity. I look at the results of what they achieved when they were in Government, and one of the most appalling results was that two-year-old childhood immunisation rates for Māori went down appallingly. For all the talk from members opposite, their actions speak much louder than their words. That is why this Government is embedding in the Act key health targets around cancer management care, the immunisation of children, the admission to and discharge and transfer of patients from emergency departments, specialist assessments, elective treatment, and access to primary care—fixing the basics, building a healthier future for New Zealanders.

I would also note, in terms of the member’s amendments, there is no preclusion from additional health targets being put in place if that is what is requested by any Minister.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (22:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s really great to see that the Minister has continuously memorised the immunisation stats. What we’re not seeing is improvement in the emergency department waiting times. What we’re not seeing is improvement in the health workers’ care and support. What we’re not seeing is improvement in rural health services. What we’re not seeing is support for improvement in elderly care. What we’re not seeing is the lowering of cancer screening. What we’re not seeing is support for type 2 diabetes. I think it’s really important that we just be real about what we’re dealing with here as a nation.

I’m glad to hear the Minister talk about accountabilities. Some of the amendments and questions that we have are, again, captured in clause 26, amending section 52 of the Act, specifically making sure that we put accountability back into the system. We absolutely support that some of the data and equity aspects have been lost and never captured for targets, but we also need to make sure that we have a system where we come back in a year after putting this legislation in place and measure performance.

We keep hearing, as Māori, who have had years of experts smarter than any of us here in this House who told us this is what we needed to do to address inequities—but we’re not hearing how we’re going to be accountable and how we’re going to measure that. In a year’s time, one of the amendments that we’ve put in is to make sure that we come back and we have a performance measurement of how this bill has improved lives. Otherwise, it’s just a talk fest of watching this one to this one and this one to this one, when real people are hurting and being affected.

One of the things, Minister, that I would like to draw to your attention is, again, in clauses 26 to 27. We’ve asked to remove clause 26 and retain 27 on the aspect that we keep that independent auditing and keep that transparency specifically for Māori health equity. If this is going to be such a reformative or transformative piece of legislation, I’m sure the Minister would also support that we have an annual review, a triennial review, and we consistently see if this is doing what it set out to achieve.

Clause 28—we’ve asked to retain sections 56 to 58, because the charter embedded values which represented the progress of us as a nation. It represented the fact that we know what our history is, we know where inequities come from, and we’re dealing with it, just the same way we’re dealing with our future liabilities. Again—I can’t harp on about this enough—we will never get the balance and progress in this country if we keep forgetting about the inequities.

Some of these, the rationale behind them is wanting us to continuously see cultural safety across the health workers. That’s a really important aspect that most of the health workforce, to be honest—it’s a really important, specific aspect that has come out of multiple audits that we’ve received at select committee.

Again, in clause 31, I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we amend section 89 so that we continue to make progress. Again, you’re asking all of New Zealand to take a leap of faith in this new committee or advisory board that you’re saying knows more than 50 years of experts—credible people, such as Tā Mason Durie—and telling us that this is going to work for the nation. If that is, and if you’re backing your horse, you’re backing your bill, then the amendments that are insisting that we have transparency of performance and data and auditing measures done independently is something this Minister should not only support but should encourage, and be able to provide to us in a year’s time how well this bill is going to do for us.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:08): Thank you. I do want to speak to the Minister’s amendment of clause 29. The amendment requires that when Health New Zealand, New Zealand’s largest employer, bargains for a collective agreement, it must consult with the Public Service Commissioner. I have a number of questions about this. At the highest level, I wonder what benefit this change gives to the Crown entity in carrying out its functions. The Crown entity was given these functions so it could focus on them—it’s not all being run out of the ministry—yet the involvement of the Public Service Commission seems a substantial compromise on the Crown entity arrangement. I’d like to understand if the Minister has a justification for this.

Health New Zealand—70 percent of its bills are staffing, and so control over staffing costs and how staffing is managed is one of the biggest things that should be within the Crown entity’s purview, and yet the Public Service Commissioner is being brought into that. I wonder what the benefit of that would be. The health workforce is different. It is a highly professionalised workforce that doesn’t have high rates of employment in other sectors and that has a lot of aspects which are unique to it to itself. The Public Service Commission is a small agency that cannot be involved in every bargaining that a big agency like Health New Zealand does. How is the Public Service Commission, in that situation, able to provide timely input into what are big and complex issues, without holding up settlements? We saw several settlements held up by work between the Public Service Commission and Health New Zealand in the last year.

Finally, I’d like to understand how the Minister’s amendment allows Health New Zealand to engage in good faith with unions, because it seems like the Public Service Commission is to have some involvement or direction of the bargaining, but it is not actually at the table, and—[Interruption]. Oh, Mr Chair, it does seem like order in the House is struggling somewhat.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, if people could keep the chat down on this side, that would be useful for the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well—and so, it seems to me that the Minister has not made a case for the importance of this change. It is a significant change. It’s unusual compared to other Crown entities. Can he provide a justification for this decision?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:11): I thank the members for their questions. There were some questions in relation to the New Zealand Health Plan and reporting of progress. I would note that the Act requires the health plan to set up how New Zealand will achieve the Act’s purpose, which includes equity. The Act already requires the health plan to set out how Health New Zealand will deliver services. This could include workforce safety, cultural safety, etc.

In relation to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s Amendment Paper 12 and the proposal to delete clause 12, the changes that are being recommended here are not unlike what you see in other major Crown entity planning documents in relation to those clauses.

In relation to the issue of the collective bargaining, the tabled amendment to the bill provides greater certainty about how powers will work. Rather than delegating collective bargaining to the Public Service Commissioner, a direction may require Health New Zealand to consult with the commissioner on changes or approval in relation to elements of the bargaining process and allow the commission to participate in the bargaining process. These powers will enable greater coordination and consistency across significant areas of public sector employment, and the Public Service Commissioner has a very important role in supporting agencies with education—in this case, health—to support them as they go through those processes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There’s probably still some more questions here. I’ll go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just indicated previously that I do have questions around the infrastructure committee in clause 18, and I note that my colleagues who are a lot more attuned to, I guess, the broader complexities of the health sector have additional contributions around targets and health plans, etc.

I want to check with the Minister—just a couple of questions on the infrastructure committee. Noting that there was an existing infrastructure committee, and that was one of the announcements the Minister made last year, and I see some appointments on there already: without an empowering provision, how has the existing committee been established? If there is already an existing infrastructure committee, why, again, do we need to bring this back to the House to give power to the establishment of an infrastructure committee, or is that more of an ad hoc one? That is my first question.

Unlike some of the other things we’re looking at in terms of the infrastructure committee, there is actually not a lot of information, other than providing—so, if you’re looking at a new section 20, the establishment of the infrastructure committee: new section 21 is the delegation to the infrastructure committee, it says, to “some of all its function [in relation] to providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services.”. I know that we mentioned previously in terms of the definition for infrastructure, but even that is very light when it comes to the actual scope of an infrastructure committee.

I wanted to check if the Minister wouldn’t mind giving some additional context as to what are they intending to do; how are they expected to work? Who are they expected to work with? So, for example, if you’re looking at physical infrastructure, are we expecting there to be some sort of collaboration with, previously, I guess, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, but now the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT)? Are they working with MCERT on anything? Are they working with local government? Are they working within the existing boundaries of their localities within Health New Zealand?

So, yeah—some context around the infrastructure committee would be very much helpful in this case. Again, I feel like compared to what we see in other areas where a new committee or a new structure has been implemented, there’s usually either a lot more detail within the legislation itself, or at least within the schedule, when it comes to transition measures. We’re not seeing a lot here. Any additional advice would be appreciated.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:16): Clause 20 of the bill says that the Board of Health New Zealand must establish an infrastructure committee. That is distinct from the ministerial advisory group that has been set up to advise on infrastructure. This effectively becomes a committee of the board. The purpose of the committee is to perform some or all of Health New Zealand’s functions of providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services in accordance with the delegation under section 21. Section 21 then outlines that the board of Health New Zealand must delegate to the infrastructure committee some or all of its functions in respect of providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services.

The intent behind these clauses is to ensure that Health New Zealand has robust governance processes in place when it comes to the planning and delivery of infrastructure. It is a major infrastructure provider; there’s currently around $7.5 billion of infrastructure in the pipeline, either being delivered or planned. That’s the funded infrastructure pipeline. It’s a significant pipeline, and we want to see strong governance put in place. By establishing an infrastructure committee—a committee of the board—to enable that, that will support Health New Zealand in the efforts that it has in regards to the delivery of health infrastructure.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (22:18): Thank you. I was really interested in the decision to choose these particular targets to enshrine in primary legislation. They’re a real pick ‘n’ mix, and they sort of look like somebody’s hot takes. They don’t look like things that—while they’re really important, things like child immunisation and cancer management—

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, I wouldn’t call child immunisation a “hot take”.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, perhaps if I ask my question and then you answer, because I simply could not hear that answer, Minister. Unless you would like to just answer that, and then I’ll stand up again.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:18): Yes, happy to answer your question. I just think it’s appalling that the member opposite calls childhood immunisation a “hot take”. I think immunising our children is one of the key priorities that we have as a Government and something that we’re incredibly focused on. To call it a hot take, I think, is appalling and distressful. But it also speaks to the reality under the previous Government, where they allowed childhood immunisation rates to collapse in this country, particularly impacting on our Māori communities, which they should be appalled by.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll allow a back and forth, but please wait until I call you. And can I ask you to not directly talk to the Minister, but to talk via the Chair?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (22:19): Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. Rather than make this an absolute political situation, I’ve tried in my questions to ask something that needed to be asked for the sake of the New Zealand public. My point over the question was that this is actually a very random list. It is not a list of consistent things. It’s not child immunisation, adult immunisation, or all sorts of other things that are there. It’s a list of things where I have no idea how it was that the Minister came to this list. Why was this the list? Because none of these things follow from the other or is consistent. There’s no process around choosing these, from what I can see, that’s transparent. So what was the process around choosing this list? Because this is going into primary legislation and it will be there until another Government repeals it. It can be added to, but it’s there forever, and it’s not a list that tells its own story in terms of its rational choice.

I want to genuinely know what it is that the Minister did to pick these things up, because they look like things that might be important now, but perhaps—let’s hope—we solve cancer management and then it wouldn’t necessarily be the priority it is today. Perhaps we’ll solve child immunisation problems and we’ll be looking at other targets at that point, but it will still be in the primary legislation. In fact, other things that might be extremely important of the moment will not be in primary legislation and will therefore be able to be avoided.

Now, what I would have expected, if it was a smart piece of legislation, would be that somebody would have created a criteria and a process for choosing what goes into that list. We would see the list flex as the problems change, as hopefully they get solved—that’s what I’d expect. But, in fact, what I’ve seen is a random list of things that seem to have been in the paper or seem to have been of concern at the moment to the Minister, even if it was genuine concern at the time.

Glen Bennett: Long-time limp.

HELEN WHITE: Absolutely. I am also extremely concerned about things like immunisation rates, but I would like to know how is it that the Minister chose this, and why did they choose this method of locking these particular things in, when they’re not even one type of thing? We have something like elective treatment; we have access to primary. Now, I think access to primary services is extremely important. It’s not that I’m belittling them; I’m belittling the process of choosing a random group of things. It is not actually a kingdom; it is a democracy, and we have processes and we don’t need one person deciding what they are. So was that what happened? Did the Minister just simply choose the list because of what was important to him or was it something else? Did he get advice from his officials, who said, “This is actually what we need to enshrine in our law and this should never go from it because that should be the basis, and then we’ll add to it?” Is that what happened? I would like the Minister to answer that question instead of taking cheap shots.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:22): Well, I just think it’s appalling that the member opposite can stand up and say that immunisation of our children is just something on a random list, when, ultimately, we remember what happened under the previous Government. They removed our health targets and we saw the care of all of those targets going backwards. We saw immunisation of our children going backwards; we saw our emergency departments go backwards; we saw special assessments go backwards; we saw elective treatment go backwards; we saw access to primary care go backwards; and, ultimately, these are core targets which matter to New Zealanders, that matter to patients.

This is about ensuring that we have a very clear focus in our health system and a very clear focus. This is something where the Labour Party should reflect on their past six years where they simply—the first thing they did when they came into Government in 2017 was remove the health targets, and we saw, over those next six years, our health system deteriorate, wait-lists balloon, access to primary care get harder, our immunisation rate for our children get worse. This Government is intent on fixing the basics, building the future, and we’re putting these in legislation so that it’s clear about what the priorities are for our health system: focus on putting patients first, and focus on improved results and accountability of the health system.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (22:24): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (22:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. That was disgraceful presentation there from the Minister. We’ve been courteous all night and we get insulted by the Minister. We just want our some of our questions answered and some of our amendments are spoken about, and all this Minister can do is talk about the previous Government. I was very proud of the previous health Minister. I thought she did a tremendous job.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: She didn’t steal Wairarapa’s money.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, she did a terrific job. I was very proud of the strength we showed in terms of supporting Māori. This, what we’re looking at tonight, is just basically taking apart everything that we put in place. We had so much community support. We took up the challenges from our leaders. We had a Māori health leaders just yesterday—just yesterday, and I don’t know where the Minister’s been—saying how dangerous this health system is: Dr Lance O’Sullivan coming out and dealing to this Government. They don’t want to hear from experts; they just want to hear from their invisible advisory committee. When we asked the Minister, “Who are you speaking to? Who are you consulting with?”, nobody knows who the hell he’s talking about. We don’t know who he’s talking about. He ignores some of the most brilliant brains in te ao Māori.

Our spokesperson, our former Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, tonight, has come up with some brilliant kōrero in regards to iwi partnership boards, for example. That’s why we’ve put up some very positive amendments, which I’ll go through now, just for the Minister’s interest. I want to just go through a few that I’ve put up. My tabled amendment No. 5, is about the functions of Health New Zealand. In it, in terms of my amendment, we want to delete clause 14(3). The rationale is because it preserves local Māori input into planning and delivery, rather than rather than concentrating engagement at the national level only. What’s wrong with Māori having some input and a local level?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: They had a hug and then they left.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. My tabled amendment No. 6, clause 17: “Section 16A repealed (Engaging with and reporting to Māori)”—if you have a look at the amendments, Mr Chair, I’m asking to delete clause 17. The effect is to retain section 16 of the principal Act, which is engaging with and reporting to Māori. The rationale is it maintains a direct statutory duty for Health New Zealand to engage with and report to Māori communities, preserving local accountability.

Then, we come to the former Minister’s kōrero in regards to iwi-Māori partnership boards. In replacement section 30, inserted by clause 19, after paragraph 30(b), we are asking that we insert a monitor, and evaluate the performance of the health system in relation to the health needs, aspirations, and outcomes of local Māori communities, and advise Health New Zealand on the planning, commissioning, and delivery of services for local Māori communities, including kaupapa Māori services, and report to Māori communities on the matters. The effect is that it restores substantive monitoring, evaluation, and advisory commissioning functions to iwi-Māori partnership boards. The rationale is it reinstates the board as a tangible vehicle for mana motuhake and local accountability rather than channels that only feed insights to a national committee.

Our people have been very, very clear about the health system, and that’s why we’ve come up with some really productive and constructive amendments tonight that we would like the House to consider. But it is worrying for te ao Māori in terms of so many initiatives and so much kaupapa Māori being watered down by this Minister and by this Government. I ask the question again: why is the Minister so intent on watering down kaupapa Māori services? Who are his advisers? Is this Government still committed to partnership or is it just about what the Minister thinks. Kia ora.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:29): Many of the questions the member has just spoken have already been addressed in relation to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee (HMAC), which is now being given the role of not just advising the Minister but also advising the board. The changes to the legislation clearly clarify the roles of the iwi Māori partnership boards and their role in advising HMAC, which also has now the role, as I said, of advising me and the Health New Zealand board.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a final bit on Part 1, and this is to do with a new section, which is clause 29, but with a specific focus on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 562, because, again, this Amendment Paper is something that hasn’t gone through select committee; it’s just come into the House recently.

I want to check with the Minister—we’re seeing it more frequently, but it’s quite unusual for the Public Service Commissioner to take part, as I’ve been told, in the collective bargaining process. Usually, the agency deals with a relevant union directly. I guess I want to check with the Minister: what is the rationale behind, under Amendment Paper 562, this expanded scope, particularly when we’re looking at clause 29, inserting new section 65A(d), which is “to allow the Public Service Commissioner to participate in the collective bargaining process”? Again, this is something I feel is—it’s not something I’ve seen previously until very recently, this idea that the Public Service Commissioner is involved in that. The first question to the Minister is if the Minister wouldn’t mind expanding on the rationale behind that involvement.

The second part of this—understanding that, presumably, this part is to do with the Minister taking up more of a sort of back-step role and then having Health New Zealand and the Public Service taking on a more active role in collective bargaining. But I also want to check with the Minister, as the bargaining process is happening, what would then be the role of the Minister in communicating some of that to the public, or expectations for the Minister?

Those are my two questions, specifically on Amendment Paper 562, on clause 29, regarding collective bargaining.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:32): I’ve answered a number of questions in relation to this Amendment Paper. It seeks to provide the Minister with the ability to make directions about how the Public Service is to have oversight of, or to be involved in, collective bargaining conducted by Health New Zealand. Health New Zealand is a major employer within the Government, and it’s important that the Public Service Commission has a role in supporting Health New Zealand.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (22:32): 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 562 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 637 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Willie Jackson’s and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments deleting clause 4 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 5, removing brackets around the words “pae ora”, are out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2), section 3, to insert new paragraphs (e) and (f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Members, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clauses 8, 13, 14, 15, 26, and 31 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clauses 8, 13, 14, 15, 26, and 31 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment inserting clause 8(6), set out on Amendment Paper 638, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment deleting clause 9, set out on Amendment Paper 639, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Willie Jackson’s and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments deleting clause 9 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 12, new section 12(3), set out on Amendment Paper 640, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 12(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 12, 14(3), 17, and 28 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 12, 14(3), 17, and 28 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 12 to insert “expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and tikanga Māori” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendments inserting new clause 13A and amending clause 19 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendments inserting new clause 13A inserting new section 13A, and amending clause 19 new section 30 to insert new paragraphs (c) to (e) agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment replacing clause 15 set out on Amendment Paper 641 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 16, 27, and 32 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 16, 27, and 32 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clause 17 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment deleting clause 19 set out on Amendment Paper 642 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Members, there are six amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall to clause 23, new section 36A to insert new targets. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on three of those amendments.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to clause 23 inserting new section 36A(g) regarding “improved access to mental health and addiction services for youth and rangatahi Māori” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to clause 23 inserting new section 36A(g) regarding “cancer survival rates” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to clause 23, inserting new section 36A(g) regarding “reduced perinatal and maternal mortality rates”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 23 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clause 28 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

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 Consequential amendments, and Schedules 1A and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 33A to 34, “Consequential amendments”, and Schedules 1A and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:52): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to seek your clarity—I didn’t want to interrupt halfway through the vote—on the last batch of amendments by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, understanding that we’re looking at a new, more expedient use of committee time when it comes to amendments. I’ve been looking at her amendments; I want to seek the guidance from you, Mr Chair, on how three out of those six are testing the will of the committee when the other three remaining actually have nothing to do with the three that are tested. For example, I understand when we’re testing cancer survival rates, perinatal and maternal mortality rate—which is probably, even from a layperson’s perspective, more on the tertiary health side—when we are looking at timely provision in home care services that’s very much a community-geared sector altogether, even by the standard of Vote Health. It’s even a completely different Appropriation.

I do want to check if the committee could get some clarity just for our side in the future because, again, noting that this is a bill that the Opposition does not support and we also did not support the bill through select committee, as well as not supporting the amendments. Just through this urgency period, if the Chair wouldn’t mind providing additional guidance so that way we have a better understanding of what the Chair is looking for, as a part of this new process.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that point of order. If I can refer members to Standing Orders 315(4), and there it reads: “Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee.” In this circumstance, it was about the insertion of targets so it was the target part which leant itself to being the same issue of substance.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Speaking to that point of order, I understand from a target perspective, but then is it an assumption that if the committee will not accept three targets, they wouldn’t consider any additions to target regardless of how different they are and the fact they cover different parts of the health sector? That’s fine if that’s the case; it’s just so that way we can have that clarity.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:55): Speaking to the point of order. If I can help the House: as my colleague’s pointed out, the House has voted for specific targets and it’s voted against other targets, so therefore each target needs to be considered individually. Just by being a target doesn’t mean we vote on it one particular way. My colleague has already well made the point that they are materially different parts of the health system that are being measured.

Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Speaking to the point of order, and then I’m going to make a ruling.

Hon Louise Upston: Mr Chair, you have made your comments clear in terms of testing the will of the committee, and I commend you for doing so.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (22:55): I’ll just take some advice. The principle on which we’re operating on—because I know that we’re moving into new territory here in terms of the way that we’ve approached both tonight and yesterday as well—is what we have done here is tested the will of the committee in terms of those targets. I do take your point—we have voted so time’s not going backwards, folks—around difference in terms of those targets, and we will be more mindful of that in the future. We’re going to move ahead now.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Point of order—is this a new point of order? Go for it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (22:57): Yes, it is. Just in response to that statement that you made there, Mr Chair, and not relitigating your comments there but there was something there that I would like you to clarify, please: you said that we’re entering new ground. When the Speaker made his statement yesterday in the House , there was an exchange of points of order between myself and the Speaker and then Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan also contributed to that. Those points of order were to seek an important point of clarity, that the Speaker’s statement was not a ruling; it was not a new direction to the House, rather a clarification of what already existed so, for our full understanding of what you’ve just said to the House, if you wouldn’t mind please explaining what you meant by entering new territory, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (22:57): Yeah, what I meant by that is that we are taking guidance. These were grouped in a particular way; we did test the will of the committee and it was found that because of that, we did need to move forward. What I meant was in terms of the territory moving forward is that if, on reflection, we need to be a bit more considered in terms of groupings, that will be done. I mean, we can only move forward. I guess the point has been made that there needs to be a focus more on engagements from the Minister and there has been engagement from the Minister, and also conduct from members as well, for us to get a more fulsome debate; for there to be a more fulsome debate because that is the expectation of the public that are watching us at home, as opposed to us spending quite some time on voting.

That is the intention and that is the guidance that we are trying to trying to move forward here, so I’m going to move on to Part 2. This is a debate on clauses 33A to 34, “Consequential amendments” and Schedules 1A and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:59): Part 2 contains consequential amendments to other legislation. These are either changes to the name of the healthy futures order or purely technical drafting changes. As I mentioned in the earlier debate, the change to the name of the Act is following the coalition agreement with New Zealand First. The amendments proposed in my Amendment Paper are changes to the name of the Act, and the scope of this debate is therefore in my view quite limited in terms of those issues.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (22:59): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just a note for the member: to call for a closure motion at the beginning of a debate is disorderly, OK—just so that people know.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I’m more interested because Part 2 has an additional section that’s been added to it that I can’t seem to find within the commentary from the Health Committee, unless I’m missing something.

The amendments to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Alcohol Levy Order is something that’s not part of the original bill and has been added. I just want to check the Minister’s clarification with Schedule 1A: other than referencing the previous title, what additional changes are there? That’s my first question.

The second question is, noting that, in terms of the consequential amendments, this is something that looks like it’s been added on, are there or is the Minister aware of any other bills that potentially have not been captured in the title change? I also note that in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 562, Schedule 2, which is, I would assume—let me just double check, so I can get the clause number correct—section 34, which is also part of Part 2, also identified one, two, three more areas where the title is changed.

I think this partially goes to the original question by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, which is: what is the cost of that name change and how many more—because now it seems like there’s one, two, three, four more that have been identified as a part of this. What happens if more get identified once this bill goes through Royal assent?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (23:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly picking up on a remark that the Minister made at the beginning of this Part 2, he noted that the name change was in relationship to a coalition agreement with New Zealand First. Could I ask the Minister whether he sought any advice on whether people’s material outcomes would change in any way or form due to this name change?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:02): Just very quickly, because I see that the Minister is receiving some advice: as the Minister receives advice, just seeking if it’s OK with you, Madam Chair, that we can allow the Minister to respond to questions if we move on to the next section?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:02): I thank the members for these questions. As I said at the start, these are consequential amendments primarily relating to the name of the legislation, which follows the coalition agreement with New Zealand First, and the amendments in the Amendment Paper that I’ve tabled relate to some name changes, as well.

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): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to Part 2, set out on Amendment Paper 637, 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 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Moving on to Schedule 1. Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to Schedule 1, set out on Amendment Paper 637, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, removing brackets around the words “Pae Ora”, 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 Schedule 1, replacing “18 months” with “24 months” in clause 50, 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 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Schedule 1A: Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment deleting Schedule 1A, set out on Amendment Paper 637, 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 1A 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 1A agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Schedule 2. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2, set out on Amendment Paper 562, 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 (Maureen Pugh): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment replacing Schedule 2, set out on Amendment Paper 637, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, removing brackets around the words “Pae Ora”, is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

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.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:10): As has been traversed throughout this debate in regards to the title of the Act, this is in relation to the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement in relation to the naming of legislation. This Act is being amended as part of this bill to reflect the coalition agreement, and it states that the Act comes into force the day after Royal assent.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (23:11): The debate, so far, has traversed a number of issues that point to a deterioration in the consensus around key elements of healthcare in New Zealand, and a move towards an ideological approach from the Government to silence sources of opposition within professions in the health system, to remove equity for Māori in order to focus the health system on a narrow set of outputs.

This bill is passing, under urgency, just a few months from a general election. My question is: why is the commencement date the day after the Royal assent, when, really, such a controversial piece of legislation—this is its second amendment of the legislation, and there is another one planned on the same Order Paper—should be coming into effect after the general election? It’s evident that the bill aims to set a long-term direction for the health system that the Opposition, and the highest polling party in New Zealand, is not comfortable with.

So the only decent thing for the Government to do would be to let this go to voters, because if you talk to New Zealanders, you will know that they are not interested in this petty war against Māori that is being prosecuted through this bill; they would like to see a health system that recognised them as people. They would want to see that values are pursued through the health system, such as focusing on prevention, on clinical governance of services, on making sure that the staff are well looked after. But this Government has not listened to the submissions made at select committee around values that are common in our community, and are reflected in our healthcare professions and workforce. So the date of commencement should be deferred to six months further in the future.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:13):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I absolutely support the question around commencement, and want to also query the change in the name. When we see the degrading of the use of te reo Māori within this House, and now we see the change in this name from Pae Ora (Healthy Future) to Healthy Futures (Pae Ora),

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

That’s the pātai that comes deep from within me—why are we seeing this petty meddling of the use of te reo when the vision of Pae Ora was a gift? It was a gift from health leadership to the kaupapa and giving effect to Wai 2575. Pae Ora is where the mauri sits for this legislation, as a tūāpapa for healthy families, communities, and healthy individuals. The “healthy futures” component of it was the whakatinanatanga of it, but Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) was the vision.

So my question to the Minister is: why? Why are we seeing this petty undermining of the use of te reo Māori within this legislation, knowing that we heard from submitters that this was a koha—a koha—to our Government of the day to capture the vision and the heartbeat of where we were heading for a health system that provided equity for all?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (23:15):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

My kōrero is—

Hon Tama Potaka: You just build those houses!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: How can the Minister for Māori Development sit by and support this type of legislation? I said in the House yesterday, and the Speaker took offence: why was the Minister speaking Māori when he was talking about Māori organisations, when New Zealand First don’t want that? But the Minister keeps talking about these organisations and using Māori names, and quite clearly, this Government has buckled to Winston Peters and New Zealand First, and said, “Oh, all right, we’ll give up the language and we’ll give up our fight for the reo.”

The Minister and this Government are in charge of trying to get 1 million Māori language speakers. That’s a responsibility of this Minister over here. Here we are changing the title. Why is this Minister buckling? Why doesn’t this Minister show some courage? I mean, Minister Potaka shows selective courage in the House. He stands by Winston Peters and he says all these Māori names, and then when I challenge it, I get told off by the Speaker. I can’t work that out—I can’t work that out. All I’m saying is why is Tama Potaka using Māori names for Māori organisations when we’ve got this Minister here who shows no courage in terms of keeping the Māori name for our Pae Ora kaupapa? It is an insult to te ao Māori, it is an insult to Māori language strategies, and it is an insult to the Minister for Māori Development that you would change this name. It is so sad to see the way this kaupapa has been turned upside down, the way our Māori organisations have been insulted by this Government. It’s been so sad seeing so much of our Māori initiative being watered down.

So I ask the Minister: why did you do this? Why is our reo being belittled, being reduced, and has the Minister for Māori Development said anything? He’s saying to our people out there that we’ll get 1 million speakers. How can we get 1 million speakers when we have an organisation that gets its name changed because it offends Winston Peters, because Winston Peters is upset, because there’s just too much te reo Māori? It is a shocking, shocking decision from this Government, a once-proud National Party that in Government would never have buckled to this sort of rubbish. No wonder Chris Finlayson is insulting the party, no wonder Chris Finlayson is saying that Māori-Crown relations are at an all-time low—an all-time low—so much so that the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Jackson, can you come back to this bill. You’ve got a bit wide.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I was always coming back to this bill.

Glen Bennett: About the name?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The name! The name is terrible—what a terrible name. Thanks for that reminder. What is the name of this bill, actually? It’s called the—

Dan Bidois: You don’t know?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s some stupid Pākehā name—yeah, that’s right, that’s right: “Healthy Futures”. That’s right.

What a terrible, insulting name in terms of te reo Māori. Madam Chair, you might feel I’m going off the topic here, but Māori communities, Māori organisations, Te Mātāwai—which the Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka, is in charge of—are stunned by the Government’s lack of courage with regards to this. I ask the Minister again: why has he buckled to Winston Peters? Why can’t he hold fast to a Māori language strategy that has been put in place not just by the previous Government—[Time expired]

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the member’s questions in relation to the title, I’ve already outlined the reason for the change in the name of the title. In relation to the question about the commencement, the bill comes into force the day after the Royal assent. It has been through a select committee process and it is now up to Parliament to progress the piece of legislation, and that is the democratic will of how this place works.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (23:21):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

When you take our reo, you take our mauri, our wairua, and the w’akapapa of that kaupapa. It’s not just a name. It has mana. It’s a mana that you’ve been bestowed to look after as our Minister, as my mokopuna’s Minister, as their mokopuna’s Minister. Nowhere else do we get to hear this. When you make a decision, you stand up and

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 637 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council” 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 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 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 637 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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 55

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:28): I move, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to rise for the third reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a bill New Zealand’s health system needs to bring clarity to its purpose under this Government. It is a key step in delivering the Government’s promise to put patients first and to ensure that every New Zealander can access timely, quality healthcare when and where they need it, from a health system that is accountable for its results.

New Zealanders might think this is not a controversial idea. The bill is, after all, only asking the health system to do what New Zealanders would reasonably expect it to do. However, when this Government came into office, we inherited an under-performing health system, long wait times, delayed infrastructure projects, distraction, and a clear lack of accountability in our health system. Our Government has been focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and this bill is one part of moving from a system focused on processes, bureaucracy, and a system which would have simply been restructured during the middle of a pandemic, the very worst time to have thought about restructuring a system, to one focused on delivery, clarity, and accountability.

Before I get into what the bill does, I want to thank the people who have made it possible. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee and particularly chair Sam Uffindell for his guidance of the committee, and also the many stakeholders, health professionals, and members of the public who made submissions on this important topic.

There are a number of key changes that this bill does. It focuses the health system on what should be its main purpose: patients receiving timely and quality care. The bill introduces a new statutory purpose for the Act to guarantee that all patients have access to effective and timely health services. Every decision Health New Zealand makes will now be anchored in this purpose. The bill also repeals the health sector principles and charter. New Zealanders do not need a 16-page charter that omits the word “patients” but mentions “unions” 11 times. All I can say about that charter is that I hope the previous Government did not spend too much money developing it. The Government requires the health system to put its efforts into better experiences for patients, shorter wait times for cancer treatment, and of course, meeting our elective surgical wait times. More kids being immunised, shorter wait times in our emergency departments—that is how to make a difference in our health system.

Of course, when this Government came to office, we had had a previous Government in which its first action, when it came to office after the 2017 election, was to remove the health targets, and for the following six years, we saw performance in our health system decline. The number of people waiting for elective surgery ballooned; the number of children fully immunised, absolutely falling down; and of course, the number of Māori children, that went backwards significantly from about 90 percent down to around 67 percent of two-year-old Māori children. For all of the arguments from the other side of the House when it comes to equity and Māori healthcare, they have that responsibility, which they need to be remembered for.

Ultimately, we are seeing improvements against all of our health targets. We’re seeing year-on-year improvement after years of decline under the previous Government. This bill helps to reinforce that and provide clarity by putting those targets into legislation and removing the lack of accountability, the pieces of the documents which were causing confusion and simply duplication, and refocusing the health system back on what matters. The health sector principles, for example, had been a recipe for confusion, outlining 21 different considerations for every decision maker needing to make a decision—21 different considerations that every decision maker at Health New Zealand needed to make. Instead, this bill legislates health targets focused on things that matter to patients. The targets also include a new target around primary care, which, of course, also substantially went backwards—access to primary care—under the previous Government.

The bill says Health New Zealand must deliver services efficiently, and also partner with private providers where appropriate to clear backlogs and increase access to services. A clear example of what this Government is doing is, when it comes to elective surgeries, partnering with our private hospitals to get more patients being seen in a faster manner so we can get through the wait-lists, get patients being seen, and actually mean that fewer patients are waiting in pain, and more patients are getting the care that they need. As I have said, no one lies on the operating table angsting about whether Government funding or private capital paid for the ceiling which they are looking at. They want to get fixed, they want to get on with their lives, and that’s what this Government wants for them too.

The bill also strengthens Health New Zealand’s focus on infrastructure, creates a permanent infrastructure committee appointed by the Minister so that health facilities are planned and delivered on time and within budget. I just saw some pictures from Health New Zealand today with cranes in the sky at the new Dunedin in-patients building; cranes in the sky because after six years under the previous Government of talk, talk, talk, we’ve signed a contract, we have construction under way, and cranes in the sky getting things done. We are building the future of our health infrastructure under this Government. Under that Government, all there was talk, talk, and talk.

This bill strengthens governance and accountability, and accountability will no longer be optional but embedded in the legislation. The changes also strengthen the role of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. The bill ensures there is independent specialist advice on Māori healthcare that the board of Health New Zealand must take into account. That advice will have a national perspective and reflect local priorities through engagement conducted by iwi-Māori partnership boards. This bill is not about organisational charts, it’s about making sure that we get the health services that New Zealanders need. This Government’s focus on healthcare is clear and straightforward. The Government sets the priorities, Health New Zealand delivers the care, patients feel the benefits, the public sees the results. This is a Government focused on fixing the basics, which Labour broke, and building a future for all New Zealand. That’s what this Government is doing. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (23:35): This bill has been in committee of the whole House and this is now my first opportunity to speak more freely on the events of the day, or the week, and so this is my first opportunity to remark on recent events. I want to start my contribution by paying my respects to the person who lost their life in the Waikato emergency department in the early hours of Monday morning.

I’m sure all members of the House will join me in extending our condolences to the family who must be hurting right now. This person was seeking care and they should have expected to be looked after. I also know, from attending to many events of a similar nature during my professional work, that these events are distressing for bystanders and also for staff. As a health worker, I also understand that these events are a prism through which we can see the challenges our health system faces. It’s individual stories like these that make up the reality of the health system experiences of New Zealanders. I am pleased Health New Zealand has announced that an investigation is under way, because understanding what happened helps families heal and accountability is also important.

The bill that we have debated brings into law an emergency department target that 95 percent of people are seen within six hours. The person in question waited more than nine hours for their care. This target has been in the Government’s position statement on health for at least the last two years and the letter of expectation for two years. I’m not sure what additional strengthening of the target comes from its inclusion in legislation. This direction has been communicated to the health system for some time, and contrary to the Minister of Health’s contribution, it was a priority under the past Government as well.

For two years, in fact, the Government has talked about very little other than targets. The target didn’t get that man care. The target also did not staff the Waikato Hospital emergency department. Ask any doctor or nurse. There is a hiring freeze in Health New Zealand. Look at the Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP) data. You’ll see that the number of nurses across the last year has only increased 1 percent, when normal would be 3 or 4 percent. Ask doctors or nurses—they’ll tell you that when one of their colleagues leaves because they’ve resigned, they don’t automatically hire into the vacancy. They have to get permission from somewhere else.

Another thing this bill doesn’t do, which the Government made a lot of bold statements about, is it doesn’t give decision-making power to the front line. The most senior people in Health New Zealand’s hospitals do not have the power to hire doctors and nurses—those decisions are made at a regional level. That is a decision this Government has taken. The fact is that, if you’re aware as the most senior person in a city the size of Hamilton, that you have an understaffing problem in your emergency department, you, as the most senior person in that hospital, can’t act on it without someone else’s permission.

I note also today’s reporting by Radio New Zealand news that the planned 117 job cuts that were due to be cut in Te Manawa Taki—the Health New Zealand region that includes the Waikato, the central North Island—those have been cancelled just today. The bill doesn’t lock into place the things people need for good care. Though it sets targets, it doesn’t protect front-line clinicians as the Government promised was a priority when it came into office. In fact, just today, we’re finding out that job cuts to front-line clinicians have been paused in the region where this death happened.

We have said multiple times in this debate that Labour supports targets, that sometimes we think that they should be, in fact, more ambitious and representative of our health system, but let’s not pretend that they do things they don’t. The targets that the Government has implemented, the milestones for them have not been met. I don’t believe they’ve been met for a single one of the targets in a consistent way since they’ve been implemented. We now have almost two years of data.

The previous speaker made a lot of bold statements about the values of targets, but who are we kidding? It would be deeply cynical if targets were used as a rhetorical device, as a shield, that when things go wrong in the health system—and the reality is that it goes wrong often and people get hurt often—they are just used as an opportunity for a Minister to turn around and say, “Well, I have the expectation that targets be met.” and not take responsibility for the fundamentals of delivering care, not take responsibility for proper staffing of our emergency departments, for making sure our clinicians have the right equipment, for making sure the physical infrastructure is appropriate.

Targets have their place, but let’s not overstate them. Let’s not state that they are the be-all and end-all of making progress and improving our health system. The core to delivering healthcare is the people who deliver it. I was so proud to be one of the New Zealanders who work in our health system for over 20 years. I did the best things I ever did in my life in that job, looking after people at times that were really, really difficult. I never once thought of myself as a public servant, though I did Public Service every day.

This bill has put this bizarre concept of Public Service neutrality over the clinicians that work in our hospital. Many submissions to the Health Committee from professionals in our hospitals raised concerns about this bringing a chilling effect, that it’s intended to stop doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals from speaking out when things go wrong in their hospitals. My message to them is it is your professional duty to do so when you see circumstances that are unsafe in public hospitals. Clinicians, whether you’re a medical specialist or a nurse aide, all of you see things in our health system that sometimes go wrong. I do not endorse a culture that means suppressing what they have to say, covering up, making them feel that they can lose their job.

The Minister pointed out that one union’s contract has protections for their members to be able to speak out, but what about the tens of thousands of nurses who work in our health system who might feel gagged by provisions in this bill? Sadly, abominable things happen in healthcare sometimes and they must be spoken about. As politicians, why would we want to see these things suppressed and not surfaced? Why would we want to be in a position where we are saying we want to weaponise targets against these workers and then blame them when things go wrong, rather than accepting that in a democratic country, one of the jobs we do is provide the resources to the health system that it needs to be able to care for people? There is so much effort to silence healthcare workers from their duty to advocate through this effort to draw them into the cloak of Public Service neutrality, which is an absolute joke. Other Crown entities don’t have this requirement.

Many of the provisions in this bill are incredibly divisive. They are an example of an ideological project that has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, an effort to go into petty belittling of Māori, of making their language go second in the title of the bill, rather than first, as it was. It is unbelievable to me that we have spent 12 months in one way or another debating that, as if there weren’t more important things to do, like getting on with looking after people.

To the doctors and nurses, pharmacists, lab technicians, allied health workers of all stripes, our care and support workers who work in our health system, I want to say that we hear your concerns and that speaking up is an important service you provide for New Zealanders. To the people who are accessing care and having challenges accessing care, there are better days ahead.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:45):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It pains me that we’re at this point now for Healthy Futures (Pae Ora). I spoke earlier about the gift and the koha of what Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) was. That gift from Tā Meihana Durie is something that we cannot understate when concepts such as mauri ora—healthy people; whānau ora—the health of the whānau; and wai ora—healthy environments are now belittled and downgraded in a system that was intended to embody health as a taonga, recognising that whānau, hapū, iwi Māori communities can’t be just passive participants in the health system but we all want to be a part of leadership. We want to be contributing. We want to be a part of supporting a sustainable health system where everyone benefits, because there is enough for everyone to succeed if we focus on what’s important. What’s important is the health and wellbeing of today but also the health and wellbeing of our mokopuna for tomorrow. The safeguards that Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) had in place included Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora working as a waka hourua, a double-hulled canoe paddling forward with a shared vision for better health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

That’s not what we’ve got now. We’ve seen the way that Te Tiriti provisions have been undermined by this Government over and over through legislation and now we see it coming to fruition once again with Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) where there is the demeaning, undermining of iwi-Māori partnership boards, an outcome of Wai 2575, where the foundations of the report and the recommendations were brought forward in a Kāwanatanga trying to be honourable and upholding what the Waitangi Tribunal recommended by creating and establishing iwi-Māori partnership boards to work hand in hand in strategic commissioning of services for rohe alongside the health services but also alongside local government and other sectors that can come together in one tēpu localities with local whānau voice feeding up into the health system.

That’s all gone, and now we’ve got this elevation of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. They had their first meeting, the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and iwi-Māori partnership boards, on Monday. That’s the first time that they’ve met. The single voice, the sole voice for Māori now sits within this advisory committee to the Minister and iwi-Māori partnership boards presented their truth and what they have been doing on the ground to Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. I hope that this new legislation and new powers that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee has will now be resourced to be effective, that they may be powered up to work alongside iwi-Māori partnership boards to provide genuine feedback and voice of iwi Māori from within the system, from within whānau voice, and that those insights matter and will go somewhere.

Now, I want to really reflect on the way that we had a system that worked with kaimahi, with unions, and with community to build up this thing called Te Mauri o Rongo. Te Mauri o Rongo, as our New Zealand Health Charter, charted a plan. It set out the way with which we had shared values, principles, and expectations for the way that everyone would work together, but also that you would be a safe kaimahi; that you would be a safe patient or tūroro; that you as a whānau, coming into the system, would see a connected, strong, and collaborative health system. Te Mauri o Rongo represented that shared voice, now diminished in the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

I really worry as to how our kaimahi voice can be heard. We already know that there could be potential chilling impacts on the voice of kaimahi as they see things in the system when political neutrality is on top of them—that they are required to be politically neutral. But when [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Those are the failures of what we’re going to see. This bill doesn’t address the core system issues and challenges. In fact, as submitters have shared, these fundamental changes really undermine the approach in looking at the wider determinants of health. The original Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act tried to bring together an interconnected sector approach where we looked at environmental issues; where we thought about social cohesion and the way that we could bring in different providers to work together and to look at what were the issues in a community, and what were the solutions. The commitment to equity and shared decision making was clear in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act—but that’s not so clear now.

As we’ve heard, and as we see time and time again, it’s about the widget, it’s about the target, and it’s about working hard to achieve the target. As we reduce down the focus of our workforce, of our providers, and of our system to now a target focus, it risks really missing the point in the wider hauora of those that come into the system and are looking for support. You’re driving towards achieving something, but you’re missing the conversations that could reveal more—that could support the health and wellbeing not only of the patient, or the tūroro, but also the wider whānau and those who are best to deliver the services and support for the whānau at place.

Those are the issues that are coming forward. We heard it in the Health Committee—we heard it in the select committee, where unions, kaimahi, hauora Māori, the sector came forward and said, “Me tūpato. Kia tūpato koutou.” We have failed to hear those cautions and the amendments that were proposed in the legislation—which were quite reasonable, and yet we continue to be told, “no”. We continue to be told “no” because it’s not about what the evidence says; it’s not about what our research is telling us; it’s not about what the health leadership is telling us. It is a political ideology that is fundamentally changing the way that our health system will deliver for our people.

I query the outcome focus and whether it is more driven towards the stats and making sure that our charts look really good, and we’ve got the good pie graph, and it’s going to look awesome. But actually, are we really seeing, via the stats, the genuine picture of health and wellbeing for community, for our rohe, for the wider region, and then for Aotearoa—let alone populations most at risk, those that are vulnerable, whether you’re takatāpui, whaikaha, wāhine, migrants, refugees, Māori, Pasifika? Without the statutory strategies, where is the joined-up opportunity for us to see those dedicated supports and goals, and something that the workforce and providers can move towards together? Instead, ka tōpū—ka tōpū—we’re mainstreamed, and we’re given a chapter.

That’s the issue. It’s a hard one to stomach. I acknowledge the health leadership that are watching now; I acknowledge those who are on the front line who we’ve met and who continue to share their concerns. Because what is [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It’s in the palm of our hands, and as honourable kāwanatanga, that’s the pātai. How much more can we see in the way that we degrade and undermine a health system that should be there for all?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (23:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take this call to support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. This bill is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of our public health system. This bill brings the focus on delivery and outcomes, which is so important in our health system.

The previous legislation that this bill replaces—that bill introduced race-based criteria into board appointments and service delivery, and we believe that is wrong, because in the healthcare system, it should be about need, and when it comes to the appointment of board members, it should be about skills and experience. ACT campaigned on these changes because we believe healthcare should be based on need, not race. Every patient deserves timely, quality care, regardless of their ethnicity. That is why we are really pleased to support this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, it is time for me to leave the chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Urgency

Thursday, 2 July 2026

Bills

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. I hope you are all well rested. I think some of you were here when I left last night, I hope you’ve been home. When we finished last night, we were debating the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. We are up to the third reading, call No. 5, which is a New Zealand First call.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (09:00): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a very common-sense bill because it puts clinical need back at the heart of our health system, and this bill focuses on the health system delivering for patients. It’s the priority that will flow down through this amendment bill. It will introduce statutory health targets, and it will ensure patients receive timely access to quality services. There will be improved fiscal management of physical assets and the reinforcement of political neutrality across the health workforce.

Also, I’m pleased to see that the name has been changed to Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. We have a general coalition commitment with National to put English first. So, for that, I commend the bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (09:01): Thank you. Te Pāti Māori stands in complete opposition of the gutting of our Māori health equity, Māori Te Tiriti - focused achievements that had spent many years, decades, of credible research, starting from, obviously, Tā Mason Durie and the realisation that in order to address a holistic health need in Aotearoa that required a system that didn’t just have a clinical focus, that had a holistic focus on taha wairua, taha w’ānau, taha hinengaro, taha tinana.

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

And it’s taken a lot of years to get the acceptance of what a proper health system in Aotearoa required. So, obviously, we’re gutted at the fact that we’ve gotten so close yet so far—because of the terminology I just heard a minute ago, and that is because of “political neutrality”. Political neutrality, political appetite, political agendas have gotten in the way, sadly, of what should have been a thorough journey to address the needs that we have as a nation.

It is well known, the inequities that Māori face through no fault of our own. We don’t face those inequities because of race. We face those inequities because of displacement. We face those inequities because of historical muru raupatu. We face those inequities because of a lack of trust and because of a lack of any connection to a health system that is designed for us, without us.

Imagine if we had the opportunity to establish the Māori Health Authority—Te Aka Whai Ora, Pae Ora legislation without the hang ups, politically, that we had seen in the last six to nine years. Imagine if we were able to establish a Māori health commission and we were able to holistically transfer funding and appropriation of funds that was able to address, at scale, the needs that we have. Imagine if we decided to invest $5 billion at least into addressing the inequities that Māori and Pasifika people are facing. Imagine if we were able to make sure Te Tiriti was entrenched and bound into legislation so we didn’t continuously have this whiplash of debating that continuously goes on in this House about Māori.

Māui Pōmare said in 1919, in fact in this very House, that during the Spanish influenza, he witnessed the marginalisation, the suffering, the death of many of his people through no fault of their own, but because of poverty, because the social determinants, poor housing, because of the fact that we had, again, a system enforced on us that left Māori out. We saw some of that during COVID when Māori had to stand up for themselves because the one-stop shop approach of the public health system at the very beginning, left us behind.

It is with that that I ask our people to remind themselves that in November you have a choice. To all our hauora providers, to all our kaimahi who have been laid off, to all of our academics and our advisers who have been told not to use the word “M” for Māori or “E” for equities, in November you have a chance to invest in a proper health system by looking at the manifesto of the very parties who are asking you to vote for them. To look at manifestos that would entrench Te Tiriti, that would invest in free dental care, that would invest in free medication delivery, that would invest in Māori hauora at scale, that would invest in establishing a Māori health commissioning agency, that can’t see any of these entities that use their political agenda to wipe out the progress and the future of ourselves. To protect data, Māori data, and ensure accountability, to build workforce and system capability and stop our health workforce from leaving the country, to invest in mental health and addiction services, to focus on prevention.

We had the opportunity. We lost it because the big parties wouldn’t invest in scale and be bold. That is what we need in this country, to stop using Māori as what you want when it comes to elections, but not what you will invest in at scale. We have the opportunity in November to repeal and bring back a health system and legislation that we can be proud of here. Kia kaha to our whānau out there.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:06): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Like many other contributors, I wanted to start by acknowledging that Pae Ora—Healthy Futures isn’t just a name. It was a new vision for a health system that was gifted to us by Tā Mason Durie, where we had a holistic vision where people, whānau, and the environment were treated as components that all led to good health.

What I’m concerned about in this debate is, and I particularly wanted to pick up on the Minister of Health’s first contributions to outline why I find this particularly problematic, is that we’ve got a bill that as the Minister spoke about claims to be, you know, “fixing the basics and building the future”. And yet, part of this bill is simply undermining the place of te reo Māori in the language of legislation. How does that fix the basics? How does that actually improve patient outcomes? I heard so much sloganeering in the Minister’s contribution without actually outlining to us how people’s material realities will be improved as part of this bill.

That’s, I think, particularly concerning, because we’ve got a health system that is under humongous strain. We’ve got health workers that are calling out to us that they’re facing unsafe working conditions. And yet, when you look at the provisions of this bill, one of the particularly concerning components is the political neutrality elements of it, which, as submitters and public health experts noted, actually have a massive chilling effect on our health workers being able to raise issues that the Government of the day may not be addressing, or may be doing that maybe undermining their work. And this, I think, particularly raises the question, why is this Government treating health workers as the potential antagonists? What are they so concerned about of health workers actually using their voices to raise issues around health policy changes or whether the status quo is working that they need to put elements in this legislation that would effectively gag them from being able to raise these concerns?

It concerns me because it means that this Government may be potentially treating the very same health workers that are delivering the targets in this legislations as their enemies. I think this should not ever be the case for any Government. A Government should welcome clinicians and health practitioners being able to raise concerns, being able to speak the truth, being able to go out and talk about the concerns that they have with Government policy or what’s happening on the ground and the experience that they’re seeing. We should not be using the guise of political neutrality to prevent them from being able to actually address this.

In the Minister’s contributions, he thanked submitters, yet what I am seeing in the select committee report and the lack of adequate changes to this is that submitters were all in all, frankly, ignored, particularly public health experts that submitted on this bill, experts that noted that the downgrading of our Te Tiriti obligations, our downgrading of addressing the determinants of health—whether they’re social or environmental—and the downgrading of even just addressing inequities that, as the previous speaker noted, have been embedded into our health system through historical violence that will not be addressed simply by slapping a bunch of targets into primary legislation. Ultimately, like I said, the people who are in charge of meeting those targets are the very same workers that are currently being undermined in this legislation as well.

I also want to, frankly, talk about this Government’s issue with unions. The Minister noted in his contribution that unions were named in the legislation multiple times as if it was a bad thing. Well, those unions—particularly in the health sector—have been critical at shining a light on the issues that patients face. Patient safety, ultimately, is a staffing issue as well. If we’ve got healthcare workers in unions highlighting to us that the workers are facing unsafe staffing conditions and those very same workers are unable to meet the needs of their patients, you would want to, if anything, empower that worker voice as well as empowering patient voice within our health system. I do not see this happening under this legislation. I would invite members of the House from the Government side to talk about how this bill materially benefits everyday people, as opposed to just going back to their same old slogans and pretending like switching languages around in a title will do anything but continue undermining Māori-Crown relations.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (09:11): Excellent, It’s a great honour to speak in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill in the third reading. We’ve just had the challenge about how this is going to affect everyday life of New Zealanders. We’re introducing health targets so we can get better healthcare for our patients. That is why we’re passing this bill. I commend it to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:12): I think it’s an appropriate time to talk about some of the Māori contribution in terms of health in this country. I was listening to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and she was spot on with all of her kōrero, and I’m happy to tautoko that. The challenge in terms of the big parties is about the investment, is about the devolution in terms of funding, and is about supporting kaupapa Māori initiatives. This bill clearly does not do that—it does not do that.

I was thinking about all the wonderful Māori health advocates through the years, and I was looking back—we’re in campaign time at the moment, so I’m not looking to promote anyone, but, well, I have a young man standing in Ngāi Tahu, Mananui Ramsden, whose auntie was one of our most foremost health advocates, Irihapeti Ramsden, and she did her thesis on cultural safety, which was quite ironic really. She’s seen as one of the greats in terms of Māori health advocacy, and so relevant with this kaupapa where we are stripping away a lot of the safeguards in terms of tikanga Māori and in terms of te reo Māori.

I felt sad last night but very proud when I was listening to our former Minister Ayesha Verrall, but I felt sad when I was listening to the Minister waffle on like nothing’s happened in terms of kaupapa Māori, tikanga Māori and all our advocates through the years who warn of the dangers ahead in terms of the health system. I go back to my uncle, Syd Jackson, who set up Turuki Health Care, which is followed on by Te Puea Winiata, who’s the CEO today, and my cousin Ramari Jackson. That Turuki work has just been tremendous in terms of South Auckland, and I want to salute her, salute my uncle and my cousin. I want to look at Sir Mason Durie, who’s mentioned all the time, quite rightfully so, and set up the frameworks in terms of mana motuhake and tikanga Māori within the Māori health system. His work has, again, just been cast to the side with the introduction of this bill. His son-in-law John Tamihere must be mentioned also, although people might look at him in a different way. His work in terms of Māori health—as you know, Minister Potaka—is undoubted, particularly in West Auckland in terms of Wai Health and the work that the Waipareira Trust has done in that area, which has just been magnificent in terms of lifting up our people. I salute my old mate JT, who has been at the forefront of Māori health. Riana Manuel, who was leading the Māori Health Authority, did some terrific work. So many people have been let down by this—Professor Papaarangi Reid, a leading advocate in terms of kaupapa Māori initiatives and tikanga Māori initiatives; Dr Rawiri Jansen, who did a lot of work for us; Dr Mataroria Lyndon, Hūhana Lyndon’s brother. We have such a long list of Māori advocates in the health area. All of them could have walked into this place and did terrific jobs, and just in the last 48 hours, we’ve heard Dr Lance O’Sullivan warn us about the dangers of the health system in terms of Māori.

What we can’t get over, on this side of the House, is: what upsets the other side so much in terms of our kaupapa? Why does it come to a point where we actually even have to change the name of this organisation so that Winston Peters or his supporters feel more comfortable? We’ve got to the point, now, where we actually have to take the “Pae Ora” name out of the legislation and make it subservient to the English kōrero. It’s so sad and so disappointing for Māori, who have not been able to fairly access the health system, not been able to achieve equity, and not been able to get support but have worked within the system, as they did with us in our term as we went about attempting to set up the Māori Health Authority to look after the needs of our people within the system. But, of course, that was quickly disbanded by this Government, who said, “No. We have the right answer for you.”, and that answer is about Māori disappearing, Māori words, Māori kaupapa, tikanga Māori—anything to do with Māori is chucked out.

We heard the Minister last night: “Don’t you have an advisory board?” Well, it’s not good enough—it’s just not good enough. The Minister of Health calls it “Healthy Futures” while stripping away the very principles designed to make New Zealand healthier. This bill replaces equity with bureaucracy and compassion with key performance indicators. Patients don’t need another restructuring; they actually just need a doctor sometimes. They actually just need to get in to see the doctor. You can’t hit health targets by deleting the people who are working to reduce health inequity, and that’s what this Government has done here.

The problem with the legislation is that it confuses speed—it’s all about speed; it’s not that we’re not into targets; we’re talking about targeting Māori; “Oh, no, we won’t be targeting Māori.”—with success. Fast isn’t better if the sickest are left behind. We’re removing Māori voices from decision making while claiming everyone will somehow benefit. A health system without equity isn’t universal; it’s unequal by design. You can’t legislate away health disparities by pretending they don’t exist. The Government says this is all about patients, yet it weakens the mechanisms created to hear the communities with the poorest health outcomes. Health isn’t improved by rewriting legislation; it’s improved by funding nurses, GPs, ambulances, and hospitals, which that Government seems to be so allergic to.

Removing principles doesn’t remove problems; it simply removes accountability. When you reduce Māori participation in health governance, you reduce the health system’s ability to respond to Māori communities. This is what our people are saying. This is what they’re saying in terms of the partnership boards that I want Minister Potaka to take some notice of: “We do not just want to be the mihi people. We don’t just want to be the mihi men.”—like Minister Potaka over there—“We want to contribute. We want to be in the decision-making area.” That’s what iwi partnerships are about. It’s not about “Get up and do your mihi, now shut your mouth!” That’s what this other side wants. We want to be able to contribute. We want to be we want to be the leaders, not the mihi people on the side just doing nothing. This Government is less about improving healthcare and more about rewriting the Government’s ideological dislike of public health into law and pretending that it’s a solution.

It’s been a privilege on this side of the House to support our people, to support our communities—and not just Māori, because we always say that if you strengthen the Māori sector, then all New Zealanders will benefit. The other side don’t seem to get their heads around that. They seem to be scared. They seem to think that if we’re able to dilute, water down, get rid of Māori solutions—by Māori, for Māori strategies—then they, somehow, will appease and placate New Zealand. But they’re not doing that. I invite them just to have a look at their own polls to get some validity in regards to that.

If equity disappears from the statute book, it doesn’t disappear from the emergency department. We’ve all seen that tragic reality at the Waikato Hospital emergency department this week, and I’m sure the whole House sends their aroha to that whānau. An absolute tragedy in crisis that’s happened down there.

The Government keeps promising efficiency, but patients can’t be treated with smart alec press releases from a smart alec Minister who has no idea about what’s happening in our community, has no idea in terms of what Māori want and what people want. His speech last night was an absolute disgrace. I’m happy to say that he might get applause from his Government mates, but our communities are disgusted with the rubbish coming from this Government.

A healthier future requires investment, not simply changing the words in an Act of Parliament. History won’t judge this bill by how many clauses it amended, it will judge it by whether people’s health actually improved. We vote against this bill because it won’t improve public health, it just pretends to. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (09:22): Clarity is power. The more clear you are about excepting what you want, the more likely you are to achieve it. This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill provides a clear direction for our health system, ensuring a laser focus on delivering the results New Zealanders expect. Its purpose is simple: to ensure patients receive timely access to quality healthcare. We are here, fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:22): This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister of Health represents a fundamental dismantling of the equity architecture built into the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022. It does not improve health services. This bill does the opposite. It takes away Māori governance; it removes statutory equity obligations; it centralises ministerial control, silences health workers, and introduces perverse legislative targets, all while, at the same time, bypassing meaningful consultation with tangata whenua Māori.

This bill passed second reading earlier on in March of this year, despite the overwhelming public opposition to it: 1,787 submissions were received, the majority of whom objected to this bill. The critics included Māori advocates, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the Mental Health Foundation, disability advocates, Treaty specialists, who all uniformly condemned not only the bill but the direction that it takes.

The Minister of Health also did not accept the invitation from the Health Committee for him to provide oral evidence on this bill, which indicates to us in this House that the Government, whose legislation we have before us, does not want to be scrutinised about this bill. The Labour Party strongly objects to the passage of this bill because it undermines Māori voice. It weakens Treaty commitments. It takes decision making far, far away from the local communities that it affects. It erodes the partnership between the Crown and its Te Tiriti partner in favour of an advisory bureaucracy. It binds future Governments with inflexible targets and it strips the legislation of Māori identity and wellbeing principles.

The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, which this bill repeals, was enacted following the Health and Disability Systems Review and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 575 Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry. That inquiry found that Māori health and equities were the direct result of persistent Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Māori average life expectancy is seven to eight years less than non-Māori. The economic burden of existing health inequalities and inequities is estimated at over $863 million per year. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement concedes that the benefits of this bill are assessed as low, and any improvements are likely to be marginal. So why—and I asked the Minister this question last night—is the Minister of Health writing privatisation language into the objectives of the Health New Zealand Act at all, when the evidence from overseas shows that heavily privatised systems, especially in the United States of America, costs more, excludes more people, and it produces worse equity outcomes than universal public health systems like we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Clause 13 of the bill actually writes in that our Act should consider privatisation and private providers, and this is privatisation creep coming into our public health system. This matters because universal public health systems are designed with access to health services according to need, while heavily privatised systems ration access according to insurance status and according to people’s and families’ ability to pay. For Māori people, for Pacific people, for our ethnic communities, disabled people, low-income families, and our rural communities, that difference is not abstract. It shapes whether or not people receive preventive care early or present later to hospital sicker, and it will cost us, as taxpayers, more money.

We do not commend this bill to the House. Our mokopuna will live with the consequences of the decisions made in this Chamber. They deserve a health system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (09:27):E te Māngai o te Whare,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:28): Kia ora. I want to talk about this bill in terms of its direction of travel because I think it consolidates the feelings on this side of the House rather well. I absolutely loved hearing the comments made by the Hon Jenny Salesa yesterday because they spoke to my values. I am particularly concerned about this bill because it breaks the trust of a lot of New Zealanders. They’re out there, working for the people who most need our help. It’s not about a moneyed class; it’s about everybody. This bill erodes so many good things, and so I want to talk about some of them, why people should worry about them, and why they should think about where they want to be in New Zealand in the next few years when they’re at the ballot box.

Now, one of the issues that I have with this bill—and I talked about it yesterday—was a discussion about the targets. The Minister basically attacked me and suggested that I was belittling the targets that he’d set as not appropriate. I wasn’t belittling those targets. Those are all important targets to me, but the bill itself doesn’t show New Zealanders a future where targets will be set actually on the basis of what’s needed at the time. It embeds a few random targets.

There is no reason why you would put the target about cancer into the legislation but not put a similar target with regard to heart attacks in the legislation. That’s just illogical. What we needed to see if we were going to look at a bill that made sense was a less arrogant approach of a Minister setting what he considered to be his reckons on what was important at this moment. It needed to be structural. It needed to have in it an ability to consult with people about what was the target at the time and to flex as one problem was solved and another was put into the list of targets. That is a good approach to legislation. This is not a kingdom run by a Minister. This is a system that needs to have the resilience of flex in it so that we can solve problems and we can keep solving problems. There are myriads of problems in our health system at present.

Now, one of the problems we saw was, yesterday, a terrible tragedy of someone dying in one of our emergency departments. It’s a terrible thing. I just want to take a minute to say to the family that that was something that I will never forget happening. I will always remember it. I know that people on this side of the House will remember the failure that that was, in anyone’s count. I know there will be an investigation done, but there was no way that that was a good result or an acceptable result.

What will help people in this country who deeply need support from their health system is one that tackles those real problems in a systematic and intelligent way, and that means thinking about things like equity and how we actually get an approach which helps people properly and equally, given their circumstances. That means we do have to concern ourselves with things like the eight years of different life expectancy for Māori. That’s a complete failure. Each one of those people who dies eight years earlier—that’s a tragedy that should be on the front page, that should be reported by Radio New Zealand. Those are things we need to take account of, because they’re real human beings. They’re real tragedies to their families when those people die early. Our health system, it must address those things.

That should have actually been one of the things that was considered possible to prioritise in those targets. But, in fact, we get a random selection—we get a completely random selection, which shows an unbelievable level of illogicality, arrogance, and, actually, just ideology. It shows an ideology that says, “I will always know best.” It shows an ideology that refuses to see the tragedy of all the deaths that aren’t reported. All those people—eight years of life taken away from a group of people because that has not been addressed properly. It’s not moral that that hasn’t been addressed. It’s a big deal that it hasn’t, and it needs to be a priority for New Zealand.

Now, I want to talk about the issue over the charter, because, again, this is something I did make quite a big deal about and I asked questions about of the Minister, and I was given this glib response that the charter that was embedded and has now gone, it didn’t talk about patients. The charter is all about patients.

Tim Costley: It doesn’t use the word once.

HELEN WHITE: Many systems that we need in this situation—

Tim Costley: It talks about unions 11 times.

HELEN WHITE: Now, I’m going to answer the question, so rather than heckle, perhaps you could listen and I’ll explain why it is that the charter is important to patients.

Functional systems where the health workforce are engaged in a way, in their own value system, in bringing up issues and solving problems—those are all incredibly important to our outcomes in health. People on this side of the House understand it’s got to come from the workforce. It’s incredibly important that the workforce participate. It is arrogant to think it can be top-down. It’s never worked—it’s never worked. It doesn’t work in our largest companies, and therefore they adopt different approaches. They involve workers if they want to make things change well. When it comes to care of people, who is better informed than the person holding their hand? Who is better informed than the workers committed to their care? Those are the people who understand how to make our system better. Those are the people who see the deaths in our workplaces.

This is important, and it is a major difference between the two parties—that one shuns the workforce, is contemptuous of their offering, treats them like they are automatons, and one understands that every workforce has a quality of actual moral engagement. The people who are our nurses and our doctors, they are committed to the wellbeing of their patients, and they need to be involved in solving the failings in that system, so it’s incredibly important they commit to the values of that system.

One of the things that they committed to, which I suspect was what was actually the decider for the Minister, is they committed to addressing the inequities, they committed to addressing and actually committed to the Treaty of Waitangi, and that would have been a red rag to a bull, wouldn’t it? Imagine addressing the issues and the failings that have caused such systemic issues as the early death, by eight years, of a particular group. Wouldn’t that be just a terrible thing to do? That’s what people on the ground see and that’s what they want to solve. But now we take away their participation in that by removing the charter. It was a well-thought-out charter. I read it. There was nothing wrong with that charter. It was going in the right direction.

Now I want to talk about clause 13, the privatisation clause. This commits our health system to looking at contracting out. Now, this may be the Trojan horse of this. While we all look over here at some stuff that’s really important, this is an objective that is put into the legislation that is highly ideological. As the Hon Jenny Salesa said, this hasn’t worked overseas. It’s causing great, great concern in places like America, which has such wealth; people don’t have decent healthcare. Is that the way we want to go? That’s the way that the Government is taking this country. It’s taking it towards poverty, despair, and death—that’s what it’s taking it towards. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (09:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. National is taking the health system back to sensible measures of actual performance, because we do know that when those targets were taken away, wait times blew out massively. It was incredibly frustrating, as a GP, to see the inability to get patients into the system when the system was not focused on making sure that patients were being seen. It’s very obvious to me that this is a tool that works very well, as we see waiting times go down. As we are fixing the basics in the system, we’ll build the future. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed from 23 July 2025.

Part 5 Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act, Schedule 3, and Part 3 of Schedule 4 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. When the committee was last considering the bill, we were debating Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 80 to 123—amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations—and Schedule 3, and Part 3 of Schedule 4.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in consideration of the three Amendment Papers that he has tabled for the committee’s consideration, whether there are any new amendments since the last time the committee considered his bill, or whether he intends to prepare any other amendments that will be introduced in the period today?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:42): The answer is no and no. It’s just what we’re debating now.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (09:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to clause 93, section 100I, where it talks about the change that’s made with regard to a time limit of three months after a claimant has been notified of the final assessment of a claim to submit disputes to arbitration. Now, I would just like to question the thinking around why changing it to a three-month time limit? Because if I think about, depending on what the situation may have been, whether it was quite a traumatic situation for somebody—if we think about, say, M. bovis as an example, where someone was denied, perhaps, compensation or something, and they were still quite traumatised by it, that three months to get themselves together to dispute that decision is not that much time. I’m just interested to know why the Minister says that they chose three months as opposed to any other, perhaps six months or further. If the Minister would be so kind as to answer that, that would be great. Thank you.

The next question that I have for the Minister is clause 99, section 111. Now, it talks about removing the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable. I’m just thinking about certain situations whereby safety could be paramount for those exercising a warrant, and I note that, in the explanation and the rationale for this change, we have a situation where it says, “MPI inspectors are trained in the execution of search warrants.” The reason that, perhaps, they’ve removed the need for having to be accompanied by a constable is because it makes logistical and resourcing difficult for both the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the New Zealand Police. I’m interested to know that, if there is no longer going to be the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable, what is going to be put in place to ensure the safety of those people? Because, potentially, you could be dealing with situations where people are quite upset and a bit volatile, perhaps not thinking rationally, so it’s important for the committee and those watching to understand what safeguards will be in place to ensure the safety of those exercising the warrant.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the Minister of Agriculture to page 4—I’m at clause 94. I want to ask him about the removal from the original Act of section 100L(7)(b), which used to require levies made under the Biosecurity Act to be confirmed by an Act. This is a change to the way that levy-making powers will apply to the department and is a question about, really, what levies he intends this to apply to, given that the old power would have required Parliament to pass those levies, or at least confirm those levies, and that is an ordinary sort of levy-making power. Levies are more like a taxation power, and in this situation, we are guided by guidance from the legislative design committee. These kinds of levies that are being entirely decided by the department and not either by a Minister or by Order in Council are relatively unusual in our system.

I also want to ask him whether he intends them to be subject to disallowance in the normal way and how he intends for Parliament to assert its interest in levies which are charged in this way. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the committee an example of a levy which uses this power and will be changed in this way. I also want to ask him whether he intends for existing levies that were passed by the House in an Act to be able to be modified without an Act. Are there levies, which the House has considered in the past, which he is now extending the power to the department to change in future without Parliament’s sort of secondary check under 100L(7)(b)?

I also want to ask him what the mechanism for presentation is now that secondary legislation is recorded in a different way to when it was in 1993 when the original Act was passed, whether the only presentation is publication on the legislation website, or whether these sorts of levies are, in a standard way, circulated with the industry. Really, the question is: do industry stakeholders who will be levied get the kind of notification that you would expect when a levy is much more like a tax than a fee? The levy-making power here is broad. He hasn’t narrowed it. So how will people know that they are being subject to the levy if it’s not in a sort of primary legislation form, which is what is removing here.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:48): Just to help members, I thought this can be quite interactive. I thank them for their questions, which are helpful.

In respect of the 3-month period, which was asked by the Hon Jo Luxton, this is merely to set a time frame so that the system can work very, very well. Ultimately, where somebody has had a decision made and they want to appeal, they will be aware of this as they go on, and it won’t be a surprise to them. Often they will be quite prepared, but there have been examples where over a very long period of time, they get to come and appeal and, actually, it makes it a bit more of a challenge for the smooth functioning of this part of the Act. Where somebody does want to appeal a decision, they’ll need to submit their appeal, but that’s not the end of the process, because part of it continues to be interactive as they go forward.

It was supported, broadly, by many of the representatives of the primary sector, who would think that this is fair and balanced, but it doesn’t mean that, actually, it is taking away the ability for people to appeal. It actually just focuses it, and it means that we get a better decision-making process.

As far as the warrants are concerned, where there is a necessity for a warrant to be served, or some form of litigation, the need for a constable often can delay or create cost. The Ministry for Primary Industries will have the ability to judge different circumstances. There’ll be many where they will judge that a constable is not actually necessary and it’s very straightforward, but they will take their responsibility for staff and safety and so on seriously. Where they believe that a constable is required, as they have made an assessment, of course that’s available to them, and so it doesn’t say that one shouldn’t be there; it just means that they don’t have to be there on every single occasion. In some cases, warrants will be very, very uniform and very, very standard, and in others, the level of risk or concern may rise, in which case a decision is made to ensure the safety of all concerned.

In as far as the last question is concerned—around levies—across the primary sector there are many levies available to us. There is a process of consultation and engagement that works very, very well, but it is the judgment of the Government that having to come back and set levies in primary legislation takes up the time of the House that often can be better used. But that does not mean that the Government or Ministers are not involved in the decision-making process. It is not left to the department to do. They will do the work, and it’s a very similar process to any other regulations that would be set. In the consultation, there are many safeguards that the Minister has to be assured of before a levy is set or can be changed, and, ultimately, I’m advised that this is a regulation, and so the Regulations Review Committee has the involvement and should look at these, and so on. We’re just taking away the change to a levy, where it needs to be set, from the time of the House, but there is still scrutiny both by Government Ministers and, at the same time, by members of Parliament through the Regulations Review Committee.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:51): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning, Minister, and I’m happy to have a back and forth, if that makes things easier.

I’m on clause 100, “Section 114A amended (Application of articles or substances from aircraft)”, under Part 5. Now, being removed is the requirement that there be a notification in a newspaper circulated in the area, and that seems logical and somewhat archaic in terms of the other options that are available to us now to communicate with people. What it is being replaced with is, in new section 114A(5), that “A public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways, … (a) by … Gazette: (b) by publication in all major metropolitan daily newspapers”, and I won’t read them all out, but it goes through a number of options.

I wonder whether there is a risk, Minister, that if there’s not one certain place where the public can go to be notified of when there are applications of articles or substances from aircraft, the least onerous option might be chosen. But it may not be the most effective one for communicating that occurrence to the public, and I ask what advice you may have got on that.

Then the other question is this. In terms of consideration of the risks of different substances in new section 114A(5B), it says, “(a) the nature and significance of the matter required to be notified;”, and it says that the chief technical officer must consider those, including “(b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.” Where is the guidance for technical officers making those determinations on which substances are of most concern or interest to the public, presumably because of their risk profile?

Finally, what are the sorts of substances and articles that are being talked about here? Is there any sort of list of articles and substances? That may relate to my proceeding question, which is: what are the risk profiles of those substances, which ones are more of a problem if there is public exposure or exposure to another landowner’s animals or plants, and how were those things delineated or advised on? Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to that clause 100, this is a matter of public interest, and so it would be useful for the Minister to clarify some of the points that my colleague Steve Abel has raised.

I want to ask the Minister why he didn’t take the opportunity, really, to update this section more in line with the public engagement process which actually happens with the Government departments. This seems very bald on the face of it, compared to what, say, an organisation like the Department of Conservation does to engage with the public in an area where, say, poison drops are being done in bush. It is very useful for the department to do that—

Hon Tama Potaka: They do.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —it is very important for our conservation projects, and it is good that I hear the Minister of Conservation advocating for his department when they do that.

It is a critical public service, and yet what’s here in the Minister of Agriculture’s updated amendment to this section doesn’t reflect any of the good work that the department does to let the public know about why this is important, why, say, the dropping of a seed mash in an area will lead to an explosion of a pest population and why they must respond to that. It doesn’t include any of the good engagement the department does with tangata whenua in relation to their land, of which they are kaitiaki. He could easily include, say, an exclusion from liability if those things did not happen, and that would be something that I imagine everyone in this House would be interested in supporting, but, instead, he has set a very old formulation, really, of this rule, which has then been updated just to allow for the gazetting and the way that you might advertise this in the paper.

This is something which is a good story, and we want the department and the kinds of organisations that do this to be able to tell it and to reflect the actual situation on the ground where they do tell these stories. This looks like hiding behind a rule which is far back from the start line of what is actually happening in practice from our primary industries, where they work really hard to make sure that they have public trust and confidence in the system around using aerial drops in this way. So I want to understand what options the Minister considered when he was updating the public consultation and public notification requirements. The situation has change in 2026, and New Zealanders, I think, want to see conservation powers used in this way, boldly and publicly.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:56): In as far as what’s covered and what needs to be notified or published, that doesn’t change. That’s in another Act, and that’s not the reason for this very small amendment.

But the last member’s point about the public having an opportunity to be aware of what’s going on, as the Act requires, is the reason for making the change, because, ultimately, the current section 114A(5) says, “in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the place is situated”. There are very many fewer newspapers in New Zealand now, and so this is merely an update to say that there are a number of ways in which the department may inform people—one or more—and it’s a judgment on the part of the department to make sure that enough information is provided so that people could know. In many provincial parts of New Zealand, there are no longer newspapers, and, indeed, many New Zealanders no longer get their information—their truthful information—from newspapers. There is a range of ways that they will do that, and so this is merely updating that section to say that there are a number of ways now that the communication with people who have an interest should take place.

Secondly, the House has done something like this on many occasions. There are many pieces of legislation that used to say that you had to post things to people, or you had to fax things to people. At the time that we updated those, we didn’t go into the depths of what information should be provided. In this case, there is no change to the things that trigger the need to provide information to New Zealanders; we are merely saying that there are many ways to do that, including through online means.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (09:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister in response to an answer he gave in response to a previous question of mine around the issuing of warrants. The Minister talked about the Ministry for Primary Industries, and, obviously, they will ask the police or a constable to support them, if they feel that they need that. But I’m interested to know, in the event that they do need that, whether there is any criteria that they are going to use to judge whether or not they are going to need a constable, because people can be quite unpredictable in certain situations. Are they doing monitoring of those people—I mean, what assessment is going to be given and what criteria will they follow to know whether or not they’re likely to need a constable?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:59): Well, I hope that the member is not suggesting that she’s bringing in an Amendment Paper saying that we should be monitoring people. The answer to that is no, of course we’re not, but, ultimately, the department has been doing these things for a very long period of time and they are skilled at it. They have obligations to their staff with regard to health and safety, and they take those seriously. This is merely saying that there will be situations where their experience and the knowledge that they have has shown that the use of a constable is not needed and, therefore, it would be an additional cost or delay, but they will also take their responsibilities seriously in situations where they believe there could be a need for them to have the ability to do that, and I expect that they would.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on that, your response to clause 100, “Section 114A amended”—I appreciate that response. Obviously, I agree with the problem of the diminishment of the number of local newspapers being a sad loss for us as a country, but it’s a fact of what’s happened.

The requirement, in new subsection (5A), that “A public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways”: one of those is “(c) by publication, either temporarily or permanently, on the Ministry’s public Internet site”. Shouldn’t that be, Minister, an absolutely given—that, at the bare minimum, it will always be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ website? That seems the least onerous and least costly method of certain notification. Again, I think the problem is, given the multitude of methods by which this information can be communicated, there’s a risk that there’s not one certain place that is the total list of all the locations where there are going to be applications from aircraft. Why would you not have a requirement that, as a bare minimum, there has to be publication on the ministry’s internet site, and the other options can be additional to that?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:01): I know the member will be surprised to know that probably only he and I are the only two people in the whole country that spend all their time looking at the Ministry for Primary Industries’ website, but, ultimately, there will be a range of areas they would want to do it. You know, if you think about it, rather than being prescriptive, we are saying that the ministry has an obligation to make sure people can be informed. At the moment, it’s only through newspapers. We are giving them a range of tools to be able to do that. It would be my expectation, depending upon the activity, that they would choose more than one—but we are deciding that, rather than being overly prescriptive, we’re saying that they should use their judgment for themselves.

Indeed, the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in this matter would mean that, in some situations, it could just be a local newspaper, as is the case at the moment; in other situations, it could just be the ministry’s website; or a multitude of those. I think we are able to trust the judgment of the officials and the department to take their responsibilities seriously. It is their desire that people know about this, not that they don’t know, and, therefore, they will take their responsibility seriously.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s the first time I’ve spoken on this piece of legislation and it is a non-contentious one, but there are lots of very important issues in here. Part 5, of course, is relating to biosecurity. It’s been consistently judged the most important area of, I guess, agribusiness concern. We do have to take the opportunity, in pieces of legislation like this, to tidy up the law.

Can I refer to clause 116; it’s around compensation. There are some provisions here that are laid out: a person must make claim within one year—fair enough; it’s not payable beyond three years. I’d ask the Minister, was consideration given to other areas or other provisions that might eliminate the right to compensation, because I know—from experience, I know farmers who are forced to pay levies to tidy up areas of compensation, M. bovis being one of the obvious ones. How did this happen, who caused it, and what potential liability might lie around it for compensation or some other obligation to pay it back?

The question is whether anyone—and I think the current Biosecurity Act does refer in a general sense to someone having contributed to the outbreak or incursion—would possibly not be able to get access to compensation. The question here is, did the Minister or officials consider whether they should have used this piece of legislation to tidy up those provisions and make sure that anyone, any company or any individual, who may have contributed to a biosecurity incursion or cost or blow-out or whatever—that that person is immediately exempt from or prevented from applying within the one- or three-year period for any compensation? Indeed, there is a real question there around, should there be litigation or court action? At what point in that one- to three-year period does someone remain still able to claim compensation if they have a possible charge coming up and they’re deemed to be innocent, thereby, they’re able to claim for compensation?

These are the kinds of technical issues that you might say go beyond the remits of this bill, but, actually, this bill is for the tidy-up of these very types of provisions. So, the question to the Minister is: did he or officials consider the access to compensation for more than just a length of time, but, actually, whether it relates to any liability in the courts or the court action that may, in fact, give some guidance on that? It’s a question for the Minister, again, in clause 116—and I see that he’s getting some advice.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:05): Just on that one, because it’s quite technical, I’m advised that the clause—some of the issues that the member raised, he is correct about: they are not as part of this bill, and whilst he’s correct it’s a tidy-up bill, some of those would go further than just tidying up and creating a clarification. So, they’re not part of this.

However, I’m advised that the clause merely gives directional clarity that says that compensation would be sought whether the powers that have been used have been used lawfully or not. It is suggesting, therefore, or saying, therefore, that if the department has used its powers, whether that be lawful or otherwise, somebody has a right to consider and seek compensation—firstly. Secondly, as far as time frames are concerned, it is set up so we are able to work through these things in an orderly fashion and, therefore, it works on both sides. People understand their rights and obligations and the department does, as well. I am informed that it does interact with a court deciding liability or whether or not something has happened there. A court would have the ability to consider their case before the statutory time frame or limitation for compensation would kick in.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (10:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, my question is around clause 115, “Section 159A amended (Accelerated infringement notice procedure for border infringement offences)”. I know the Minister has talked about the challenge of receiving information via post. We know that, particularly in our rural areas, we don’t have a great postal service anymore. But we’ve got here: “In section 159A(3), replace ‘is deemed to have been served on the defendant when it was posted’ with ‘is treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as having been served on the defendant when it would have been delivered to the defendant in the ordinary course of the post’”. This seems to open up a whole lot of discretion. I wonder, has the Minister thought about how that is going to be actually applied? Because it looks as though this could be applied in any number of ways—it’s just opened it wide open.

It might be a small thing. It’s dealing with, I understand, a challenge, when we can’t rely on the post anymore, but surely there must be another way of giving some clarity about post, email, telephone call, or something that is there that gives us a bit more clarity, because this is wide open. I’d like the Minister to see if there’s something that can help us understand a little bit more about why that’s so extremely wide. Thank you.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister a question with regards to compensation. In a follow-up report from the Ministry for Primary Industries that was tabled in November 2024, it was noted that since 2017, there are over 3,500 compensation claims where a decision has been issued. I know that three have gone to arbitration, and legal costs of these can be anything between $200,000 and $1.5 million.

Now, if the arbitration deadline in amended section 162A(6)(a) introduces a time limit for going to arbitration after a decision on compensation is made, could the arbitration time limit introduced effectively prevent claimants from accessing arbitration in situations where legal advice or funding is delayed? And could this disproportionately impact small-scale operators—you know, farmers and growers—because of this provision?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just while the Minister of Agriculture considers that, I want to ask him about clause 101, amending section 116, which introduces some wider powers of removal for the officers undertaking search. The replacement subsection (1)(b) includes a container, so it’s relevant to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question when it comes to compensation.

Essentially, the Minister here is drawing the net wider for what can be seized and removed. Well, maybe not wider, but more explicitly to include, say, a whole shipping container in the situation where a small part of it might be contaminated with, say, pest species—then, at the other end of the net, effectively, as the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, hasn’t closed down an avenue for compensation on that. You then have a broader seizure power, which opens the State up to essentially getting it wrong and essentially taking away too much of any given goods. I want to ask the Minister first whether this is standard practice, and so perhaps there have been real issues in the past where seizure has included an entire container, and then people have raised issues around the Government seizing too much, and that’s why he’s included the specific power, and then how that impacted upon compensation.

I laughed when the Minister said, “Oh, that’s outside of a statutory bar, and this way would be outside of the ordinary tidy-ups in this bill”. These ordinary tidy-ups are pretty extraordinary impositions on civil liberties that we all are enthusiastic about—that we have a system that allows a lot of regulation in this area, and that is something which is broadly supported around this House. We need tough biosecurity laws, and we need a department that can respond very effectively and quickly and to have flexible powers. But something like introducing a statutory bar on compensation when you are drawing the net a bit wider and intentionally giving the department the ability to seize a large amount of goods from, look, a business owner who has imported them, who has imported them, who has incurred costs—that is something that is being agreed to here, but wouldn’t be an overextension of the powers if they worked together when you consider just how wide they are already in the primary legislation and in these powers that are being amended and extended.

I want to ask the Minister whether, first, is that common practice? I’ll just quickly get in another question about the levy-making power. The Minister was very helpful in confirming that he’s considered this. It’s appropriate for the House not to have to consider every levy change—I think that’s broadly agreed—but I heard him say that there would be limitations around the way that increase in levy-making power was used, I think. Is it his intention that that sort of increase in a levy by the department that wasn’t moved through an Act would be, say, in an emergency situation like M. bovis, when Government had to act quickly to increase its funding available for response? Or would it be the other end of that—would it be a minor increase or a minor change to the levy which sort of escaped public notice and wasn’t of much concern to anyone? I’m trying to understand the limitations on that is important when making a change to secondary legislation in this way, given that it’s a levy-making power which is broad—not a fee—and which is associated with actual costs.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:14): I’ll deal with some of these now. In as far as the question from the Green member around post and so on, the change actually helps those who are to have the notice served upon them. At the moment it says that if it is put in the post, it is deemed to have been served. In this case, it’s treated as if it is unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the case that a notice is posted to somebody and they are overseas at that period of time, the mere posting under the rules currently would say that they have received it, they’ve been served; in this case, there could be shown to the contrary that shows they’re overseas, it wasn’t served, and therefore it actually hasn’t taken effect. This is, in a way, a clarification that provides protection to those who are receiving a notice to make it fairer upon them. It won’t make a lot of significant alteration, but it is, we think, fairer in that respect.

In as far as the Hon Jo Luxton is concerned, the answer is no, it won’t have a detrimental effect or an unreasonable effect upon smaller farm operators. We have considered that.

For the containers, it is a fair and important point. I thank the member for her enthusiasm for this part of the bill. I’m glad we’re moving through it quickly; I would hate for her enthusiasm to wane as we continue through urgency. But if you think of it from the point of view that everything we do in the Act is to protect New Zealand producers from pestilence or other things that could come across a border, there will have been situations where a whole container needed to be seized or detained. We are merely clarifying that under the law so there is no ambiguity. In the case that part of a container has a biosecurity hazard in it, it is not unreasonable to assume that other parts of that container may also therefore have been affected, or could be affected. The Ministry takes a precautionary approach, but not a heavy-handed one. The changes that we’re putting in place, I think, are fair and are well balanced.

Although the member is right that we take biosecurity very seriously, this type of bill is merely to make smaller changes, not necessarily overly consequential ones, so the Act can continue to work and be enforced appropriately, rather than having to wait for a time when the whole Biosecurity Act itself may be changed. Some of the ways we are serving notices, these other clarifications, and so on are extremely important in the fair, smooth functioning of the Biosecurity Act, but in themselves would not necessitate an overall amendment or review of the Biosecurity Act, which would have an opportunity to consider many other things.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:17): Thank you, Mr Chair. I refer to clause 106, “Section 131 amended (Declaration of controlled area)”. It is a very timely adjustment, but the question for the Minister is whether other things had been considered?

It is the public notification process here, in this clause. An example might be Madagascar ragwort, which is a growing issue up in Northland, and I know it’s been raised with the Ministry and the Minister himself—that is, when do you declare a controlled area? It states here when you do, and the decision-making on whether it should or shouldn’t is something I’d hope the Minister is looking at. New subsection (3A)(a) says “by notice in the Gazette—a couple of people might read the Gazette—and paragraph (b) refers to “all major metropolitan newspapers; they might read the New Zealand Herald up north, but not necessarily.

It does go on to say, in new subsection (3B)—this is in notifying the public of what is a critical component of the Biosecurity Act and its workings—how you notify the public: “In deciding which methods of notification are most appropriate in any particular case, the chief technical officer or management agency must consider … (b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.” That’s kind of fairly general. What we do have, unfortunately, from time to time in Wellington is omission of local newspapers and rags and community engagement.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, we’ve got one.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, we have. The question for the Minister is whether there should have been stronger recommendations to officials in Wellington, with all due respect to them, to ensure that, actually, the people who are affected—and sometimes they go way beyond the local controlled area notice (CAN) geographical area, like people coming and going from Northland, for example, people in the forestry industry, or whatever, who may be contributing to the spread of Madagascar ragwort—are informed.

Now, it’s not a controlled area notice, I respect that, Minister. But the question is if that occurs, are we sure that—and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation but it’s something that in reading through myself, I’m thinking, and for a local newspaper on the West Coast who are constantly telling me that they don’t get notification from Wellington for things that should have been passed through to local community, it is critical that this area is tidied up—when a CAN is issued, every single conceivable area of communication is utilised?

So whether subsection (3B)(a) and (b)—and there should be a (c) there saying: “and ensuring that every local method of communication, local radio, whatever, does receive notice of this controlled area notice.” So the question to the Minister is whether he considers that this goes far enough and whether, perhaps, it should have gone a little bit further.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:20): Well, I think I’ve answered similar questions four or five times on this section, but I’m happy to reiterate for the member: this is merely recognising that, currently, it has to be through a newspaper, and, although, on the West Coast, there may still be a newspaper in many parts of New Zealand—rural New Zealand or provincial New Zealand—there are no longer those or they’re not delivered. People get their—

Hon Rachel Brooking: In the great city of Dunedin, there is.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Pardon me?

Hon Rachel Brooking: The great city of Dunedin, there is.

Hon TODD McCLAY: That’s right. And there are a lot of sheep and cows in the middle of Dunedin that we need to control—you’re right.

The point here is, though, actually recognising that people get information in different ways—firstly. And then secondly, we want to ensure that the tools available to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and biosecurity are there to inform people. But the members can be assured, given the seriousness with which we take biosecurity, that all means possible are used, particularly when there is a significant concern.

If we cast our mind back to the Psa—a disease that hit kiwifruit many years ago—it wasn’t merely a newspaper where information was put out, it was all of the things that the member’s talking about. So this doesn’t say that the Ministry should just use one, it, actually, depending upon the security, says that they will use tools available to them to ensure that people are aware of their concerns and what their responsibilities are.

I think it is well-balanced and will work, but it is merely giving them the flexibility to ensure that they can communicate adequately with the public, rather than, at the moment, it says you need to do it in a newspaper, and if there isn’t a newspaper there, it is impossible to do that. Of course, they would do other things as well, but the Act requires them to use a newspaper and, perhaps, putting it in the New Zealand Herald could be a good idea, but it won’t always find its way to Dunedin because it’s largely a North Island newspaper, and I know what people are like in Dunedin.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question with regard to clause 107, section 134 amended. Now, the one after section 134(1) insert (1AA): “An inspector or authorised person may permit a movement under subsection (1)(b) subject to any conditions that they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.” Now, when we’re dealing with biosecurity and enforcement areas of controls and things like that, this can be quite a pretty serious situation, and I just wondered if the Minister had given anymore consideration to, perhaps, tightening up that wording or making it a lot clearer because when what someone considers to be reasonable, what someone can—

Tim Costley: Covered in the select committee.

Hon JO LUXTON: —take a call if you wish—but what someone considers to be reasonable in a circumstance could be quite different to what another person might consider reasonable. So I just wondered if there should be a little bit more stricter or tighter type wording in there to give a bit more, I guess, beef to that clause.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take the Minister to page 54. I’m at clause 121. I’ve just had a look through the Biosecurity (Form of Search Warrant) Regulations 2012 (SR 2012/277)—I don’t imagine this is something that the select committee would have sought advice on and I just want to make sure that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What clause is that again? Sorry.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —that is clause 121, we’re at line 26—and the question for the Minister is: I’m sure that the department is getting rid of these regulations because they weren’t using them, but I want to ask him why they weren’t using them? Because you have some things which, I think, would have been under a general police warrant and that would have been the appropriate sort of search, and then you have some things which the department is entitled to search without that sort of stipulated secondary legislation described form—why was there something in the middle is the question. Why were there searches that were being done by the department that weren’t prescribed in secondary legislation as a power that the department had? Or why were there searches that were not authorised by police that, you know, fall within the category of more serious searches and more invasive searches.

There’s no doubt that the department is empowered to search, but was it the case previously that the department was using its generalised search power without using the specific powers in the secondary legislation? I have no doubt in my mind that the secondary legislation was out of date; it required any number of disclosure of documents which are no longer relevant, but the question is: were searches done which were outside of the mandate of the department?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:25): As far as the Hon Jo Luxton’s questions or comments around an inspector and them being able to consider whether or not an activity can take place when there’s a closure order: the point here is that the inspector’s authorised people are trained and will have guidance and guidelines. It is not unreasonable for us to allow them to consider a situation where a movement of a person may be necessary, but at all times would be our expectation, and they would consider risk, in as far as biosecurity is concerned, the necessity of a person to do what they need to. And so, it is merely allowing that, so it is not unclear in law. There will be times when I’m sure that it happened, but we just want it to be clearer.

In as far as the issue of search warrants is concerned, the only place where primary legislation for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), to that effect, has a search warrant in primary legislation is this area. And so we’re aligning it with other things that they would do. It doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a search warrant; it does mean that it would be there. These things will develop over time to provide information to make sure that they keep pace with the evolution of law. But it is the only part in all of the Acts that MPI is responsible for where a search warrant is under primary legislation as opposed to developed other ways. We’re merely aligning it with everything else that is done.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:27): Thank you, Mr Chair. Referring to the amended wording in clause 116, in section 162A(1),where it says, “in good faith (whether or not they are exercised lawfully)”—I’m interested to know what checks and balances there are going to be in place there. So how are decision makers are going to distinguish between unlawful actions that are taken in good faith versus bad faith actions for the purposes of compensation?

Part 5 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 6 Amendments to Commodity Levies Act 1990, and Part 4 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to the debate on Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 124 to 130B—“Amendments to Commodity Levies Act 1990”—and Part 4 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about the extension of levy orders from 5 to 6 years under section 13(2), as amended by section 127 of the bill. I’m interested to know: what additional or strengthened oversight mechanisms are going to be introduced or are being introduced to ensure that levy organisations do remain accountable throughout this longer period?

Mr Chair? Thank you, Mr Chair. In section 13, as amended by clause 127, if levy bodies underperform or if industry conditions change significantly, what safeguards are there to ensure continued industry-wide consent and oversight?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:28): Thank you Mr Chair. As the proud chair of the best committee in this Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee, I regularly review and, the Minister will be happy to hear, I am very enthusiastic about commodity levies that come to the Regulations Review Committee for its approval.

I want to ask him about whether he has considered advice or amendments in this piece of legislation to the problem for the Regulations Review Committee when considering these levies, which is that, essentially, you know, they recognise that there is a free-rider problem in the industry—where if the industry is doing really well, it is very difficult to share the costs of improvements, which benefit everyone, if some actors within an industry do not play along, so that they are empowered to use State power in this way, as set out by this Act, the Commodity Levies Act 1990, to share those costs.

That is a good thing. It is good for “Brand New Zealand”. It is something with immense public benefit. But there is no point in the system, other than the Regulations Review Committee, where anyone who has a problem with the way that the industry has designed those levies—in a way that benefits larger players within the industry—to be able to raise a problem. We are the last cab off the rank, and you really have to know where the Regulations Review Committee is in its own little corner of Parliament to be able to raise those issues. People do. Often, they require pretty expensive legal advice to be able to do that, to be able to use that mechanism in Parliament, to be able to raise those complaints. It is not a good system, but it is the system we have. I’m not proposing a new one, but did he consider any options to improve that mechanism?

There are many, many amendments in this Act which are about improving the function of secondary legislation now that we have a Secondary Legislation Act and a more universal system of publishing instruments under it. This is one where there are definitely improvements to be made in terms of who is a trusted person within the industry to be able to go to to raise these concerns. A number of other industry bodies have that kind of process—whether raising complaints can be separated from the other sort of disciplinary mechanisms within these provisions, which allow industry bodies to sort of, in a soft way, punish people that bring complaints. All of that is something that, at the beginning of this section, would be helpful if the Minister would sort of consider and outline the advice he’s taken on improving the situation.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:31): In as far as the extension of six years, a new levy order is already six years; an extension is five years, which is merely lining it up so that there is certainty and not ambiguity again. If a new levy order is set, it is for a six-year period. An extension is for five years. It actually will reduce cost and compliance and create certainty for those who are to pay the levy but also those who are responsible for the use of the levy.

For the last speaker’s questions, ultimately, the decision of the Minister and therefore Cabinet to set a levy has a number of things that need to be considered. At all times, there has to be a vote, and, largely, Ministers have the ability to consider the weighting of the vote and whether or not the levy is fair and reasonable in as far as all players are concerned. There will often be those who have to pay a levy that will have a view of how it might be used differently, but levy groups and bodies are directed to engage with those who pay and their stakeholders very widely. There have been occasions where Governments, over a standard a period of time, have given feedback and have not always accepted a proposal to change a levy, to increase it, or for the levy-paying body to go back and consult further. I think the checks and balances are there.

I would disagree—I would argue that the Regulations Review Committee is not the last cab off the rank. It’s a very important part of the process.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): An important cab on the rank.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:33): Thank you, and can I just agree wholeheartedly with the Minister and maybe not my colleague that her committee is very important and is not the last cab off the rank—a very, very important committee. I’m a proud ex-member of it, as are many people in this House.

But, anyway, that’s not my question. My question is about the application of the commodity levies to a range of different levies, so a range of different types of producing—food. My questions relate to some of the terms used here. There’s a reference to “full season” and also a reference to “total area of land”. If the levy is applied to—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): You got a clause there?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: In clause 125A, at section 5(1), I think—is that where I saw it? Then we have “total area of land” at subsection (3). But it’s actually a very simple question, and that is: is, anywhere else in the legislation, a “full season” defined? Is that just a term that’s running through? Is a full season—there’s a reference here to not beyond 12 months, but I presume a full season will be quite different in different categories that the levies apply to, and is any clarity needed on that? That’s one of the questions.

Then “the total area of land devoted to the production of the commodity”—not just food; other commodities. Is that also a phrase that is defined in the legislation already, and is that something that could cause questions or not? Are these commonly referred to phrases so the “full season” makes sense in each of those different levy categories, as does the “total area of land”? Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:35): This amendment allows some flexibility when measuring the weighted voting—i.e., volume or value of product—in support referendums. It allows industries to be able to more accurately measure support in the most effective and efficient way. For a levy order to be brought to a Minister to set a levy to increase it, the Minister has to be assured that it has support, and there will be different ways of considering this. This allows for a greater say. It actually refers—probably it helps with the question earlier—to those who are smaller producers, and for the Minister to be assured that, actually, an appropriate amount of support is there for him or her to decide to bring the request for a decrease in levy to Cabinet.

Actually, as far as the questions are concerned, it is not necessary to state what a season is or areas of land and so on. From sector to sector, each levy itself—separate levy, separate Act, and so on—it will vary, from peony flowers to fruit to all sorts of other things and so on. It is very well clear and it is understood that a Minister would have to be assured, when those measurements are being used, or that category, that it does line up, and that would be advice he or she would receive.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:36): It’s interesting to see colleagues across the House clambering to articulate the value of their own committees when, of course, the Primary Production Committee is the best and most important committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): So many cabs on that rank now.

STEVE ABEL: But the kūmara doesn’t speak of its sweetness, Mr Chair.

In this clause, Minister, 125A, I wonder, can you give us an idea of what in the legislation to be amended was the problem or the absence that these amendments correct? i.e., what was the issue that needed to be solved, or is this simply an articulation of the same principles in clearer language, or is there an actual material change in the basis on which commodity levies are dealt with through these amendments in all of the parts of clause 125A, amending section 5(1) through to (4)? Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:38): Mr Chair, thank you. Can I suggest that the Regulations Review Committee is to Uber as other committees are to a Lime scooter, so they do a very important job.

In effect, there is not a significant change. Levies and levy orders—it works very, very well. They are well supported. You can look in many areas of significant production in New Zealand where the levy is used for research and science and other things to help the levy payers be better at what they produce, to meet obligations, and to improve production. The system works well.

These changes should be viewed as minor but ongoing improvement to ensure that the system continues to work well. It’s not a change of direction. It is not a change of principle. It is merely, as an example, where, in one of the earlier questions, a new levy order is for six years and an amended and updated one is for five years—to line it up so there is certainty. Every time there is a difference without it being purposeful, there can be uncertainty, and therefore could lead to cost.

This is merely—where you have a car, occasionally you will change things on the car to ensure it continues to work as well as it could. New tyres—some of these are as important as new tyres on a car.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:39): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. This is a unique piece of legislation, and it provides huge opportunities for New Zealand exporters, and I fully support it. It has endured the test of time, but it’s not been fully utilised as it might be. Can I just come back to clause 125A, “Section 5 amended (Restrictions on making of orders)”. While not having the wording of the status quo in front of me, if you go down to subsection (3): “Replace section 5(2)(aj) with: where voting in the support referendum was conducted on the basis of the area of land” being more than half. Maybe the Minister can explain to me how that has come up, because, actually, area of land is a very, very poor mandate for anything, given the huge variability in the productivity and the capability of farmers and growers to produce from that land. Can the Minister clarify that, firstly, it’s not, say, a grower with X hectares and then additional hectares that might be fallow or not utilised—that is, it might be part of a so-called orchard operation but not in production? Is the clarification and the specifications around the land appropriate?

Then, secondly—I want to go back to my first question—the appropriateness of that, to say that if half the land area for a commodity—say, avocados or something else—agree with this, when there may be more productive, highly efficient growers who have less land but produce a hell of a lot more commodity or product, they get outvoted. This is a critical and, from a constitutional perspective, arguably one of the more critical areas of Government legislation. This is the right to tax. This is the right to tax, and I don’t think there are many other areas of legislation where a group of people, or half of them, or half of the landowners, get the right to tax others. That is usually a privilege reserved for the Crown, and there’s quite a process that we go through when we impose a tax on anyone. This is a tax; it’s a levy. I’m not saying it’s bad; I’m saying that the right to impose that should be highly scrutinised.

I’ll come back to the first question I have for the Minister. The utilisation of the land as a proxy for that—what was the wisdom of that, and can he see the points I’m raising?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:42): Mr Chair, thank you. Yes, I can. These are already possible. This is more clarifying to make sure that it is used uniformly and there is, again, no uncertainty. Each of the things the member the Hon Damien O’Connor has suggested is already possible now, and it is for the sector, the levy body itself, to choose the means by which they want to go out and have a referendum. That is then presented to the Government. The Minister must be assured that the referendum has been run properly, that there is a majority of support, and that majority fairly represents the views of the stakeholders. There will be examples, when this member was a Minister previously, when he may well have agreed a number of levies, or he would have delegated that responsibility to somebody else, to an Associate Minister, and a number of measures or ways to decide whether a levy has support or not will have been used in referendum, and that decision would have been made. This is merely clarifying so that, actually, it is more certain—i.e., it has to be over a 12-month period. He does raise an important point though, but in the case that there are three producers and one of them has 95 percent of production and 95 percent of land—the other two 5 percent—in an up-and-down vote, it could be that the two smaller ones have a greater say than the person that would pay the most. Actually, while it would be democratic—an up-and-down vote—as far as the amount that’s been paid for that levy and the use of it, that wouldn’t be the case. At the same time, that somebody merely has a larger proportion of production or land is not a reason to exclude the views of those who are smaller, where there could be very many of them. This allows a levy-setting body to consider what is most appropriate, to go out and consult on this, to have a referendum, to bring it to a Minister, and then finally it’s a Minister’s decision in Cabinet to be assured that what is being proposed and the Government is being asked to accept, as far as the levy being set is concerned, fairly represents the views and a majority of those who are involved.

Part 6 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 7 Amendments to Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to the debate on Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 131 to 132A, “Amendments to Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001”. The question is that Part 7 stand part. The question is—

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:44): Mr Chairman, sorry, I don’t want to let one pass by. It is the largest industry in our country. It is at, arguably, the most critical point of the industry, or debate, and it relates to, in my recollection—I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee—the appointment of the Milk Price Panel. This has been, arguably, one of the more contested areas of dairy industry politics over recent years. The price for raw milk is, arguably, at the critical point of viability for independent companies. They would claim that Fonterra sets the price of milk.

Now, we’ve set up an independent Milk Price Panel, and, unless I’m mistaken, these are the changes proposed in here. They relate to the number of independents, or the people present, when the panel is sitting. Correct me if I’m wrong—because, as I say, I’ve just got my notes here, but I didn’t want to pass it by. I thank you, Mr Chairman, for being able to leap up. The claim is that if there are not, as I understand, two independents present, the panel can’t make a judgment. And I can stand corrected, but it is important that the industry has confidence that the Milk Price Panel does truly act independently. Fonterra is less than 80 percent of the production at the moment, but it might 75 or 78 percent. It is a big player. Governments, across the board, since 2001, I think, when we set up Fonterra, have all tried to encourage innovation across the dairy industry. We’ve got a lot more independent players now and a lot more innovative products.

What they pay for milk, or the calculation of that, which is set by the Milk Price Panel, is critical to allow people to buy milk and then turn it into high-value products. Now, without getting into the politics of ingredients or service or where that milk powder goes, the ability for innovative food producers in this country to get access to raw ingredients is important, and ensuring that they pay a fair price for it, not simply the price that can be paid by the clearly dominant player, which is Fonterra, is critical. The operation of the Milk Price Panel must be seen as independent. Indeed, as Minister, I appointed and made some changes to this to, hopefully, give more confidence, and I think there is more confidence in the panel at the moment, making sure that we haven’t—and I suspect we are slipping back from that a little bit by ensuring, as I understand, that the panel can meet without the presence of two independents. The Minister will clarify this for me.

I’m just wanting to get an assurance from him that says he understands the need to have this panel independent and understands the need for the perception of its independence to be upheld as well, because, if that does slip, we’re going to be another merry-go-round dairy industry debate.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:48): Mr Chair, thank you. This is an important point, although it is a practical change that is being made as opposed to one that alters the function or importance or gravity of the milk panel. I won’t go over the importance of the job of the milk panel setting the price, but it is important there. What this is the saying is that currently two people are appointed, nominated by the Minister. The co-op, the chair, and then either two, three, or four more members of the panel. Currently, if one member vacates a position or was to pass away, as an example, the panel cannot make decisions, and therefore that is a problem for them making sure that they are meeting their statutory obligation. In the case of the changes we’re making, if there is a vacancy or vacancies or somebody is not able to be there, the panel can continue in its work, but at all times, it would be upon the Minister who appoints to ensure a process is followed very, very quickly. For my part, and I’m sure for future Ministers, the Minister’s nominations are independent—we would always ensure they were the—but, in the case that somebody can’t be at a meeting or in the case that there is a vacancy, the panel is not able to make decisions. There are very few groups or organisations that have panels, or boards and so on, where that would be the case. It’s not to alter anything significantly, but ultimately in as far as the member’s concerns, they are reasonable. But I would put the emphasis on the Minister making sure that the Government’s appointment is always there, which is a very good area of that independence.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:50): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that articulation, Minister. We actually deliberated quite a bit on this at the Primary Production Committee around concerns at the broadness of the wording that any vacancy in membership would not stop the panel from being able to execute its powers. The concern was the risk of a loss of an expectation of quorum based on a sufficient number of people being able to make those decisions. We did ask officials a number of questions around that to get confidence that that was not a risk that we should be concerned about.

I wonder, what advice did you get on the leeway that is potentially given in a negative sense from what is the inevitable likelihood that there will be vacancies, and how many vacancies would be tolerable? And what are the risks in terms of the thoroughness of decision making if there are vacancies that last for a long period of time, for example?

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:51): Just to follow on there from Mr Abel’s question. Minister, if there is a vacancy that occurs, is there a time frame with when that vacancy must be filled by to ensure that decisions and stuff remain robust and representative?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:52): Thank you so much, and as far as the last question, no there’s not but it’s in everybody’s interest for somebody to be appointed quickly. As far as the Minister’s appointees, the ministry seeks advice, gives it to the Minister, and it can go through fairly quickly. I don’t see a situation where, actually, a full component on the panel is not in everybody’s best interest, nor would stakeholders not want to have people there.

But I direct members to the actual Act, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, section 150E, appointment of the panel, it is very detailed already. As far as other panel members, it’s either two, three, or four, so there is already the ability to have a differing number. In the case that it was three—so you would have two appointed by the Minister, a chair by the co-op, and three others—if one of them was not there, it would fall down to the equivalent of what is still possible under the Act, which says two plus one plus two. That would suggest a minimum number there because it says it has to be two, but in the case that there were only five and one was not able to be there, or that member vacated office for a range of reasons, the panel can continue its work rather than waiting for the formal process of appointment. All stakeholders, including the Government, take the role of this body extremely seriously. It is there for a reason. It needs to function well, it always has. It should not be held back from doing that important work merely because the Act says everybody has to be there. Whilst there is a degree of flexibility in the Act itself, this is merely making it certain.

If I may, Mr Chair, there is just one other change that’s been proposed in as far as section 118, clause 132. This is a very minor change. There are a number of offences under the Act. The way it is written, it could be interpreted that all three offences would have to be done at the same time for there to be a contravention. We’re merely clarifying it says only one of those would need to apply, not all three.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:54): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I just go back to the milk price panel, and I don’t want to dwell on it, but the Minister of Agriculture—and I’m sure in good faith; I’m not challenging the intent here—but it is one of the most political industries in the country, for good reason. I can go back to Dairy Board days, and actually beyond. The Minister’s delay in appointment could be critical. I’m not saying that that might be done intentionally, but it could be because there’s a lot of lobbying that goes on. These decisions are absolutely critical and they do affect the viability and the opportunities through the dairy sector.

I guess the question for the Minister is: does he think, perhaps, there should be a limit? Because I know there’s been procrastination and blocking because Fonterra don’t want someone on there. They’ll just block, block, block until the Minister comes up with someone different. Those are the kinds of things that have happened; they could happen in the future. The question for the Minister: did officials consider there should be a time limit, or an obligation on the Minister to reappoint, or for a reappointment to be made within a set timeline? Because it can upset the balance of a critical committee like that. I leave that with the Minister.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:55): In as far as the examples given, Fonterra don’t have the ability to block. It is the Minister’s decision as to who he or she may appoint, and there can be dialogue and they could have a view, but it is for a Minister to make that appointment, firstly. Secondly, though, the example that the member’s just given is the reason that we are proposing this change. In the case that there was a challenge in having somebody appointed, or there was the necessity for a delay on either side, the milk panel can continue to do its work as opposed to not being able to under the way the Act sits at the moment.

Ultimately, the two situations are the reason that this is necessary. If a Minister takes too long to make an appointment, or is not able to make up their mind, they must be cognisant of the effect that could have upon the milk panel. But in the same situation, if a Minister decided to take 12 months to make an appointment, the milk panel cannot function during that period of time. Therefore, there is an onus to be expediate in a decision-making appointment process.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:56): Thank you very much, and I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on those. Can I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, just for clarification: that is that the nominees to the milk price panel are made on the recommendation of Fonterra—they are nominees from Fonterra—the Minister can block or approve, I understand, or that is for one or two of them? Is that correct, Minister?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:57): Fonterra makes nominations for the ones that they would like to see there. The Minister is responsible also for appointing, and that is outside of engagement with others. Fonterra make a recommendation—this is similar to some other areas too that people are appointed; from memory, the Meat Board also. The Minister has a right, in this case with the milk panel, to appoint two. It is the Government and the Minister’s decision as to who to appoint. Fonterra also has nominations for their number.

Part 7 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 8 Amendments to Fisheries Act 1996, and Part 5 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We come now to the debate on Part 8. Part 8 is the debate on clauses 133 to 222—“Amendments to Fisheries Act 1996”—and Part 5 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll start with a simple one. It’ll get more complex, but page 58, clause 134, “Section 2 amended”—amending the Latin names of a number of the species there. The dredge oyster—Tiostrea chilensis to Ostrea chilensis; it goes on that happens in terms of the Nelson-Marlborough; then in subclause (4), rock lobster, changing the name there; and whitebait, changing the name there. Oh no, that’s a spell correct, I think, on that one, isn’t it? Can you just clarify what’s going on there with those Latin names, Minister?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:59): Also interested in that at clause 134(6), on the Latin names, the difference appears to be the addition of an “n” in both names for the whitebait there. If the Minister of Agriculture can confirm that that is in fact the change, just an extra “n” to make things -pinna with two “n’s”, rather than -pina with one “n”.

Also interested in clause 139, “Section 14 amended (Alternative total allowable catch for stock specified in Schedule 3)”. It says here that “The Minister may exercise the power under subsection (1) without considering whether the purpose of this Act would be … achieved”.

Of course, the purpose of the Act is very important in terms of sustainable fisheries. I’m wondering if the Minister can explain why this change is made. That’s one question. Then also another big question—and it’s talked about in the select committee report—is the disposal methods for commercial fishers. In our Government, there were some changes. “Commercial fishers may not sell or otherwise dispose of landed fish or other aquatic life except to a licensed fish receiver, in limited wharf sales, or by an approved alternative method of disposal in accordance with regulations under section 297 of the Act.” That’s reading from the select committee report. However, the Minister has a—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Which clause? Sorry, I’ve just taken on the Chair.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I was just talking about clause 139, but, now, I have moved on to what is the change to section 297—which is over some pages on page 68 of the bill I’m looking at—by clause 177. Clause 177 amends section 297, and this is the change to the regulations that the Minister can make about disposal methods. They have been very tight, the disposal methods, and now this looks like quite a loosening of what can be a disposal method in the regulations that the Minister can make. One of those is the “specifying alternative methods of disposal that may be used by fishers”, and so I’m really looking for a general comment, from the Minister, about these regulations and what mischief he is trying to fix here and what sort of regulations the Minister would envisage that would allow more disposal methods to be used via regulation. That’s one quite large point that goes to a number of different clauses.

Then my other question was: why have the references to the purpose of the Fisheries Act been taken out when some of the quota decisions are being made? My first point was the “nn” point, which is the least important of my three questions.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:02): Thank you so much. I’m going to start with that one. I think it’s very important for a number of reasons. The name changes largely reflect updates that have been made to the scientific names of several species over time, and this is just to ensure that it is clear. Of course, when courts need to go in and enforce, we’d prefer them not to have to interpret Parliament’s desire or intention. This way, it’s just merely enough data as concerned.

Secondly, in as far as clause 139, this is just a cross-cutting amendment and, in effect, allows the Minister on a case by case basis to ensure that the Act is being met in the best possible way. There is no intention other than to ensure that, actually, that can be met well and, firstly and secondly, that, in working with the sector, they are able to meet their obligations.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to—

Steve Abel: Oh, Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m sorry, but no one took a call.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Amendment Papers 580 and 500 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.

Part 8 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before we move on to Part 9, I just do want to make a comment. Right across the committee, members are getting—and this is not a reference to any member currently—a bit slow at calling for calls. If we don’t hear a call, we move on to the next section, so that’s just a wake-up call for everyone in the Chamber.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (11:05): Point of order, Madam Chair. You haven’t been here all morning, Madam Chair, with all due respect, and we’ve had a very—[Interruption] Can I make a point of order, please? We’ve had a very positive back and forth interaction. No one has been taking full calls. There’s been no closure motions because this side of the committee, when we’ve had our answers sufficiently addressed, have not sought to just ask spurious questions. You shut down that debate very quickly, Madam Chair. You changed the tenor of the character of the debate that’s been going on all morning on a substantial section of the legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to respond to that, Mr Abel, in that if I don’t hear a call, I take a vote, right? I’ve got no intention of changing any tenor of how the debate was going, but, genuinely, I heard no call, and that is my role—to take a vote. I have been watching the committee, and I haven’t come in here to change the tenor of anything, but my ruling is that if I don’t hear a call, I will take a vote.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:06): Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a separate—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, speaking to the point of order. I was calling for a point of order before Steve Abel.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I don’t accept that. I can see you both from here.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I would like to speak to the point of order then.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, no, I’ve closed the point of order, sorry, the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, a new point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The ruling is: if I don’t hear a call, I will take the vote.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: A new point of order, Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A new point of order?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, and it is related, but there is the issue of waiting for when the Minister sits down. When the Minister pauses and is going to sit down, should we be calling as soon as he finishes, or do we wait till he sits down?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, when you’ve got another call to take, be vigorous in taking your calls, and I’ll be able to see that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So we should not wait for the Minister to sit down? That is what you’re saying?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If you can see the Minister sitting down, there’s a balance—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That is what was happening.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No. I’m—

Hon Todd McClay: Madam Chair, I can assist here. I have a bad knee. I sit down very slowly.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, on those point of orders, I want you to vigorously take your calls. Otherwise, I will take the vote.

Committee of the whole House

Part 9 Amendments to Food Act 2014, and Part 6 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to the debate on Part 9, which is the debate on clauses 223 to 247—“Amendments to Food Act 2014”—and Part 6 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 9 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:07): Thank you—

Hon James Meager: Where are the Beroccas? Beroccas in the morning.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Now, this is what happens. You tell us to be vigorous, and we get rude comments from the other side.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not listening to the speakers who sit to my right, because I will be the sole judge of what happens in here, not those speakers who sit on my right. Carry on, the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m interested particularly in clause 234, and I notice that there are no amendments on this particular clause, but it is something that a different Minister spoke about in, I think, the second reading speech. It might have been the first reading speech. I’m not sure. Anyway, section 404 is amended, and, of course, 404 is very interesting. It often comes up as an error message. But here it is important because we are talking about domestic food standards and where there is a difference to what we do with our Australian friends.

Minister, my recollection is that Minister Hoggard was saying in one of his speeches—and I haven’t gone back to the Hansard—that this new ability to make—I’ll start again. Normally, our food standards are made with Australia, and there’s been an issue identified that, where there’s not a food standard, New Zealand doesn’t have an ability to make that food standard. What Minister Hoggard was seeming to be saying was that these provisions are just to fix that one particular problem. However, they also seem to apply for when New Zealand opts out of that agreement of our Australia - New Zealand standards, our joint food standards.

So can the Minister clarify that this new ability to make domestic food standards applies to both—because there is an “or” between (a) and (b)—when New Zealand has chosen to opt out of that, and also that there are just none that are being developed. This is important because there seems to have been more opting out, or more discussion of opting out, of those joint standards, the Australia - New Zealand Joint Food Standards. If the “or” is different from what Minister Hoggard was saying, will this lead to more opting out because we’ve got this ability now for these domestic food standards? So I’m interested in that incentive and how it works with the Australians.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:11): Madam Chair, thank you. Minister Hoggard is correct. It won’t lead to more, but there will be situations, or could be circumstances or situations, where what we do in New Zealand compared to Australia could be different, subtly or significantly. This merely allows and gives the opportunity to ensure that we have standards in place that are appropriate for New Zealand, and that those standards are met. I don’t expect that this is something that is used frequently or often, but it is important that the House has the ability, through the Minister, to make sure the standards that are set, as far as food safety and security is concerned, are appropriate, not only in the case of New Zealand or Australia, but in the case of our desire to meet conditions we may have, and as far as export markets are concerned.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam Chair! Madam Chair! Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just trying to make sure you heard my call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I heard you, loud and clear.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Great, thank you very much. Look, following on from the legitimate questions coming from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, when it comes to temporary food standards, new section 404A(1), inserted by clause 235, states “The Minister may, by notice, issue temporary food standards for food manufactured or prepared for sale or sold in New Zealand, or imported into, or exported from, New Zealand,”—the point is, “Before issuing temporary food standards”, as stated here in new section 404A(2), “the Minister must take into account the following matters: (a) the need to protect public health:”.

So my question to the Minister: the issue of food security, affordability of food, is critical in our country at the moment. So if we are to take into account public health, does access to food line up alongside food safety, and will it be a consideration alongside food safety? So that’s one question for the Minister.

The second is: paragraph (b) says, “the desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade:”. Now, many non-tariff barriers, non-tariff measures, requirements into export markets are considered by many food producers to be unnecessary. So the question is: take, for example, the Minister who might be lobbied, for whatever reason, and considers that we should step aside from Australian requirements, and because it’s good to avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade—that is, to do our own thing—we’ll just set up our own food standards. The development of the trans-Tasman food standards has been very positive for New Zealand food producers—that is, open access on both sides of the Tasman, and I think Australia remains one of our number one consumer food markets.

The question to the Minister is: what does “the desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade” mean? It’s a pretty kind of subjective word, and is it desirable to the exporter, to the food producer, to the Minister, to some lobby group, or to the importer in another country?

So, firstly, a couple of questions in there for the Minister: one is about the fact that the need to protect public health is a wide-ranging objective, and really opens the door to any establishment of our own food standards, and what that might mean, and the second one is: how can he define desirability?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:15): Well, in as far as the member’s question about affordability of food is concerned, it doesn’t have a direct correlation, although it could, because it could be the desire of a Government to reduce food standards, with the hope that the cost upon a sector comes down to make food more affordable, and, of course, that would not be in the best interests of New Zealand, our consumers, and, of course, it wouldn’t be as possible in as far as meeting requirements of an export nature. So I know that’s not the intention of his question, but just to give an example as to why this part of the legislation is not about affordability; there are already other parts of things that Governments must do, in that respect.

As far as his point around the joint food standards that we have with Australia, they are very important, New Zealanders rely upon them, and they work very, very well. But there may well be situations and cases where New Zealand may want the ability, on a temporary basis or otherwise, to derogate from what could be or had been or might be agreed with Australia. An example of this could be where you have a sector or an item of food that Australia consumes themselves and does not export, but New Zealand predominantly does export and doesn’t consume, or we export to other markets, not Australia. In that case, the standard that might be set with Australia could have a greater bearing or interest upon consumption in Australia, which could restrict New Zealand exporters from other markets or place greater costs or prohibition upon them. This merely allows the Government to consider situations like that, and what is best for New Zealand. It’s not about lowering a standard. It’s not about, you know, altering or changing or sending a signal that the joint food standards that we have with Australia and the Closer Economic Relations are not important—they’re extremely important—but it is also giving the Government the ability to consider what is best for New Zealand in as far as, in the case of the member’s question, export markets outside of Australia.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (11:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder, to that very point, Minister, about some specific articulation of the fact that that must be done without a lowering of standards, without a lowering of expectations, in regard to the calibre of those standards. That would be a useful articulation to put in the legislation itself, wouldn’t it, by way of clarifying that there is no means to avoiding the higher bar?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:17): I understand the reason for the member’s question, but that would be subjective, because there’ll be cases where Australia, as an example, may set a standard—perhaps there was advertising, because they have something particularly they want to do in a state there that does not directly apply to New Zealand; it may well not be relevant but would be a cost to New Zealand without any additional benefit to New Zealand, New Zealanders, or another market, for instance, we want to go to overseas. Now, an argument or discussion could be had about the lowering of a standard. But in some cases, it will be a standard that shouldn’t and can’t apply to New Zealand, but there is no intention to lower food standards. In fact, New Zealand has a greater reputation for the production of high-quality, safe food than Australia does, I would argue, every single day, and I think we see that best when our exporters compete with Australia. In markets overseas for food, we often do better and our products are chosen first.

The Government, as does industry, takes food safety extremely seriously, but it is really saying that, actually, whilst there are significant benefits to the joint food standards we have, there may well be times where we have to differ in the interests of New Zealand, not to lower standards but so that we are not restricted or so that additional costs or regulations are not put upon New Zealand for overseas markets that has no benefit to us.

It comes back, largely, to the fact that in many areas where we might want to trade, Australia, as a larger country, consumes more than they might export, whereas New Zealand exports more than they might consume. Putting aside Australia, it’s about other markets. Of course, if somebody does want to sell into Australia, it is to their conditions, just as every country in the world, in selling into New Zealand, should meet the conditions set by New Zealand, the New Zealand Government. In many cases, that would be a joint system or standard with Australia, but there may well be times when an exceptional change to that is in the best interests of New Zealand, but not in lowering standards.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister responded to my question about clause 234, which amends section 404, by reference to Minister Hoggard and saying he’s right. But that seems to go against the words of the bill here. So I just want to take the Minister through it more carefully. One of these domestic food standards can be issued under either clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) or (b). There is an “or” between (a) and (b) and an “if” before them. So (a) is the opting out provision and (b) is the standards have not been developed. I’ve got no issue with (b)—the question’s not about (b). It is about this paragraph (a) and the opting out. Was the Minister in his answer to me saying that while Minister Hoggard is right in that the intention is not to go opting out of lots of shared standards, but we have the ability to—is that simply the answer? It is not right to say that the standards won’t apply to things that apply currently to Australia and New Zealand that we can opt out of. So if he could just clarify that, in fact, it does include totally opting out as well as where there is an absence of a standard.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:21): I’m informed by my officials that clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) is not changing and remains the same. Therefore it is written there, but it is not a change.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (11:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question’s around clause 235 in relation to new section 404B: “Minister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards”. My question really is thinking about our food future, and wondering—we could imagine a future where we have more local production. We might have home kill, for example. We might have direct sale of home kill. We might have direct sale of artisanal cheeses that have a different standard. As we’ve seen in other jurisdictions where there’s greater direct sale, we’ve also seen occasionally problems that can pop up.

I’m a big passionate eater of raw cheese, for example. In France, direct sale of raw cheese is under a different standard than the EU standard. But what does happen occasionally is that somebody contracts listeria and dies. That’s the risk you take when you eat good cheese. Good cheese is worth a lot! But my question to the Minister is: really, if we are faced with an emergency situation, wouldn’t it make more sense if there is the ability to delegate, if there is the ability to move a bit faster, rather than the Minister not being able to delegate to any other person under new section 404A or 404B to issue domestic or temporary food standards. We might find ourselves in more of an emergency situation. This is a scenario and a future where we are thinking about food security and greater diversification of food supply.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:23): I just want to clarify, because I know that the member was trying to make a point by way of observation, but I want to be very clear to anybody listening in: the likelihood of dying from cheese is so, so minimal. Unless a big block falls on you, it is safe to eat. Please keep eating it—even French cheese, which I can almost smell from here!

The point here is that I take the member’s point, but it’s not about speed. Only the Minister’s empowered under the Food Act annex to make these decisions. So what it is saying is where there needs to be a temporary measure or a restriction put in place, only the Minister can do that. He can’t delegate that responsibility to somebody else—for instance, as an official. But in case there was a concern about human health, then the Minister would act quickly and appropriately or he or she would be judged for that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m glad you didn’t miss that. Can I just go to a point which is just kind of occurred to me in reading this. I refer to once again the wisdom of my colleague Hon Rachel Brooking, and asking questions of clause 235, new section 404A. In subsection (1) there, where New Zealand has chosen under an annex of the agreement to opt out of the standards. I then go over the page here to the issue of temporary food standards. The temporary food standards are issued on the assumption—because, if you go down to subsection (6) “A temporary food standard issued under subsection (1)”—that’s with all the requirements I talked about later—"expires on the earlier of—(a) the date on which an applicable standard is developed under the Australia–New Zealand Joint Food Standards”. The point is that there’s an assumption that the temporary food standard is only there until a joint food standard is developed.

Quite frankly, if you read through this, go down to subjection (7) “ … the Minister may extend the period for which a temporary food standard is in force by a specified period of not more than 2 years if—(a) an applicable standard has not been developed”. The assumption is that it will be developed and it’s only temporary because it’s not there. But you come back to new section 404, inserted by clause 235, and you say that New Zealand can opt out. So if we opt out, what do we develop? If it’s not a joint food standard, then it’s a temporary one, but a temporary one on the basis that one is being developed. But you go back to the point where we’ve opted out. So what are we then left with? The Minister can maybe explain, but I think that the Government’s trying to have its cake and eat it too—that is provide an option for opt out but not explain what will be in its place. Because a temporary standard is only allowed under the provisions here on the basis that one is being developed. So maybe the Minister can explain that.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:27): Madam Chair, thank you so much. So the way it would work, for the honourable member, is that, actually, temporary food standards would be put in place until a joint standard is developed. If a joint standard is developed, then the Minister has the option to opt out of that to develop his own. So, in essence, we are not saying in this legislation that we’re going to have lots of our own food standards. It would be very infrequent and would be very rare, as I have explained under previous comments and questions. But it is the intention of the Government—and the legislation backs this up—to continue to work closely with Australia to develop joint food standards; they work very well for us.

In the case that a food standard jointly with Australia is developed where there has been a temporary standard in place and it is the view of the Minister and the Government that, actually, that doesn’t work for New Zealand and we need our own one, then, in essence, our own one would be developed. But that wouldn’t be done until after the point of there needing to be a joint food standard, because if there isn’t a joint food standard set up, then, effectively, we don’t have anything to opt out of.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:28): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing to continue this. My understanding at the moment is there’s no provision for us to have an independent food standard. We can have a joint food standard or we can have a temporary one, as provided here, but there’s no legislative ability—and there hasn’t been since the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement—for us to have an independent standard. It’s a joint standard or temporary. So if the Minister implies that we can opt out, which is what this says, and have our own independent one, where are the regulatory provisions for that? Because for a food producing nation, this is absolutely critical. The assumption that we have joint standards with Australia, which has served us well in international markets, and we may be able to have a temporary one because the joint standards haven’t been developed, which is what the implication is here—where’s the independent one and what international verification do we have for that at the moment?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:29): The member is not incorrect. The joint standards are important. We’ve developed them very, very well. They have served us well, but there have been occasions where, actually, they don’t meet the requirements of New Zealand. We have the ability to opt out of a joint standard. In that place, New Zealand also has the ability to put in place our own standard. It would have to be to the standard set that people overseas would require us to have, but ultimately it’s a standard for New Zealand. At all times, as with what’s done jointly with Australia, it is an eye to our exports. The whole point of including the clause 234 change is to provide for an extra mechanism to do this, should we require it; not to replace anything or create something we’re not able to do, but to ensure that a certain—I state again, a joint standard is developed. The agreement and the treaty with Australia does allow either side to opt out of the standard, should they choose.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:30): Look, thank you very much. Can I just, for clarification then, because I think food producers out there will be scratching their heads a little bit because it is a complex world: there are a lot more ingredients, a lot more components to food. Say you take something—even in, I guess, the positive area, if you like—around branding and regenerative, around standards or what you might call that; true-to-label nonetheless being the objective, then is it likely that New Zealand is going towards—does the Minister think that we’re going to have the development of more independent food standards? If so, what are the pressures for that?

A cynic might say that a couple of people have lobbied the Minister for Food Safety and decided that we opt out of the infant formula requirements. So, I’m concerned that, as we go forward, we will have independent food producers pressuring Governments of whatever colour, shape, or size to set up independent standards for their particular product into a particular market. In moving away from a trans-Tasman structure, framework, and security we’re opening ourselves up to a huge amount of confusion for a country that is so dependent upon food exports for its livelihood.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:32): Well, no, I don’t share the member’s concerns. The Act and the changes we’re making do not speak to whether they’ll be more, fewer, or less of these, as it merely gives a functionality and option to Governments of the future. But it comes back to what I said at the very beginning, seven or eight or nine questions ago: there will be times and situations where a Government may want to consider something different than the joint standard. The reason for this is a joint standard may well be adopted that is in the interests of Australia because they consume domestically rather than export. For New Zealand, as a country that largely exports more than we consume of most of the things we produce in the primary sector and food, it may be that there is a cost or burden or restriction based upon a New Zealand exporter as a result of a joint decision that could be made or proposed with Australia.

This amendment merely offers optionality or functionality for a future Government to make a decision as to what’s in the best interest of New Zealand. It would be my view that it would be used extremely, extremely rarely. The bar to its use would be very, very high for that reason. The reason for that is, actually, New Zealand has the highest food standards in the world. A standard is something that is set. New Zealand businesses and Government, with our agencies, honour the standards that are there. We think about food safety as one of the most important things we can do, not only for New Zealand consumers but for the countries we export to, but there may well be the occasion where what is being discussed and negotiated is the best interest of New Zealand and that that actually doesn’t go to the safety of food, but it does place a restriction or puts New Zealand exporters at a disadvantage. I reject the member’s suggestion or comment that Governments come under pressure. People from business raise issues with Governments and Opposition parties all the time. It is for a Government to make a decision of what’s in the best interest of New Zealand.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:34): Thank you. Not so much on the opting-out point of the standards—although noting it’s been well publicised that there was a lot of pressure on different Government Ministers who turned out to have different opinions on it about formula, recently or in the past year or so—but my question is related to what the Hon Damien O’Connor has been asking about, and that is that new section 404A, inserted by clause 233, is “Minister may issue temporary food standards”. When I read this, I was thinking that a temporary food standard was quite different from a domestic food standard. So if the Minister can comment on that—is it a domestic food standard or either the opting-out situation, or there’s nothing that we’ve got with the Australians, so it’s a absence? How do they link up then with, when you turn over the page, a temporary food standard? I was under the impression from reading the select committee report that the temporary food standard that—it says here in the bill, in new section 404A, “in circumstances permitted by an annex to the Australia–New Zealand Joint Food Standards Agreement.” I was under the impression that a temporary food standard had some element of urgency to it. So can the Minister explain, is a temporary food standard, a domestic food standard? If not, how do they link up together?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:36): Well, yes, it will mean domestic because the food standard applies in New Zealand for production here. But for some countries of the world when we go to export, they would say you can export to a country based upon as long as it meets the standard required in your own country. Therefore, the two are not dissimilar but they’re for different reasons. A temporary standard could well be there as a matter of urgency, or probably, more to the point, because there is demonstrated a necessity in the case of developing a joint standard with Australia, and that can take an extended period of time. The Government could decide something is required in the interim, as that happens, because it is about negotiation.

So, to answer the member’s questions, yes to almost all of what she has said, but, of course, a food standard that is set is to be used domestically. It also has an impact upon how things are produced for export.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take another call, but I believe that the Minister’s kind of laboured this point. The clarity in which the questions have been asked may not be agreed upon, but, actually, there’s been a lot of questions on this point. I’m going to give the Hon Damien O’Connor one last chance. Is there something to clarify?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:37): Madam Chair, thank you. These are really critical issues and I know you’ll appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I get that, and we’re honing in, but the Minister’s been very forthcoming in answering those questions, so I’m just trying to hone down a wee bit.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I appreciate that—yes. It’s a healthy discussion; it’s not yet a debate. The one around domestic versus international food standards goes to the heart of our food standards system. One of the big issues blocking domestic producers of food, be it home-kill in meat or dairy in particular, is the paranoia by officials and by big exporters that locally produced food—safe food—will not meet the requirements of export standards because usually, for good reason, they are a lot higher. There are maximum residue levels for food sold in New Zealand that are lower than that for export markets. These are critical issues that we shouldn’t just skim over. So I’m not trying to be flippant, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know you’re not, and I’m just trying to get to the nub. I’ve just put something to the Minister, so you ask your question.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The question is, and the Minister raised a point around it—and I’m not saying inappropriate pressure on Governments; there will always be—but the pressure to ensure lower food costs and the pressure to ensure access to local food, which has always been upon a Government, has said that you should be able to go to your local farmer and kill meat and get it. That could be a temporary food standard for local domestic supply. There would be uproar from the export sector, who say that that meat could get into the supply chain. So off the back of that, the question to the Minister—and I’ll leave my colleague to pursue this further—is around one of domestic and international or trade standards, and does a temporary food standard meet either or both, or what is it for?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:39): Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ultimately, the proposal is not to weaken—in fact, it is to enhance and provide optionality. To answer a number of member’s questions, a temporary standard or a new standard could be about domestic or it could be merely about export. To take the last member’s point there, the Hon Damien O’Connor, in as far as home-kill is concerned, it would not alter requirements around the supply chain for manufacturing or export requirement for a recipient country. It doesn’t alter those obligations there; it is merely saying that there will be situations where one might envisage a difference to what it is in Australia.

I could turn it round the other way—that Australia is actually creating a joint standard that is merely for Australian domestic production, not their export, and therefore that could have an impact upon our desire to export. Under the treaty, we already have the ability to exempt ourselves, to remove ourselves from a standard, and to set our own. This is merely creating some clarity. But the concern that he is right to raise around will it have an impact upon food production export in New Zealand? Absolutely not, is the answer to that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:40): Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to check with the Hon Rachel Brooking, does that clarify your question around—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —whether it can be done—well, the answer is that it could be done domestically or—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No—no, no.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a new question?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This is related. It’s simply—I’m just asking about the mechanics of the legislation here. There are domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act, and then there are temporary food standards. Are temporary food standards a subset of domestic food standards, or are they a different thing? At new section 404B, inserted by clause 235, the title is “Minister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards”. I’m asking about that link between the domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act and the temporary food standards in new section 404A, inserted by clause 235. How do they link? Is one a subset of the other, or are they quite distinct entities?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:42): A temporary food standard will end up being a joint or New Zealand one only, if that clarifies for the member. A temporary one is in place of something that’s not there. A temporary one either becomes a joint standard with Australia, or in the case that New Zealand would opt out, it would become our own standard.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Scott Willis—thank you for your patience.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (11:42): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have been patient, so I appreciate your recognition of that. For the Minister, clause 247 inserts section 443A amended (Certain secondary legislation or published instruments may be consolidated). What it says here is that in section—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, the Minister’s just asking which number.

SCOTT WILLIS: Page 89, clause 247. What we’ve got here, in replacement section 443A(1) is “In section 443A(1)(a), replace ‘by satisfying’ with ‘and that is subject to’”. My question is not a flippant question; it is an important question because—when we’re thinking of Aotearoa New Zealand becoming a nation with a growing appreciation of food as more than simply fuel, but instead as a way to communicate, to love, to share things together—when we’re using words that are really utilitarian, like “that are subject to” over “satisfaction” or “satisfying”, I’m wondering why? Is there a need to change the terminology here? Because, personally, I quite like legislation to be a little bit more human in the way it relates and can tell us what its intention is. Just for the Minister, a really simple clarification, but I’d appreciate that. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:44): I’m informed that section 78A amended, inserted by clause 22, allows amendments to delegated instruments to be consolidated into a new instrument. The clause clarifies that the consolidated powers under that section apply to secondary legislation that is subject to the same publishing requirements. At a high level, you must publish this way. It doesn’t weaken the requirement to publish; it ensures that it follows through, and there is not a difference.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 9 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 9 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 10 Repeal of Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to the debate on Part 10. This is the debate on clause 248, Repeal of Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018. The question is that Part 10 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:45): Thank you. A very short question for the Minister, and that is: why? Why are we repealing the Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018?

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:45): My question follows on from the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question when she asked: why is it being repealed? I’m interested to know: with repealing it, what reforms or what protections may be lost as a result of repealing that?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll give the Hon Damien O’Connor a call, because I know the Minister is just looking for some advice here.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my understanding, and I don’t have it in front of me here, is that piece of legislation relates to dairy products and critical components of some of our exports. The question asked by my colleagues is a critical one, because just taking it away and repealing the Act without any clarity—and we’ve been asking a few questions here around other parts of food safety, and we do need clarity on what will replace that piece of legislation in an area of quite technical ingredients for our food safety system and dairy exports.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:47): Thank you to the member for that question. The Food Safety Law Reform Act made one-time changes to the Food Act, Animal Products Act, and Wine Act, and all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:47): I know the Minister’s received advice on that, but maybe a little more clarity on that? As I say, it is quite wide-ranging and quite technical. I’m seeking a guarantee—and I know this is a non-contentious piece of legislation, but I think there are a few questions still unanswered from the previous part of the bill. Maybe if the Minister could just go over a few of those key components and explain to and reassure the House, because just taking away a piece of legislation—not amending it, taking it away—does leave some potential gaps. Maybe the Minister’s just got the opportunity now, with a bit of information, to explain to the House and to the country.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:48): Yes, thank you. Look, I’ve been advised that the principal Acts will now do all the work.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ll need to be quicker and louder next time, OK—one supplementary from the Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:48): I appreciate that. I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Because of your experience.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, and I’m not trying to take advantage of the Minister’s advice there, but I think officials would have a little bit more advice and information for the Minister to explain to the country just why a piece of legislation is being repealed, the core components that this piece of legislation incorporated, and how they’re incorporated into the new Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just give him a minute to take advice. He did say that it would be replaced.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’ve been advised that residual issues, if there are any, can be managed under section 32 of the Legislation Act, which provides that repeal of legislation does not affect existing rights interests, titles, etc. Again, I refer back to all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.

Part 10 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 11 Amendments to Forests Act 1949, and Part 7 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to the debate on Part 11, which is the debate on clauses 249 to 258, “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”, and Part 7 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 11 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:50): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister a question with regard to new subsection 63ZZD(2A) being struck out—“Consultation need not be undertaken on rules made under regulations if the test in section 72AAB is met.”

Now that has been removed, but I would like to know—when I flick over to new section 72AAB, “Making instruments that make minor amendments or correct minor or technical errors”, it does say “The test in this section is met if the maker of an instrument is satisfied that—” the instrument that is to be made is new—and that’s fine. But I want to go to point (b) “the amendment or replacement of the affected instrument is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error.”

I’m just interested to know why we’re not having to consult on things like that and what is going to determine whether something is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error. What would be considered minor in that situation?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. What counts as minor will depend on the circumstances, and it will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 250: in the interpretation section, “section 2(1), “definition of “salvaged timber”, paragraph (b), delete ‘to waste’ ”.

Now, I’m just wanting to ask the Minister why that was deemed to be necessary. I see that the rationale says some timber was felled for milling but was lost and is going to waste at the bottom of waterways, and this amendment clarifies that this timber, if felled before 3 July 1989, can be milled. Why was this needed? What was the issue here in order for this to be changed—the definition to be changed and deleted?

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Um, sorry. You’ve just popped up before—Cushla. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. Apologies.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (11:52): Ha, ha! Tēnā koe—kei te pai. Thank you, Madam Chair, and tēnā koe, Minister. Good to see you.

Minister, my question relates to clause 254, which is replacing section 67G. Unlike the original section, this section, which replaces 67G, sets out some notification options. Can the Minister tell us why specificity is needed. These specific notification options include notice by Gazette—the Gazette’shad a lot of air time today, whānau; we’re trying to push people to the Gazette—newspaper notice, and the ministry’s public internet site. Has the ministry included a particular preference for notification type?

Also, Minister, has there been consideration about more accessible or more popular notification options, given technology and the advances we have there?

Hon Member: More popular than the Gazette?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Yes, more popular than—well, you know, things that people may access. Not everyone may be across the Gazette.

Section 67G(2)(d) sets out that notifications may be made “in any other manner that the Secretary is reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.” What manners are envisaged by this section, and what elements does the secretary need to see in order to be “reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.”?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the first question around clause 250, it is, in effect, just providing some clarification. To the second question, it is about providing more flexibility, and we trust our officials to use their better judgment.

And the second question that you asked?

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What elements does the secretary need to see in order to be “reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.”?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Again, very similar to the previous answer. We trust our officials to use their discretion.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:55): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is with regard to clause 256, around the new consolidation powers. Why are we allowing instruments to be consolidated and partially remade without the standard requirements—without them having to come back to the House and have that scrutiny?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:55): To expand on that, while the Minister considers some advice on that point—this is important, because the House has previously empowered officials to act in a certain way under this part. So the question is: if there is merely a consolidation going on that would already be within the remit of the officials undertaking these powers, what’s being done is actually a change to the wording of what the explicit provision was that they were acting under.

The Minister won’t be able to tell the House at this point what will be changed. He is asking everyone in this Chamber to accept that at a future time officials will drop off, or change, or add to these specific parts which empower them to do things, and he can’t tell us today what will be dropped off or what will be added. So the question is, really, asking him to elaborate on the kinds of circumstances that he would expect officials to, as he has said to my colleague, “use their discretion” in.

Is it minor amendments, which are sort of beneath the notice of the ordinary lawmaking power of the House or by Order in Council—which is another mechanism that would usually deal with things which are not political? Or is it the other end of the spectrum? Is it use of an emergency power? Is it the kinds of things where officials would have to very quickly move to do something which was unanticipated by Parliament when it gave them these powers in the first place? Is it the kind of big extreme event that would require this kind of response? The question is—give us some parameters, because we’re not asking you to give a full account of what officials are being tasked with here in future. That’s an ability that executive government has to act without the full knowledge of the House in these powers. But it is a reasonable request to ask in what circumstances they might extend their remit or limit it.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first question, typically those changes will not come to the House, and they will only need to consult on specific changes—to the following question. We don’t want them consulting on what’s not changing, so it’s about delivering efficiencies in terms of that decision-making process.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:58): What efficiencies, Minister?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry—what was the question?

ARENA WILLIAMS: What efficiencies?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a question from—oh, it’s OK. The Minister’s ready.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:58): Efficiency in terms of consultation—yeah.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (11:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking at new section 154A “Regulations may require public listing”, section 154A(1)(a) notes that regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know—(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation;”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, could you clarify the clause?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: We are in new section 154A(1)(a).

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On page—

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Sorry, Madam Chair—these are my notes; on page 93.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s for the next part, so I’ll ask the member to hold—

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: OK, Madam Chair. Looking at clause 256, inserting new sections 72AA, this relates largely to a maker of secondary legislation and their publishing requirements for that secondary legislation. “Maker” here is defined in new section 72AA(7): “in relation to an instrument, means the person empowered to make it”.

Can the Minister clarify this definition—whether a Minister, public sector agency, or some other person is meant by this?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:00): It would depend on the relevant decision-making process, in terms of who would apply to make that decision.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (12:00): Well, therefore, can the Minister give examples of how that may be defined, given the specific scenarios he’s outlined?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just while the Minister considers that, I’ll just take the section, which my colleague is dealing with—but this one is the top of page 92, it’s new section 72AB.

This is a specific provision for making the sorts of minor amendments, which I suggested to the Minister might be useful to clarify, that these are all about. I want to ask him whether—the making of minor, technical amendments; that’s fine. There’s certainly no question coming from the Opposition that would suggest that making minor, technical amendments is outside of the remit that is expected in any of these instrument-making powers. The question is: are there emergency powers in here, given that that’s especially outlined?

Because there’s an avoidance-of-doubt provision back on page 91, as new section 72AA(5). And it also hasn’t included a specific part about, say, emergency powers or major event powers. So we’re really just trying to understand whether this is then all-empowering, that kind of situation, where you would have something that was an apolitical decision, because this is what’s intended to cover. You wouldn’t make major policy changes in this kind of provision, and the department is not empowered to that. So what is a decision that is not minor and technical amendment that doesn’t change policy which the department is empowered to do?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:02): Thank you, chair. In regard to the question from Cushla, it is very much about futureproofing. An example of decision making could be, for example, the chief executive of Ministry for Primary Industries.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Madam Chair.

BARBARA KURIGER: Is this a new question?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:02): Just a final question on this point, just in relation to what the Minister has said there. Does the Minister envision a situation in futureproofing where a new policy decision would be taken by the department—that is, the establishment of a new policy in circumstances that are not envisioned at the moment in the primary Act?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:02): In regard to the first question—the questions are coming thick and fast, actually. We’re trying to keep up here. The intent of this amendment is to enable decision makers to efficiently make the changes that include updating outdated terminology or cross references, removal of spent provisions, and the updating of outdated logos.

Part 11 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 11A Amendments to Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023

BARBARA KURIGER: Members, we now come to the debate on Part 11A, which is clauses 258A and 258B, “Amendments to Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023”. The question is that Part 11A stand part.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (12:04): Thank you, Madam Chair—the relevant part now. So new section 154A, page 93, which states “Regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know—(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (ii) what things are authorised to be used in the carrying out of activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (iii) what premises are authorised as places for carrying out these activities”. I’d just like to ask the Minister—in previous sections he has specified where these notifications must be published. I’m just seeking clarification of why specificity is not required in this part.

GREG O'CONNOR: Sorry. Could the member just repeat what she’s referring to.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Page 93, new section 154A, where it discusses that “Regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know”—and the question is, in previous sections, where notifications must be published has been specified, such as in the Gazette. The question here is, why is this section—why is the Minister not specifying that in this part?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:05): Again, this is a cost-cutting amendment to change overly specific consultation methods to become a list of options that appropriate decision makers may choose from is to make it easier rather than there being overly one, and the intention, and, I believe, the effect of this will be that it is easier for those that need to know about something gazetted, or the information, to be aware of it without there being an additional burdensome cost.

Part 11A agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 12 Repeal of Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000

GREG O'CONNOR: We come now to the debate on Part 12, clauses 259 and 260, “Repeal of Forests (West Coast Accord) Act” and Part 8 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 12 stand part.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:06): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The West Coast Accord passed on 6 November 1986. It was effectively repealed in 2000 with the then change of Government, to the first Green-Labour Government, out of interest.

That Act, the repeal of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act gazetted the forests that were to be logged under the West Coast Accord into conservation estate—from memory, 137,000 hectares of forest was gazetted into conservation estate. That was, as a result, as my colleague is rightly shouting out, of environmental campaigning action in the 1990s.

Hon Mark Patterson: Tell us more, Stephen.

STEVE ABEL: I shan’t tell you more. I’ll tell you more later, if you like—that began in 1996, so 30 years ago.

What my question for the Minister is why is this being repealed now, this many years after the Forest (West Coast Accord) Act was put in place in 2000? Is it simply because it is no longer relevant? Can you clarify and disabuse anyone in the conservation community of concerns that repeal of this Act might impact the ending of the logging of Crown native forests on the West Coast? Or is that no longer a relevant question because the West Coast Accord is no longer in force and those forests are all in conservation estate?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry) (12:08): The answer is, yes, I can give that assurance. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent, and any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts. So, in effect, the member is correct, the Act cancelled the accord in 2000, in order that the forest in the public ownership had become reclassified for conservation purposes. That’s now happened. Therefore, the repeal is to get it off the statute book because it has no function any more.

Part 12 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 13 Repeal of Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003

GREG O'CONNOR: We come now to the debate on Part 13, the debate on clause 261, “Repeal of Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003”. The question is that Part 13 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:09): Again, just the basic question for some of these ones, is if the Minister can tell us why. Why is it being repealed?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:09): Well, the Act converted the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company and governed its transitional tax and employment issues. That process was completed in 2004. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are also spent, and, as with the last section of the Act, any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repeal Acts.

Part 13 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 14 Amendments to Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 14—the debate on clauses 262 to 264—“Amendments to Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014”. The question is that Part 14 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:10): Just, again, if the Minister can explain why this part is there.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:10): This legislation is out of step with other legislation, such as the South Island customary fisheries regulations, which provide for tangata whenua to make appointments of kaitiaki correctly. Together with clause 263 this clause will ensure consistency with other legislation.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just looking at this part and I notice on clause 262, the principal Act, it amends the Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014. I note on there “Kaikoura” doesn’t have a macron above the “o”, which is obviously a misspelling of how Kaikōura is spelled, and I’m just wondering why that hasn’t been picked up.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:12): My follow-up to that is that in the body of the amendment Kaikōura is spelled correctly with a macron. I wonder if it is an oversight that the actual name of the legislation doesn’t have the macron and whether that’s an amendment that needs to be made and whether the Minister on such a simple manner would be amenable to correcting the name of the actual Act so that it is consistent with the correct spelling of Kaikōura.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:12): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the spotting. That is very good work. I will check with the Clerk, but I think that is something that the Parliamentary Counsel Office can do under its editorial responsibility. It would not need an amendment of the House.

Hon Member: Kia ora. Thank you.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 15 Amendments to National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, and Part 9 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (12:13): We come now to the debate on Part 15, the debate on clauses 265 to 281, “Amendments to National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012”—

Hon Jo Luxton: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —and Part 9 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 16 stand part. The eager Hon Jo Luxton!

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve been told we have to be rigorous in our jumping up and taking the call or we’ll lose it.

I wanted to ask a question of the Minister with regard to a clause that was in the legislation as it was introduced. It was clause 269, where it allowed the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer or NAIT authorised person to share core data held in the NAIT information system for the purposes specified in subsection (1).

We had a lot of submitters that were concerned that allowing a wider sharing of the NAIT data—and including with police—could weaken privacy protections. Farmers do need confidence that their personal business information is protected, and so the committee did agree and remove that amendment.

Given submitters’ concerns about privacy and their information being shared or not being shared, what specific safeguards will exist to ensure that NAIT data-sharing with agencies will contribute to strong farmers’ confidence in the protection of their personal and commercial information? In light of the fact that the committee did decide to remove that proposed amendment on the wider information sharing, I’d like to know, Minister, what other alternative mechanisms are going to be relied upon to balance effective enforcement with strong privacy protections in the NAIT system.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are still continuing to work on improvements on this, but we didn’t want that to hold up this bill. So that’s what’s happening in the background.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:15): Could the Minister elaborate on what those improvements might look like or what they are considering.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15): It’s on MPI’s work programme at the moment.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:15): Can the Minister assure farmers that their information and data will be protected?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15): Yes, and it’s being worked through at the moment. Thank you.

Part 15 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 15A Amendments to New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 and secondary legislation made under that Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (12:16): We come now to the debate on Part 15A, the debate on clauses 281A to 281D, “Amendments to New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 and secondary legislation made under that Act”. The question is That Part 15A stand part.

Hon Jo Luxton: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Jo Luxton.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:16): Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Seamless.

Hon JO LUXTON: Yes—thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to section 281B(1), which amends section 62(2)(f), and this is the key part that allows exemptions and refunds where a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce and the fee payer cannot benefit from the authority’s services.

Given that fees are not automatically waived following major events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and relief depends on discretionary exemptions, can the Minister guarantee that growers affected by significant climatic events will be treated fairly when applying for fee waivers or refunds under these provisions?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:17): Thank you. Just a simple question while the Minister talks to advisers.

This new Part 15A seems to have been introduced by the Primary Production Committee—as does the next Part—and the select committee report says “We recommend inserting new Part 15A into the bill to implement the Minister’s proposed amendment”. So I’m wondering if the Minister can just comment on the process that was used here—for the Minister to communicate a proposed amendment with the select committee and then for the select committee to implement that by changes to the bill—and whether or not there were any submissions on this part—or the other parts of the bill; but we’ll just stick to this part of the bill—on this topic or if this is the first time that these issues are being discussed.

I do note, of course, that this bill—and I’ve been talking on it in a committee stage at some point some time ago, so I know the bill has been lurking about the place, so it might have been an opportunity for people to make further comments on it. And if that is the case—if the Minister’s aware that people have been aware of the bill as reported back from the select committee and made comments—he might want to comment on that too.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Hon Jo Luxton’s question: yes, it does give the authority to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

To the second question here—the Hon Rachel Brooking; we got there in the end—the Minister did write to the select committee, and it was publicly notified, and I’m advised that there were no submissions received.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note that because of the nature of this, I’m happy to wait while the Minister does take advice rather than having to be rushing these things. We’re moving along quite nicely.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to new section 8A, the exemption or refund of fees. It states, “The Authority may exempt a person, in whole or in part, from the requirement to pay an annual monitoring of compliance fee, or refund the fee in whole or in part, if the Authority is satisfied that— (a) a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce for a fee payer; and (b) as a result, the fee payer has been unable to benefit from the services provided by the Authority.” Now, it is stated that it is “if the Authority is satisfied that”.

Now, it is stated that is “if the Authority is satisfied that”. My question to the Minister is when something like this happens when you have a climatic event or a disaster whereby the grower is obviously going to be very traumatised and be going through a lot of stress at the time, how much of a process is this going to mean for the grower to satisfy the authority? Is it going to be a big admin job for the grower or is it going to be a very seamless and easy to do claim, if you like? Because, given the nature and the situation and stress these people will be under, it’d be really good for people to know that.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:20): Thank you, Chair. I’m advised that the exporter has to satisfy the authority, not the grower.

Part 15A agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 15B Amendments to Organic Products and Production Act 2023

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 15B. This debate is on clauses 281E to 281Q, “Amendments to Organic Products and Production Act 2023”. The question is that Part 15B stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:21): Thank you. Just, again, the same question that the select committee says that they have been inserted because the Minister wanted to make amendments. So can the Minister confirm that the same process was used and that there was some sort of notification and ability for people who’d be interested in regulations about organic products to make those submissions? Also, if he can comment on why it is that the Minister had a desire to make quite a wide range of regulations under the Organic Products and Production Act.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Organic Products and Production Act 2023, section 132, as amended by clause 281G, inserting subsection (5A), what specific examples can the Minister give of circumstances that would justify using the emergency organic standards power instead of the normal legislative process and how will misuse or overuse of this power be prevented?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:22): Thank you, Chair. The two questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking: the Minister wrote to the select committee and was publicly notified. I’m advised that no submissions were received. The second answer to the second question: the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 was before the House at the time this bill was being drafted. It contains some of the same issues being addressed in this bill. Amendments to the Organic Products and Production Act replicate other amendments in the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is just an interesting section. I guess probably the Ministry for Primary Industries sees it as novel, given that it’s been quite a process to get organic standards in place. A lot of the industry kind of baulked. One of the things that did occur to me as I was looking through here, of course, is the regulations provide an ability to impose levies on the sector. One of the things the organic sector hates is any regulation for a start; but then, accepting that there’s a need for discipline, of course, it’s setting a cost. So these regulations do have an ability to impose levies in regulations. Whereas, if you go through the Commodity Levies Act, of course, that’s one that requires a mandate from the sector.

A question for the Minister is does he consider that the levies and payments through regulation on the organic sector are fair and how can he give an assurance that they won’t end up being excessive? Because there is an arbitration process here in disputes. I think that’s a positive one. The same provision’s not necessarily under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority one. I’m not wanting to relitigate things, but I guess the organic sector would like to—because there are some quite extensive changes here that have been passed through. I guess, I think, the committee, in voting for these, would want to give an assurance, and maybe the Minister can give the explanation as to how the organic sector is not being unfairly regulated and, in fact, the provisions here are all necessary, I guess, to protect them and protect us from them and to ensure that the organic sector grows.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor: nobody does like paying levies at the best of time, but we do find they are necessary. So the clause clarifies the ability for regulations to set a process for determining renumeration amounts for auditors or mediators. The current drafting of section 140 implies the regulations can only set a dollar amount for remuneration, rather than setting a procedure for determining remuneration. This amendment will reduce the need to update regulations frequently and it doesn’t affect any safeguards or regulations.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. That clarification is useful, Minister. I know that the amendments were notified publicly and submissions were sought, but given the very specificity of this bill—a bill that the organic sector themselves fought hard to have developed and, as my colleague has pointed out, which took a much longer time than they would have liked—what direct consultation was had with the sector over these amendments? What was the feedback they gave and are these amendments with the support and the consent of the organic sector, specifically Organics New Zealand being the overarching body?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:26): Thank you. The consultation was via the select committee process.

Part 15B agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 16 Amendments to Primary Products Marketing Act 1953, and Part 10 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 16, debate on clauses 282 to 285, “Amendments to Primary Products Marketing Act 1953” and Part 10 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 16 stand part.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:27): I’m sure I’ll find something to say. Part 16 and “Amendments to Primary Products Marketing Act”—is that correct?—I guess 1953. I guess we could ask ourselves why it’s taken so long. It’s a reasonable question. Maybe the Minister can answer that. It’s been around for a while. So, I guess, if it has been, making sure that changes that we make are sensible. So maybe a brief explanation from the Minister on that would be really, really useful for the committee.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:27): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member over there that asked the question would know, all good things take time.

Part 16 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 17 Amendments to Walking Access Act 2008, and Schedule 3A and Part 10A of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 17 on clauses 286 to 289S, “Amendments to Amendments to Walking Access Act 2008” and Schedule 3A and Part 10A of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 17 stand part.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:28): Thank you, Mr Chairman, because I do have to disappear. My colleagues will be happy about that. But Amendments to Walking Access Act—look, I take some pride. This is a piece of legislation that I heralded through and it was quite difficult at the time, I think, as it turned out to be a core part of the New Zealand way of life, I guess, which is access to waterways and access to the great outdoors. Amendments here, of course, actually change the name, which is sensible, because it’s more than just “walking access”. It is access to the wild and wonderful New Zealand that says the Outdoors Access Commission is an appropriate name. Just making sure that the ongoing funding for it and the ongoing principles and objectives are maintained—absolutely critical. I guess, the Outdoor Access Commission, which is what it will be called, has that same long-term commitment and it does underpin a lot of what we see across rural New Zealand. I just acknowledge and support this as a sensible step forward.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:29): Nothing changes other than the name.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, going back to an earlier discussion in this debate, we were talking about the importance of the great Regulations Review Committee—I’m not sure that anybody is left in the Chamber who was in the Chamber at that point—and the Minister made a quip that perhaps the Regulations Review Committee is like an Uber compared to the other select committees being scooters. That relates to my question, believe it or not, and that is that we’re changing walking and making it outdoor, and does that mean that we’re supposed to look at other forms of getting around, such as on a scooter or an Uber, even? Thank you.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 289, which repeals section 80, “Minister must review Act”, and I’m interested to know why the statutory review requirement is being repealed. I do note that it does say that the Minister has reviewed the Act, but are we to believe that that was a one-off ever review of the Act, or is it going to be something that is going to be on a cyclic level, and, therefore, if that is the case, then why are we repealing section 80?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. This section 80 requires the Minister to review the Act and this review has been completed. I’m advised that it was a one-off.

Part 17 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 18 Amendments to Wine Act 2003, and Part 11 of Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 18, which is the debate on clauses 290 to 309, “Amendments to Wine Act 2003”, and Part 11 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 18 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Primary Production Committee report says that a lot of the amendments here are to do with fixing up relationships between different pieces of primary industries’ legislation, which makes sense. My question is about clause 294A, which says to insert after section 39, a new section 39A, “Exemption from labelling requirements”, and this relates to the changes that we’ve discussed earlier about food standards and the difference between the domestic food standards and the temporary food standards. The Minister can confirm my understanding, which is that this allows a wine exporter to “not comply with [either a] joint food standard,”—so that’s one with Australia—“a domestic food standard,”—so that’s a special New Zealand one—“or a temporary food standard”—which is also a special New Zealand one—“to the extent that the standard’s labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that imports the wine.”

What I’m interested in here is that word “extent” of the conflict. Could we be in a situation where a country that the wine is being exported to—the importing country—has, say, no labelling requirements, and what would happen then? Would that wine not have any of the normal labelling requirements that we see in New Zealand, or is it just more to do with where the importing country’s standard might be slightly different, and so the exporter wants to still provide the information, but in the slightly different format that is required by the importing country?

I just want to ensure that if New Zealand wine ends up going somewhere else, it will still be appropriately labelled, and I understand that it can be very costly for these winemakers to have lots of different variants of their labels. But I ask if the Minister can just speak to the intent of this new clause, and also, if he can specifically refer to the test of the extent that the standard labelling requirements conflict, where that conflict is imagined to be.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Wine Act currently provides that a wine standards management plan does not need to comply with the New Zealand food standards to the extent that the standards’ labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that is importing the wine. However, it’s not the wine standards management plan that has to comply with labelling requirements; it’s the wine. This amendment will exempt wine that is being exported from having to comply with conflicting labelling requirements.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:35): Thank you for reading out the section to me. That’s what I’m interested in: the conflict. Can he comment on the conflict that is anticipated by how the wine will be labelled in New Zealand before it is sent off, because any conflict might be—the importing country might say that they don’t need any information at all, and you could say that that was a conflict: you don’t need any information, but you need some information. But the word “extent” of the conflict, to me, implies—and it would be useful to have it on the Hansard—that having nothing doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t still supply the label; you would only make a change to the New Zealand labelling requirements if there was some unnecessary double-up of information that would cause that conflict.

That is why we are looking at the extent of the conflict, and that is why the word “extent” is used—and I’m just aware that the Minister is still talking to the official, and so I may be labouring the point somewhat, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, that’s all right. We’ll wait for the Minister to take his advice. We don’t need to—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Say the point any more?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We need to make sure that the quality of the answer is at its best. The Hon Jo Luxton—but feel free to wait while the Minister is taking his advice.

Hon Jo Luxton: I’m happy to wait, yeah.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been advised that in terms of compliance with the country that we’re exporting to, we should meet their labelling requirements and not New Zealand labelling requirements, otherwise they’re actually in conflict.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 291, “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”, and the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine”. Why are we broadening the definition of the fruit and vegetable wine? What is the purpose of this, and what regulatory gap is actually being addressed by this? I mean, it just seems unclear, and I’d be interested to know what the purpose of all of that is.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, mine’s on the same clause, and, specifically, the wording of the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” includes products that are made with the fermentation of products that include “fruit, vegetables, grains, cereals, or any combination or preparation of those foods;”, but it does not include grape wine. Essentially, it’s any wine products made from a plant, isn’t it? I wonder why the definition doesn’t include mention of grains and cereals, or whether it couldn’t be broader and simply say “plant-based wines that are not grape wines”. What consideration did the Minister give to that sort of clarity?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:39): I’ve been advised that the answer to the Hon Jo Luxton’s and Steve Abel’s questions is the same. It is that the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” is ambiguous, and this amendment will bring the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” in the Wine Act into line with the definition in the Food Standards Code, improving consistency.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:39): The Minister was still talking as he was sitting down, which makes it very difficult to work out—

Hon Mike Butterick: Sorry.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Keep standing while you’re talking, Minister, please.

Hon Members: He’s messing with you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: He is—he is.

Going back to those labelling requirements and his answer, and to clarify then, if the importing country says that no labelling is required, then is he saying that any New Zealand requirements would be in conflict with that? No labelling is required, and as the bottle—whatever it’s in; let’s say it’s a bottle—goes out of New Zealand, it will have no label because that is the conflict. That’s my question about the conflict and the extent of the conflict, if it means that it could result in no labelling, or it might be that every country in the world does have labelling requirements through Codex or something.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:40): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’ll make sure that I stand up for the Hon Rachel Brooking. I’m advised that, again, it’s exporting from New Zealand to overseas, which I think that the question was—that direction of travel. It should meet their standards.

Hon Rachel Brooking: But if they have no standard?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Well, I’m not aware of—I’ll take some advice on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The only exemption the Minister would get from standing up is if he had played in the Rumble at Russell.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: If there is no conflict, you’d need to comply with New Zealand’s standards.

Part 18 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 19 Repeal of Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (12:41): We come now to the debate on Part 19, which is the debate on clause 310, “Repeal of Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003”.

Hon Mark Patterson: Oh, don’t do it, Mike—don’t do it!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Part 19 stand part.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:41): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I mean, I guess the obvious question, for the benefit of Mark Patterson, is: why are you repealing the Wool Industry Restructuring Act? What is the consequence of that? What was the purpose of the Act, what are the contents of that Act that need to be retained, and do they exist anywhere else in legislation?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. I might just start off by saying that wool is now the new white gold, and it’s at about $7.42 clean, which is great, great news for all our wool growers up and down the length of the country. Some Acts that have had short-term effects remain on the statute book, despite having fulfilled their functions and having no live provisions. The Act converted the New Zealand Wool Board into a company to disestablish and distribute the assets and govern its transitional tax year disbursement and employment issues. The final distribution was made in 2011. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent, and any residual issues can be resolved through the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:43): Is there clarity as to what happened to the Wool Board’s art collection, or is that a cold case, so to speak?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:43): I’ll take advice on that.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:43): What assessment has been made of the consequences, if there are any consequences, of repealing this Act for the wool sector?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:43): There are none, because it was wound up in 2011.

Hon Jo Luxton: Pardon—sorry, I didn’t catch that last bit.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: The final distribution was made in 2011, and so there are none.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:43): Given that the Act is to be repealed, can he confirm where wool regulation now sits in New Zealand law, if at all?

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s above the law, Jo!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Was that for Hansard, Mr Patterson?

Hon Mike Butterick: It’s outside the scope of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s outside the scope of the bill currently.

Part 19 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 3A agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. There is an Amendment Paper here in the Minister’s name about clause 2, which is commencement. At the moment, the bill as drafted says, “Subpart 2 of each of Parts 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 18 comes into force—(a) on 1 or more dates set by Order in council; or (b) to the extent not brought into force earlier, on 24 March 2026.” That date, on Amendment Paper 579 in the Hon Todd McClay’s name, will change to 1 March 2027, and so I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on that change.

Obviously, 24 March 2026 has already passed, and so I do note that. But I ask whether if he considers now why it is that we’re still heading into a March date for this commencement date, and what consideration was there that went into that date in the Amendment Paper?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. The commencement date of 1 March will allow time for the Ministry for Primary Industries to complete the administrative arrangements necessary to implement the amendments.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, in the commencement clause, I’ve read out clause 1, which was some of those subparts, and then Subpart 3 of Part 1 comes into force 12 months after the commencement of the rest of the Act. Can the Minister explain why that Subpart 3 of Part 1 is treated differently and why it will need this additional year—so, presumably, that will take us through to something like 1 March 2028.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that that creates a 12-month transition period for inhibitor products.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. The inhibitors, then: why do they need the additional 12 months on top of the time that is now going to be—I can’t count how many months it is till March 2027, but that still seems like a good time away. Why is this additional 12 months needed on top of that?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that it will give manufacturers time to register under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines register.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s currently a bill before the House on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) register, and so I’m interested in the interaction with that bill and the changes here. Is this extension so that that bill that’s currently with the Primary Production Committee—and it has quite a quick report-back date, I think, and I’m looking at members of that committee. So the ACVM bill—is the idea that this additional time frame for commencement is so that the two can catch up, or are they totally unrelated?

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:49): I’m advised that they don’t interact.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 579 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Legislative Statement

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:51): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

Third Reading

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:51): I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to bring this bill through its final stage today. As I’ve talked about in previous debates on this bill, this is a piece of legislation about good regulatory practice and making sure our legislation is fit for purpose. A regulatory systems bill is an opportunity to fix small issues that accumulate over time. These are often minor irritants that are not large enough or problematic enough in themselves to justify amending the relevant Acts through a stand-alone amendment bill. But in taking them all together, this omnibus bill becomes an efficient way to make minor or technical improvements to legislation.

This bill has over 250 substantive amendments in it. I’ve gone through some of these in detail previously, and I do not propose to repeat myself; the bill speaks for itself. Many of the changes in this bill will reduce the amount of red tape that farmers, exporters, and public servants have to deal with. It will streamline some existing processes so that farmers and growers can keep their attention on what they do best, not on the paperwork. The Government backs farmers in the rural sector. While minor, this bill will make things easier for the primary sector across New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I would just note that that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. We’ve just had a very useful committee stage, going through the very many parts of this bill. As the Minister noted, it does make many changes. Some of them are fairly minor and technical in nature, and some of them have a bit more guts to them—we’re talking about the primary sector so we can talk about guts, can’t we?

We spent some time focusing on food standards. Most of New Zealand’s food standards—well, they are all jointly done with Australia. One of the amendments that this bill does is it says where there is not a joint standard with Australia, then New Zealand can make one, and that’s something that seems very reasonable. There’s also another aspect where there’s a need for a temporary food standard, which seems to be—I think we got to the position from the Minister that where it is a different type of food standard, a temporary standard, when there’s some need to suddenly have a standard, then that can be made as well. There was some discussion in committee stage about how that is made and how robust it is, and the importance—we all agreed, all around the House—of very high food standards in New Zealand.

But then there’s this other domestic food standard that can be made when there’s already a joint food standard with Australia and New Zealand decides to opt out. This is quite a substantive policy decision, I would say, in terms of the fact that, for a long time, New Zealand has benefited from that arrangement with Australia in having those joint food standards, but we have seen, and we can argue about this, one big decision to opt out of that joint food standard with Australia over infant formula. There is concern, of course, that different groups may lobby Government Ministers to get them to opt out of the joint standard, and then that could be the reason for why we’re now looking at another opportunity for a different type of food standard to come through.

So we have had good discussion with the Minister the Hon Todd McClay, who was assuring speakers on this side that, in fact, there was not an intention to go around opting out of that joint food standard all the time. So some comfort was provided, and it is useful to have that recorded in the Hansard.

Other aspects: we had an interesting discussion on labelling of wine when it’s exported to countries where that importing country has different standards from us. Again, that seems to be quite a substantive change where the two labelling requirements are in conflict. Then, you don’t have to match the New Zealand standards and you can go with that importing country. So, hopefully, that will be clear as to how it will be implemented.

We had some good conversation in the committee stage that we’ve just had about wool. We seem to all be loving wool around the House, as well as food standards, so that’s good to be standing here and agreeing with some things.

We didn’t get through probably all the questions that were on the Fisheries Act, but there does seem to be some changes there around the power for the Minister to make regulations to change the rules around when fish can be disposed of. I think that’s an important change, and we’ll want to see that. We’ll be, of course, watching what regulations come out of that, and very much hope that the legislation that the last Labour Government put in place is not diluted too much by those changes, or diluted at all, in fact—that they are just ones that go with the spirit of the Act.

On that note, noting the time on the clock—not the red clock but the other clock above it—I will say that we commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to vacate the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed.