Wednesday, 22 July 2026

Wednesday, 22 July 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Visitors

Cambodia—Minister of Women’s Affairs

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Her Excellency Dr Ing Kantha Phavi, Minister of Women’s Affairs of the Kingdom of Cambodia, and her delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Petition of Ankit Gumber requesting that the House urge the Government to increase penalties and enforcement powers for illegal dirt bike use and resulting noise pollution.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered 17 papers.

CLERK (14:01):

Climate Change Commission 2026 Emissions Monitoring Report

statements of intent for:

Heritage New Zealand

NZ On Air

Radio New Zealand

Te Papa Tongarewa, and

Television New Zealand

2026 statements of performance expectations for:

Broadcasting Standards Authority

Creative New Zealand

Fire and Emergency New Zealand

Heritage New Zealand

New Zealand Film Commission

New Zealand Symphony Orchestra

NZ On Air

Radio New Zealand

Tāmaki Regeneration Company

Te Papa Tongarewa, and

Television New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:02) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:02): Two weeks ago, the Reserve Bank released its latest monetary policy review. This included a decision to increase the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points, to 2.5 percent. Previously, the OCR had been at 2.25 percent for 7½ months.

Ryan Hamilton: Was this OCR increase a surprise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The OCR rises and falls in cycles, and 2.25 percent was the bottom of the most recent cycle. In lay terms, the Reserve Bank’s accelerator has been flat to the floor, providing stimulus to the New Zealand economy. It was no surprise to the market or to economic commentators that the Reserve Bank decided to ease off the accelerator a bit, and since this move was already widely anticipated and priced in, there has been little or no change in fixed-term mortgage rates since the announcement. It is important to note, however, that the current OCR of 2.5 percent is still very accommodative, or stimulatory, with low interest rates continuing to provide stimulus to the economy.

Ryan Hamilton: Why did the Reserve Bank decide to ease off the accelerator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yesterday’s Consumers Price Index release showed annual inflation above the target band, at 4.1 percent, due to a spike in fuel prices from the Middle East conflict. That spike will pass, but the Reserve Bank remains concerned about potential second-round effects on other consumer prices. It also expects the economy to continue strengthening. For those reasons, it has decided to ease off the accelerator. The Reserve Bank’s job is to keep on top of inflation. Monetary policy’s contribution to longer-term economic growth and living standards is through price and macroeconomic stability, and that is to the benefit of all New Zealanders. We have seen quite recently, between 2021 and 2023, just how destructive high inflation can be, with prices rising up to 7.3 percent a year.

Ryan Hamilton: What has the Government been doing to help limit inflationary pressures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has been focused on not adding to inflationary pressure with large increases in discretionary spending, as happened in 2022 and 2023. Our responses to the fuel crisis have instead been temporary, targeted, and timely. Our new spending in each Budget has been very restrained. This fiscal discipline has helped limit any inflationary pressure from fiscal policy and, therefore, any additional pressure on interest rates. As a Government, we have also applied significant focus to addressing the underlying productive capacity of the economy and are advancing supply-side reforms to ensure a more productive economy and to limit price rises in the future, whether that be rates caps, work to accelerate the development of electricity generation, or work to ensure a more responsive housing system.

Education

Question No. 2

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:05) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent data has he seen on student attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:05): Wonderful news: in term 2, just finished a few weeks ago, regular attendance was 64.2 percent. That’s up 5.8 percent from term 2 last year, and it is the best term 2 in a decade. I should add a small caveat that 2020 was slightly higher, because, due to COVID measures, children were routinely marked present when they, in fact, were at home. However, had normal conditions applied that year, this most certainly would be the best in a decade. It is a tribute to New Zealand’s children and parents, who have been getting it done. We heard tremendous negativity at the start of the term that due to the fuel crisis, attendance would plummet, and it was all going to be Chicken Little. Well, Kiwi parents and Kiwi children do not share that negativity. They have set a 10-year record for school attendance, and that is a wonderful thing for our country’s future.

Laura McClure: Were there suggestions early in term 2 that the price of fuel might negatively impact school attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I was just saying that, but I appreciate the member’s invitation to further expand on the matter. The interesting thing is that there’s always a certain type of negative person who sees success as an excuse for grievance rather than an example to follow. I’m talking about the leadership of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Labour Party, but I repeat myself thrice. Actually, in stark contrast to those negative attitudes, Kiwi kids and Kiwi parents got it done, because they see the value of education, and we’re proud to see that progress.

SPEAKER: I’ll just take this moment to remind the House that it’s not appropriate for Government questions to be used to attack other parties.

Laura McClure: Thank you, Minister, for clearing that up. What are some of the attendance initiatives this Government has invested in?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it is, I believe, in the first instance, the children that show up to school that deserve the praise, and the parents, who often save and make sacrifices to get their children educated. But it is also true that this Government has taken a range of initiatives, starting from just taking it seriously. We did not take school attendance seriously enough in this country in the years before this Government was elected. We started publishing the data every day, where previously the Minister responsible had got in trouble for refusing to release attendance data. Now you can see the data every day. We have given every school board an attendance action plan and implemented the stepped attendance response scheme, or STAR, which gives a different response at every stage of a child’s attendance journey. If their attendance gets worse, there is a new response. Every time they go down 10 percent attendance, we change the strategy to get them back. We have also put around $40 million extra into attendance, and we have re-contracted the attendance services up and down the country after an Education Review Office review found that those contracts were not performing. As a result of all of those actions, we have just set a 10-year record for school attendance in a winter term 2.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister agree with the proposition that the best thing we can do to reduce youth crime is to ensure that our kids go to school?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It very much depends on the student. If the student is a naughty student and commits crimes at school, then it could be worse, as the member can well remember. However, as we can all imagine, the Hon Paul Goldsmith has the report cards to prove it—he was on detention at Auckland Grammar every other day. But if you have a student who is diligent and learns and gets the skills and the self-esteem and the qualifications to set a good path in life, then yes, education is definitely the best insurance against a wayward life afterwards later in life.

SPEAKER: As the member asking the question can attest.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:11) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:11): Yes. In particular, our efforts on attendance and lifting educational standards.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell New Zealanders in December 2023 that his 100-day plan had “a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”, if bringing down the cost of living is, in his own words, as he told the House yesterday, “economic illiteracy”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the last part of the question, could the member provide the full quote, please, in the context it was given?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Sure. If, as he claimed in the House yesterday, “falling prices leads to less spending. That leads to businesses not investing, and, as a result, the economy shrinks.”, why has his Government repeatedly promised falling food prices over the past three years, something they failed to deliver?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, what I was talking about was just helping to educate the member because, clearly, he led a very economically illiterate Government. The point I was trying to make to him was, look, you have high inflation, which is what the last Government created—7.2 percent; 32-year high; it was actually out of the band for 11 quarters. Too-high inflation is bad, right, because, actually, what happens is that prices go up and people’s wages don’t keep up with that and they fall behind. That’s the situation that that member created. But then what he started arguing was the flipside, the other continuum, which is called deflation, where he argues that, actually, we should have falling prices. When prices start falling, economists tell you that you get less spending. Less spending means business incomes fall, and then you actually get cutting costs, wages, and jobs. The extremes aren’t good, and so what you do is you try and get in the band of 1 to 3 percent. That’s what his Government failed to do. He doesn’t understand deflation. He doesn’t understand the impacts of high inflation. It was just an education lesson to help him out given the economic illiteracy on his side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, just before you progress, the House needs to be a little more orderly than we’ve just seen from some sections while the last answer was being given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his concern is that shrinking prices will lead to a shrinking economy, how has his Government managed to deliver higher prices and a shrinking economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no. My deep concern was for the member’s economic illiteracy around an issue called deflation, because deflation—look it up in the economics books—isn’t a good thing, and that’s what that member’s been advocating for. What this Government has delivered is inflation at 4.1 percent in the middle of the biggest oil spike and crisis we have seen. If you strip that out, we’re at 2.9 percent, within the 1 to 3 percent band that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand sets in place. I’d just remind the member that under his record it was 7.3 percent, a 32-year high, outside the band for 11 quarters. It’s a special kind of skill to create that amount of illiteracy and poor economic management, but he has it in spades.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If prices coming down is deflation and economically illiterate, why did Nicola Willis state, and I quote directly, “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just put the member’s record of 7.3 percent up against our record of 4.1 percent—4.1 is smaller than 7.3. Do you get it?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So when did reducing—

SPEAKER: Hang on. The House will just settle right down while questions are being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When did reducing the cost of living stop being his first priority and become economic illiteracy; was that before or after he failed to deliver it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’m just going to help the member. I’m going to send you a book called Economics 101. It’s a great textbook. I got it in the sixth form at high school, and it highlights the dangers of what you’re talking about, which is deflation. That’s why we manage it within the band. Strip out the Iranian conflict and we’re well within the band, at 2.9 percent. We’re making progress. Here’s some other numbers for you, though, because you banged on about food inflation yesterday: it was 12.3 percent under a Labour Government; it’s 2.8 percent today. We have 0.5 percent rent inflation—the lowest in 25 years. That member drove up rents $180 a week. Rents are stable across the whole term of our Government, and as you can see by the Stats data, it’s up 0.5 percent—the lowest in 25 years. Your record doesn’t match with ours.

SPEAKER: Some people on the other side of the House just need to calm down a little bit.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If arguing for lower grocery prices is economic illiteracy, was Nicola Willis economically illiterate when she said—and I quote—“National is committed to Kiwis paying less for home-grown food at the checkout”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I tried to explain to the member yesterday—but he doesn’t get numbers or do numbers—he had food inflation at 12.3 percent.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Keep it up—this is good.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Food inflation today is 2.8 percent. Mr McAnulty might even understand that 2.8 is less than 12.3—this is the point that we’re making. We’re making good progress. Most importantly, the economy’s on an upswing. There’s lots of good information coming through the economy, but I just will help the member—I’ll send him that book.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, if he’d had no intention of bringing down the cost of living and lowering grocery prices, why didn’t he just tell New Zealanders over the last three years that actually what he was promising was grocery prices that just wouldn’t increase as fast?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we are focussed on lowering the cost of living for New Zealanders. That member had inflation at 7.3 percent, he had food inflation at 12.3 percent, he had rent inflation at 4.6 percent, and he had mortgage rates at 7.4 percent. Not only that, because his spending was so wasteful, he tripled the debt for goodness’ sake. We pay $9 billion worth of interest because of their economic mismanagement and illiteracy. I’m just saying to the member, I’m just trying to help him by educating him, because I look at that front bench and there is nobody with any economic management skills whatsoever. Just look at the faces—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. [Interruption] Question No. 4—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: See them—all their heads are down.

SPEAKER: Mr McAnulty, you’re not called, so don’t speak.

RMA Reform

Question No. 4

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (14:17) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent reports has he seen on the Government’s reform of the New Zealand planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:17): As the House knows, yesterday we welcomed the Environment Committee’s report back on the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. As I think—

Hon Rachel Brooking: It was Monday, not yesterday!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On Monday.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You tell him, Brookie!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You got me there! You got me—you got me! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. That’s far too much, all right? Just calm it right down. You may enjoy your little quips, but people are trying to understand the answers to questions that are being asked properly in this House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On Monday, we welcomed the report back of the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. As I think all members know, there isn’t a corner of this country that hasn’t been affected by the failure of our planning system, and the new bills to replace that planning system will result in significant economic opportunities for all New Zealanders. I want to thank the Environment Committee for the improvements made to the bills, addressing a number of concerns by submitters. We’ve had a number of changes around renewables, agriculture, housing, and also the environment.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How have the bills been improved to drive infrastructure delivery and housing growth?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There have been changes made to the heart of the system, which is the goal of the bills, to better focus and direct this sort of growth. We are for the first time writing into New Zealand law that our planning system should create abundant development opportunities, rather than the status quo of just meeting current and expected demand. When it comes to infrastructure, we are writing into law that the system should “enable” infrastructure, rather than just “plan” and “provide for”. These are subtle but very important changes because they go to the heart of many of the problems besetting the New Zealand economy, which is an infrastructure deficit, a housing crisis, and an energy system that has made it too hard to develop our abundant renewable resources.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What changes were made to enhance the environment?

Chlöe Swarbrick: That is laughable—that is laughable.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in contrast to what the member for Auckland Central is saying around “laughable”, a new goal in the system is to support and enhance the natural environment, which has been added by the select committee, sending a clear signal that the planning system should value the natural environment, and, indeed, enhance it. Environmental limits, which are not a feature of the current Resource Management Act (RMA), have been retained. There have been changes made to clarify how those are set, to make sure they’re reflective of local context. Regarding climate change, decision makers will be able to consider the positive effects of activities associated with reducing the adverse effects of greenhouse gas emissions—for example, it will be easier to consent renewable energy generation and public electric vehicle charges in the new system. And the bills establish a dedicated wildlife approvals process to make sure that the Wildlife Act’s protective purpose and approach continues to be applied.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has he seen on the select committee’s report?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there’s been a lot of feedback, some of it accurate, some of it less accurate. Some of the accurate commentary was from Liz Moncrieff from the New Zealand Planning Institute, who confirmed that the bills are likely to make attaining resource consents faster—that is a real problem in the current RMA. We’ve also seen DairyNZ say that the “job is not finished” but reported back that the “bills provided a much stronger foundation for a system that can deliver environmental improvement, greater certainty, and lower cost.” I was also confused by some of the criticism of so-called new ministerial powers that I’m apparently giving to myself. In the current RMA, the Minister has the ability to set national direction, national standards, and regulations under the Act, and, of course, those powers remain in the new planning system, but they will exist in a much more coherent and streamlined way.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Has the Minister seen reports that existing mana whakahono ā rohe agreements were negotiated to improve planning efficiency by enabling earlier engagement between councils and iwi?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I have seen those reports, and nothing in the new system will stop engagement between councils and iwi. In fact, it will be one of the parts of the new system—it will, in fact, encourage that as part of the development of spatial plans, which, again, is a new feature of the system that will be a real enhancement on the status quo.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What advice has the Minister received that abolishing those agreements will further improve planning efficiency, given the Far North District Council reported that its mana whakahono ā rohe agreement with Ngāpuhi would save time and money through earlier engagement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I would encourage the Far North District Council, once the bill’s passed into law, to develop an iwi participation agreement with Ngāpuhi, and there will be the ability for them to do that within the framework of the new legislation. One of the reasons we’ve abolished, or we’re proposing to abolish, the mana whakahono ā rohe agreements is that they were developed in the context of the RMA. We’re obviously changing the RMA and developing a planning Act and a natural environment Act, so it makes sense to have a system that reflects that when it comes to iwi participation agreements.

Education

Question No. 5

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:23) to the Minister of Education: Has the Privacy Commissioner been notified about the SMART tool data breach; and if so, what advice has she received on this matter?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:24): I’m advised that the Ministry of Education notified the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the same day that the issue was verified. I’m advised that the ministry have followed the guidance of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and have followed their obligations under the Privacy Act.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Over what period of time was the “unexpected access” able to obtain access to the information of 276 students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve been advised that there were two teachers who had access between 5 July and 12 July—the two issues, one happened on 5 July and the other two, with the other separate teacher, happened on 12 and 13 July. We became aware of the issue and verified it on the 16th and undertook the correct process, as outlined earlier.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How were trial logins able to access 276 real student records?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have the technical knowledge of the back-end of the system to be able to answer that question. What I can say, though, is that as soon as the issue was verified, all of the access was closed down immediately while the Ministry of Education worked to ensure that the proper process was taken—the identification, restricting access, and then notifying the correct people. All of those steps were undertaken and it has been found that it was just those two teachers between those periods of time.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the final security accreditation for the Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool completed before or after live student data was loaded into the system?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have that information on me. The member is going to have to put that in writing.

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—

Hon Ginny Andersen: No, no. I’ve still got one more, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ve got another supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, stand up and ask it. Don’t sit there waiting.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she push ahead with the Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool when Treasury explicitly advised against it, stating that key processes for assigning and changing access permissions were yet to be developed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, that information and advice from Treasury was through the business case process, which is a standard process. The advice was given, the ministry acted on it, and the business case proceeded as it would normally do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she push ahead with the implementation of the Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool when the Ministry of Education explicitly advised her that there was an active risk of a security breach serious enough to lead to complaints to the Privacy Commissioner and reputational damage to schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: All the advice that I’ve had from my ministry before we went live is that the security of the system was robust and that they had confidence to go live.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Ngā mihi e te Māngai. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There is one person asking a question, and the people who have repeatedly started to give their opinions to the House while someone else has the floor won’t be staying any longer.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:27) 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) (14:27): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that successive Governments, the courts, and Parliament have recognised Treaty-based obligations in environmental decision-making for decades, and, if so, why is his Government weakening a mechanism designed to give practical effect to those obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the second leg of the question, what we’re doing is we’re making sure that any agreements are in the context of the new Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation going through this House. Importantly, any agreements are held at a high level to deal with issues like spatial planning. Quite rightly, I think most Kiwis would understand that it’s important to protect important culturally significant sites and to uphold Treaty obligations. But, equally, at the individual level, we want farmers to be able to crack on and build farmhouses on their own property without having to have endless engagement with lots of others.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he confirm that mana whakahono ā rohe agreements, which have been around for almost a decade, have not once transferred council powers, created a veto, or established any form of co-governance?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: My point and our point is that we actually want any agreements to be in the context of the newly developed RMA legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: What practical problem is solved by scrapping mana whakahono ā rohe agreements if the Government still intends to provide for iwi participation agreements under the replacement resource management legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, we’re transitioning from an old piece of legislation that’s broken and doesn’t work to a new one. We’re in a transition period, and while we are, we’re just encouraging everybody and saying, “Let’s get with the right law framework and the legal context, which is the new RMA laws, and put it in that context.”

Hon Marama Davidson: What advice has the Government received on whether removing mana whakahono ā rohe agreements could increase disputes, litigation, duplicated consultation, decision-making delays, or Treaty breaches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the point and the principle of the decision is actually to make sure that any agreements that are struck are done within the context of the new RMA legislation. That’s as simple as it is.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept the concern raised by former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that scrapping mana whakahono ā rohe agreements is doing “untold harm” to the Treaty relationship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, could the member repeat the question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept the concern raised by the former Minister for Treaty Negotiations that scrapping mana whakahono ā rohe agreements is doing “untold harm” to the Treaty relationship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know which former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations she’s referencing.

RMA Reform

Question No. 7

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (14:30) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What negative impacts, if any, will his Government’s RMA reforms have on iwi-Māori rights and interests?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s not actually the question. But anyway, Mr Speaker—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Just answer the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:31): I’m happy to. I’m pleased to say the new planning system will provide for more certainty around how Māori rights and interests are provided for. It will address the uncertainty created under the Resource Management Act (RMA) by vague Treaty provisions that did not specify what was required of decision makers or iwi. The efficiencies created by the new system will significantly benefit Māori. We are committed to supercharging iwi development. In fact, it is in the goals of the system. Iwi have suffered as much as anyone from the complexity of the RMA, and the new system will support iwi groups to use their land and natural resources for their own benefit. To give you one example, Ngāi Tahu have emphasised to me how much of a barrier overly complicated consent processes are to them actually using and realising the benefits of the aquaculture settlement areas that are provided for under the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. This is extraordinary, and it’s important for the House to hear it. To date, no consent has been granted for a gazetted aquaculture settlement area. After 22 years. That to me is a contemporary Treaty breach and we are fixing it through the new planning system.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How many Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions—and I don’t know why the House has to be reminded so much today—are heard in silence by everybody other than the questioner. Please start again.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How many Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements in Hauraki-Waikato will be removed by his Government’s RMA reforms, if any?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have the specific number in relation to Hauraki-Waikato, but if the member puts it down in writing, I’m happy to look at it. What I can say is that when the bills were introduced there were eight in existence. There have been three agreed since the bills were introduced; four short-form agreements were agreed in 2025; 27 have been initiated since the bills were introduced, and I’m advised that councils have advised them of approximately 50 that have been initiated since the bills were introduced. They will have to transition into the new system.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What assurances can he give to the people in places of Ngāti Tara Tokanui Trust, Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board, Ngāti Hotu Tipuna Trust, Ngāti Tumutumu Trust, Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust, Ngāti Hauā Iwi Trust, Raukawa Charitable Trust, Te Kawerau Iwi Trust, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, that their relationship with their local councils will be enhanced by the removal of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, and not diminished further?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: They will have the ability to negotiate with their council new agreements once the bills come into effect, and I’d expect some councils to do that, and some iwi and other groups to do that as well.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If iwi decide to seek justice through the courts over the removal of their Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, can the Minister assure them that the Government will honour those decisions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government is of course subject to the law; that is a core principle of the rule of law, which is part of New Zealand’s constitution. However, what I would also say is that the Government is moving to change the law specifically to create a new legal regime for iwi participation agreements. I want to stress that it is important, in the system, that there is the ability for iwi to have influence at the spatial-planning level, but we are determined to get out of the system the idea, at an individual resource consent level, that you have to go and talk to every man and his dog around the country in order to get permission to use your own whenua to do something in this country. That is part of what’s held this country back, so we’re keeping things at a spatial-planning level and, as the system funnels down to an individual resource-consent level, we expect far more freedom for people to do things, unless they affect other people.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How does the Minister expect mana whenua in Hauraki-Waikato to have confidence in this Government when decisions continue to be made that are inconsistent with Te Tiriti and the commitments made to them?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s just completely incorrect. I mean, for starters, this Government has agreed to transition over the variety of Treaty settlement arrangements in Hauraki-Waikato into the new regime. It’s a core coalition commitment that Treaty settlements entered into by the Crown in good faith, after many years of injustice, are honoured, and that remains as part of the new regime and will continue as part of the new regime. I’m in constant and regular dialogue with many of the iwi in Hauraki-Waikato about those very matters.

Hon Tama Potaka: To the Minister: how will Māori primary sector organisations have better opportunities to contribute more to export growth as a result of the RMA reform?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the points that is often made to me by many of these groups is that the RMA has been a massive stumbling block to the development of primary sector exports or forestry or aquaculture, as I alluded to in the primary answer. There is the great ability in the new system for much greater export growth and development of our natural resources, as a result of the planning changes and environmental management changes that we are making.

RMA Reform

Question No. 8

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (14:37) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Is it correct that the regulatory relief provisions in the Government’s planning bills could impose costs of $1.99 billion on councils, and will ratepayers ultimately bear the burden of these costs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:37): There’s a range of estimated costs, as I think the member knows, to implement the regulatory relief provisions. The member’s chosen the upper end of the scale from the MartinJenkins report, but the MartinJenkins report also says it could range from $7 million to as high as $1.99 billion—so she’s technically correct, but it’s unlikely to be like that. One number is 284 times larger than the other. The bills provide councils with a range of options in how relief is provided, including rates relief, development rights, land swaps, reduced fees, access to grants, and cash payments. That is all to be worked out in due course.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Can councils afford the regulatory relief provisions in these bills, without passing on the costs to households by increasing rates?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member should have listened to my primary answer: I mean, I just gave a range of different ways in which they will be able to reach the regulatory relief, if indeed it is required. It’s worth just pondering why it exists: we are trying to deliberately tilt the system or introduce some greater tension in the system towards private property. The reality is, if someone has a piece of land that is private property and a council turns up and says, “Well, it’s now subject to significant heritage restrictions.”—or a significant natural area (SNA) that takes 80 percent of the land or at least renders 80 percent of the land unusable, or an outstanding natural feature or landscape, or something that is of high natural character, those are legitimate roles in the system. The system should protect things like that, but they also have an impact on someone’s private property, to the point where there might be a diminution in the value of that property. I don’t want to live in a country in which councils can just do that, willy nilly. I don’t want to throw out planning entirely but I also want to introduce some tension into the system so that those costs on individual landowners actually bite somewhere. If the effect of that is that councils think hard about whether or not something is actually heritage or whether or not something is actually a significant natural area, then that is actually a feature of the system; that is what we are trying to accomplish. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Hon Rachel Brooking: So is there a risk that councils will put off introducing protections for biodiversity, heritage, landscape, and sites of significance for Māori because of the risk of having to provide monetary compensation for that protection?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as I’ve just said, one of the goals of the system is to make councils bear some of the cost of those restrictions which are imposed on private landowners. That is what is allowed in the status quo at the moment. Talk to the farmer who owns a piece of land and finds that the council turns up and says that 85 percent of the land is now a SNA and you’re not allowed to farm on it and you’re not allowed to do anything on the land. Well, I’m sorry, that is not acceptable. That is currently allowed, and there are examples that members on this side of the House can point to up and down the country. Or the individual landowner in Wellington who happens to own an alleged, so-called heritage house because it was designed by some architect in the 1950s who has found that you can’t add a second storey to the house, can’t even change a lightbulb, barely, inside the house because the council has decided it’s a heritage house. Well, I am sorry, I stand on the side of the landowner who is subject to those restrictions. It’s not to say that councils can’t and shouldn’t do that, because we do need to protect heritage, we do need to protect significant natural areas, we do need to protect areas of significant biodiversity, but there is a cost to that, and the question before the House is, “Who should bear that cost?” Should it be the poor, long-suffering private landowner, or should it be councils? And I say: councils. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just one person asking a question; that’s all.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who said the bill effectively reasserts a right to destroy biodiversity?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I don’t agree with the Rt Hon Simon Upton in relation to that.

Hon David Seymour: Not until he apologises for the RMA.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! My colleague the Deputy Prime Minister says, “Not until he apologises for the RMA”. That’s slightly mean spirited! I don’t agree with him, but what we’re trying to do—firstly, we’re not getting rid of zoning, we’re not getting rid of the concept of SNAs for heritage, and in fact, the threshold for when regulatory relief will kick in is a significant threshold. It’s not any heritage restriction or any biodiversity overlay, or anything like that. It’s a significant threshold, and it’s a tilt towards the idea, as I’ve said a couple of times now, that private property matters. It is the foundation of a modern, market economy. We believe in it on this side of the House, and we want to introduce greater tension into the system. I get that the member doesn’t like it, but it is a core element of the reform and what we’re trying to accomplish. If the member wants to stand up for the untrammelled power of councils to impose restrictions on private property, she can.

SPEAKER: Questions are required to be relatively brief and concise; answers should be as well.

Hon David Seymour: Could the $1.99 billion figure that some allege, in some scenarios, councils might have to pay for reducing the value of people’s land also be seen as an indication of the size of the cost that councils can put on people when councils restrict people’s right to use their own land?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, that is an alternative way of looking at that, and it is definitely true that councils, at the moment, impose costs on individual landowners that are borne by the landowner, when, in fact, they are social public goods that should be borne by everybody else.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he accept that these reforms could force councils to choose between protecting the environment and protecting households from higher rates?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I don’t accept the false binary that the member has put forward. There are a variety of different ways for councils to think creatively and laterally—which I realise is sometimes a challenge—but they will need to think creatively around how they give effect to the rules. It doesn’t necessarily need to be about compensation; it could be remission or things like that. It could also be the exchange of development rights somewhere else on a property in exchange for impositions on another part of the property. There is a variety of different ways, and if you think about what other countries do, they do that now. We are providing greater tools for councils to think about how they give effect to regulatory relief.

Agriculture

Question No. 9

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (14:45) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent report has he seen on the effect of the Government’s RMA reform on the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:45): The Environment Committee’s final report on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill was released on Monday. The Government welcomes the report, as it is a significant step forward for the primary sector and our farms, as have many farm leaders. For too long, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has added cost, delay, and uncertainty for the people who grow and produce New Zealand’s food and fibre. Replacing it with a system that is practical, proportionate, and focused on outcomes is good news for farmers, for the environment, and for the wider economy. I’m pleased to see that the select committee has taken on board many of the suggestions from the wider farming community, including the wool sector, and I thank the committee for its hard work.

Grant McCallum: What are the intended benefits for farmers from these changes, and will it include getting Wellington out of farming?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Across the country, farmers and growers have been held back, as the RMA has failed them. It has been burdensome, it stifles productivity, and that is exactly why we’re replacing it. Key changes that will help farmers and growers include adding a reference to food and fibre production to the goals of the bills. It will mean fewer unnecessary rules; the new system removes rules that aren’t needed. Regulation focuses on real environmental risks, not minor or low-impact activities. Consistent rules nationwide—planning processes will be simpler and more predictable, with clear, consistent national rules that support long-term investment in the rural sector. They focus on what matters. Farmers will only need to manage effects on farms that are more than minor, unlike the current RMA. Clear environmental limits for natural resources like air, water, land, and indigenous biodiversity will be set and monitored to protect people’s health and the environment. Finally, farm plans will mean fewer consents but more environmental achievement. Freshwater farm plans will be flexible and farmer-led, and they’ll help farmers identify environmental risks on their farms and then plan practical actions to manage these, reducing costs and driving better environmental activity—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Say it like you believe it.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, OK, I’m going to start again, because I really do believe it.

SPEAKER: No, no—definitely don’t start again. You’re in the terminal zone as it is.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I can only believe it slightly more because it is so good. The change we’re making is going to help farms and going to help farmers—absolutely.

Grant McCallum: What is the Government considering on Waikato Plan Change 1 (PC 1)?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Minister responsible for RMA Reform and I recently held a public meeting in the Waikato to discuss PC 1. PC 1 was developed more than a decade ago and has spent the intervening years in court. It is no longer clear, from those we heard, that it is fit for purpose or that it will achieve many, if any, of its original intentions. It doesn’t make sense to have a new national planning system adopted by Parliament, but Waikato farmers and growers are sentenced to rules that were developed under an old system. Waikato farmers are committed to improved water quality, but they need modern planning rules to achieve this, not ones that were developed 15 years ago. The Government is committed to addressing this as we move the RMA reforms through Parliament, so that all areas of New Zealand are treated equally and treated fairly.

Grant McCallum: What are the foreseen benefits for the country?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We have a primary sector we all can be and we all should be proud of. This year, it will export a record $62 billion to the world, forecast to grow to $70 billion by 2030. Our farmers and growers and others in the primary sector are responsible for 360,000 jobs. Exports are how we grow the economy, and our producers are delivering. The world wants New Zealand’s high-quality, sustainable, trusted food and fibre. The RMA replacement will see increased productivity, reduced costs on farms, and better environmental outcomes. It will allow local communities to make fit for purpose decisions, including around land-use change, and reduce heavy-handed regulatory burden. As it drives up production whilst meeting environmental obligations, it will mean more jobs, higher wages, and greater exports for New Zealand.

Building and Construction

Question No. 10

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:49) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Is he satisfied with the state of New Zealand’s construction workforce; if so, why?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Acting Minister for Building and Construction) (14:50): Not entirely, because we know that the construction sector has experienced significant pressure in recent years. However, activity levels in the sector are building, with recent data showing an 18.5 percent increase in consents for the year to May. This activity is being supported by the actions of this Government to speed up consenting through fast track, reforms to the building consent system, and overhauling the Resource Management Act (RMA). These reforms will increase activity and mean more growth, more jobs, and higher wages for Kiwis.

Arena Williams: Have any of his regulatory changes kept even one of the 75,000 workers who left construction in the year to May 2026 in their jobs?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The regulatory changes by this Government have seen an increase in the number of employees in the construction centre by 0.7 percent over the last 12 months, so I think that demonstrates good progress.

Arena Williams: Why has he not done more when one-third of new construction workers are leaving their job six months in, and only one in five lasted a mere two years?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, the Government has done quite a lot in this space. We are reforming the RMA, we are fast-tracking large numbers of housing projects, we are speeding up consenting and allowing granny flats to be built, we are increasing access to building products, we are introducing self-certification for builders and plumbers, we are speeding up inspections, we are improving liability rules, and we are fast-tracking consenting for residential buildings for solar generation. This all adds to a growing construction sector.

Arena Williams: What precipitated the drop in building apprentices by 30 percent on his watch, down from 40,000 apprenticeships and trainees in 2022 to just 28,000 in 2025?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: That drop was precipitated by years of borrowing and spending by previous administrations, which drove inflation through the roof, interest rates through the roof, which caused a slowdown in the construction sector, including a peak of apprentices in 2022. It was downhill from there, and this Government is taking responsibility for fixing the basics of what we were left behind and literally building the future.

Arena Williams: Why would a second-year building apprentice stay in New Zealand when five-year completion rates have collapsed from 58 percent to 43 percent, drop-out rates have risen every year under his Government, but Queensland is hiring?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Because New Zealand is a great place to make a future for yourself and your family, and, under this Government, we are introducing a range of reforms to strengthen and boost the construction sector, including, in Budget 2026, doubling the number of places in trades academies and increasing the number of Youth Guarantee spots by 1,000, not to mention rescuing the Apprenticeship Boost, which was left unfunded and on a fiscal cliff by the previous administration.

Arena Williams: Will he concede that his Government is tinkering around the edges—as Minister Chris Bishop has said—while presiding over the deepest construction downturn on record?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: No—and, in fact, this Government is undertaking a range of fundamental reforms to the building and construction sector, and I welcome the bipartisan approach of the member across the House who, at the BuildNZ conference this year—this week in fact—said that we need to take a much more forward-looking bipartisan approach to reforms in the building and construction sector so that we can support all of our young apprentices, current builders, and those who might be entering into the pipeline in the future.

Small Business and Manufacturing

Question No. 11

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:53) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent reports has he seen about growth in the manufacturing sector?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing) (14:53): Our manufacturing sector is having its strongest run in years. The latest BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) jumped to 59.7 in June, the strongest result in nearly five years. BNZ said it was “staggered” by the result. Orders, production, and employment all moved firmly into growth territory. This is further evidence that confidence is improving, manufacturers are investing, and New Zealand’s economy is growing—and, as we say, as we fix the basics and build a future.

Dan Bidois: How does New Zealand’s manufacturing performance compare internationally?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Our manufacturers aren’t just growing, they’re outgrowing the rest of the world. New Zealand’s PMI of 59.7 is well above the J.P. Morgan Global Manufacturing PMI of 52.2. That puts our manufacturers ahead of Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. Kiwi firms are proving they can beat the very best when they’ve got a Government that backs them.

Dan Bidois: How did manufacturing contribute to New Zealand’s most recent economic growth figures?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: There is more evidence—yet there is more!—that this Government’s economic plan is working. Statistics New Zealand’s figures show that manufacturing was the single biggest contributor to growth in the March quarter, growing at 1.9 percent in that quarter, and helping drive overall GDP growth of 0.8 percent. When manufacturing grows like this, the whole economy feels it in higher productivity, in stronger exports, and in businesses with the confidence to take their next step.

Dan Bidois: How is this Government supporting the manufacturing sector to grow?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This Government is backing our manufacturers to invest and grow. That’s why we introduced Investment Boost, letting a firm deduct a big chunk of new machinery and equipment up front so they can gear up to keep pace with demand, and we’re backing them right across the board, cutting the red tape and the costs that get in the way, so they can get on with what they do best. That’s what happens when you fix the basics and build the future.

Dan Rosewarne: Does he consider more than 2,100 company liquidations in the past 12 months, the highest in 10 years, to be a sign of growth?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: What I can confirm are the numbers that I have just spoken about, and that is the wider trend is clear—the wider trend is clear: manufacturing has shown strong GDP growth in the first quarter of this year, and the latest PMI also shows confidence and activity continue to improve. That side might want to talk down the manufacturing sector, but this side backs it.

Energy

Question No. 12

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (14:57) to the Minister for Energy: Has an assessment of safety risks to local residents been undertaken as part of the liquefied natural gas terminal procurement process; and if so, what potential safety risks have been identified?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (14:57): I’m advised that an initial safety evaluation’s been undertaken as part of the two proponents’ feasibility work. Detailed health and safety assessments will be carried out through the safety case that any operator is legally required to prepare under regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and the operator must not commence operations unless and until that safety case has been accepted by WorkSafe. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is safely imported, stored, and handled in many countries around the world. This Government will not compromise on the safety of Taranaki communities. I was recently in Taranaki, where I met residents and some stakeholders and welcomed the opportunity to hear their views directly. I reiterated to them that their safety is, and will remain, a bottom line for the Government on any proposed facility.

Scott Willis: Will the risk assessments undertaken during procurement be released to the Taranaki community and other port users, given the proposed terminal’s proximity to homes, schools, and businesses?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is a procurement process under way. No doubt, as part of that, once a preferred provider has been selected, there will be an opportunity for them to engage directly with the local community.

Scott Willis: Will WorkSafe’s assessment of a full safety case be completed before the Government signs a contract, or could a contract be signed while the assessment is still ongoing?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in the primary answer, a safety case must be accepted by WorkSafe prior to it being able to be operational. The detailed health and safety assessments will be carried out through the safety case that any operator is legally required to prepare under regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Scott Willis: Will local emergency services, including Fire and Emergency New Zealand, be consulted on their capacity to respond to incidents and safety requirements for the proposed terminal, during procurement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, the safety case has to be approved, has to go through the process, and I expect those parties will be part of responding to that.

Scott Willis: Will local communities in Taranaki have any formal opportunity to engage with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and have their concerns heard beyond the legislative process for the enabling legislation; and if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, safety is a bottom line, and no facility will operate until WorkSafe has accepted its safety case. We’re going through a procurement process at this stage. Once a preferred candidate has been selected, I expect that they will be engaging directly with the community. I think it’s also important to acknowledge the bigger picture, which is that we have declining gas and a dry-year risk, which means that we have power bills going up and jobs being put at risk. LNG is a backup which can ensure we have affordable supply of energy in this country to keep the lights on and ensure affordable power for households and businesses, and that’s why we’re getting on and getting this done.

David MacLeod: Is the Minister aware of other countries within the OECD that have safe access to imported gas, including liquefied natural gas?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, LNG import facilities are regulated for safety in every country that operates them. In fact, I have a list of OECD countries that have access to imported gas, including LNG, which includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

SPEAKER: It might have been interesting to hear that to music. Oral questions are now concluded. We’ll take a short break for those members who need to go other business to leave the House quietly without any conversation on the way.

Debates

General Debate

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:03): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Well, today—or on Monday as we discovered in question time—the Parliament has had the report back of the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. It marks an important moment for the country as we move towards a more enabling and liberal planning system that prioritises private property, growth, and development. If you just reflect back on the last 30 years of the RMA, it has been the driver of New Zealand’s housing crisis, our infrastructure deficit, and the inability of a country that has been remarkably blessed by abundant natural resources to take advantage of those resources.

How can it be that we live in a country where it takes six years to consent a wind farm; eight years to reconsider an existing geothermal power station; a country blessed with oodles and oodles of land up and down the country, with only 5 million people, that has managed to design a planning system so labyrinthine and Byzantine that we have a housing crisis and housing that is more expensive than it otherwise should be; an infrastructure system where we spend $1.3 billion per year on consenting costs alone for infrastructure—that’s Transmission Gully. Transmission Gully is what cost about $1.3 billion. That’s what we spend each and every year. That’s the opportunity cost of our planning system.

So, yes, we should protect the environment and, yes, we should make sure that people have a say in how they plan their cities, but the RMA has been a millstone around the economy for way too long. Yep, there’s been tinkering around the edges, and, yes, people have made changes over the years, including National Governments in the past and past Labour Governments. But what we are moving towards is a completely new system, and I for one can’t wait until that is put into law: clear goals, abundant development opportunities, clear limits for the environment, and a much more streamlined system that removes some of the chokepoints and the red tape in the system.

It’s a better day for the country, and I think it will be, hopefully, one of this Government’s more sustained legacies, alongside the fast-track regime—which I am very proud to have developed alongside the Hon Shane Jones—which is really making a difference. We’ve had the draft approval for the Hananui Aquaculture Project, and isn’t it extraordinary: in 2004, Parliament set aside settlement areas for iwi around the country as part of a big settlement for commercial aquaculture claims by Māori, but 22 years later, not a single aquaculture area has been consented and the Waitangi Tribunal is currently conducting inquiries into almost every aspect of New Zealand. I would put it to the House that the inability for mana whenua to develop their own aquaculture areas that Parliament and the Government have granted is a contemporary breach of the Treaty. The Hananui Aquaculture Project—which, I should note, has not yet received final approval, but has draft approval through the fast-track panel—was declined under the RMA in 2023, and my great hope is that it receives final approval.

While we’re getting on with the job of fixing the basics and building the future, sorting out the mess left behind, and actually dealing with the fundamental, systemic issues affecting the economy, the other side of the House is in complete and utter disarray—complete and utter disarray. We are yet to hear from the Labour Party how they will cope with the $18 billion bill in their Budget numbers that they have to front up and explain. The Labour Party has spent three years making spending commitment after spending commitment—wind back pay equity, more money for this, reverse the Public Service cuts, more money for this, more money for that—and what those members are about to discover in the next few weeks is that their numbers don’t add up and the public is going to expect the Labour Party to actually explain how they will fund all of their extraordinary spending promises.

This election is going to be fought on, number one, who has got the best plan for New Zealand’s future—and actually having policies is a good start, so I reckon we’ve started up on the right foot there—and the second thing it’s going to be fought on is whose books add up. I know which side of the House I’d rather be on because of that.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (15:08): The figure of $1 billion rhymes, after Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods destroyed the oil and gas industry with a captain’s call—juvenile, shallow thinking—that, somehow, our economy could be sustained in the absence of fossil fuels. It shows how low, how cheap, and how inadequate the analysis is from the other side of the House. That’s why our leader has identified that in the future, we will be exhaustive, we will be thorough, we will be professional, and we will uncover every bit of information that we have.

Lying around the coastline of New Zealand is the wealth at the bed of the sea. There is the Canterbury Basin, there is the Great South Basin, there is the deep Taranaki Basin, and there is the Tairāwhiti Basin. In fact, I have to tell the Māori Party that in 1937, it was Sir Apirana Ngata who wrote a very memorable article called “Petroleum and the Treaty of Waitangi”, because riddled up the Tairāwhiti are seepages of gas and petroleum. That stands to reason because it lies just off the coast, but if we could only get away from these fern and root - eating hobbits, who don’t want development on the Tairāwhiti, but want to sit around singing “Kumbaya” and stoking bits of tōtara wood.

No, we’re not going to tolerate that. The final great potential site of the oil and gas industry is called Pegasus. Now, of course, Pegasus is a reference to the mythological creature, a magnificent winged horse, a symbol of creative imagination. That’s what lies behind New Zealand First’s contribution to fuel resilience, to our natural resource security. We will be using this opportunity in the near future after an event called the election.

Please don’t listen to the other side of the House. That is where the caretaker sits, waiting for the undertaker. We all know that. They are not going to cower. They are not going to cancel any narrative that is driven to ensure that our energy resilience, our economic robustness, is not undermined by climate alarmism, people worshipping at the feet of false climate idols. No, we don’t tolerate that in New Zealand First. We’re not going to be scared into these beliefs that kill every cow, destroy manufacturing, eradicate industry. That’s why, as evidence of how important it is to get our energy mix right, we’ve had to step forward and ensure that Whangārei employer Portland cement is able to continue operating.

We’ll be doing three things at least. There’ll be massive scanning, electromagnetic surveying, and, where necessary, sampling actual cores. We have the vessel to do it—Tangaroa. Why is that vessel under-utilised, chasing fanciful ideas about climate alarmism? That vessel can be deployed ASAP to continue the work that was started by an earlier Government. In fact, it’s a sad day that we actually gave up and ruined the traction and the momentum.

New Zealand First will ensure we have a world-class reservoir of geological quantitative data outlining the potential. In some cases, I’m quite sure it’s up to 90 percent. When one considers the massive number of locations across our economic zone where we can emulate the success of other small countries—including Namibia, including Guyana—we will have the opportunity to open up new vistas through high-quality information developed through rational scientific processes, protected from political ideology, not ruined by shrill hyperbolic voices driven to confuse people rather than educate people. That’s why the $1 billion allocation for natural gas and oil, also to assist in the storage of natural gas and, just to show that we are even-handed on these matters, explore how geothermal energy can also contribute to a more robust future so that industry, households, communities, investors can lie in bed awake at night, confident that the $1 billion will boost the oil and gas sector in New Zealand.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (15:13): Can I thank Shane Jones for the sermon he has just given us with great belief and conviction and, of course, a lot of common sense.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon TODD McCLAY: The reason Willie Jackson laughs when I mention common sense—it is very, very easy to laugh at something you’ve never seen before, not on your side of the House, and have no responsibility for, Willie.

I want to start by thanking every farmer and grower and forester in New Zealand for their significant contribution not only to our economy, to the 360,000 people employed in the sector—those jobs—but actually to the fabric of New Zealand. The reason I do that is the primary sector will export $62 billion around the world this year of the highest-quality food and fibre you will find anywhere. They will set a record. Next year, they forecast another record: $64 billion. All around the world, men and women in countries diversely in every part of the world are enjoying the high-quality food that is safe, that we send them, and they are wearing the fibre on their back and, of course, living in houses made often from wood grown in the forests of New Zealand. That’s forecast to hit $70 billion by 2030, and that’s the hard work of our farmers, who have innovated. They care about the land, they care about their animals, and they care deeply about the environment. After all, why would you ruin something you get your livelihood from? But they have been held back, as has almost every single New Zealander I’ve spoken to, by a resource management system, a planning system, that is built more on what officials in Wellington or in the buildings of our councils around the country think, as opposed to what needs to be done to achieve it.

Over the six years of the Labour Government, when they put in place as many as 20 rules and laws and regulations on our farmers, in not a single area of the country was water quality to improve as a result of those rules. Indeed, actually, everywhere they were putting those rules in, cost was going up for farmers, they were producing less, and the outcome for the environment was worse. If the resource management legislation passed by the last Labour Government—that planning Act—was to make it harder to produce, put the cost up, and ruin the environment, it was a success. We said we would replace it; we’re now doing it in our first term, and we’re backing farmers and growers to do what they need to, to produce more, and to do what is right.

Fewer unnecessary rules: the new system will remove the rules that just aren’t needed. If a rule isn’t needed, why should it be there? That becomes bureaucracy. Actually, farmers around the country are already fencing off waterways and keeping stock out of rivers and planting riparian strips. They’re doing it themselves. We should have rules that support that and encourage that, not just make it a cost. Do you know, when we came to Government, under Labour farmers were spending 20 to 30 percent of their time in the back office filling out forms, not producing the food that the world needs us to produce to feed them. Less red tape, less restriction, and lower risk for farmers.

I want to focus, finally, on freshwater farm plans, because this is a very important part of achieving positive outcomes for the environment and allowing farmers to make better decisions for themselves. A freshwater farm plan will mean that we need fewer consents. There will be many things, actually, under this new Resource Management Act that will mean consents aren’t needed, because the risk is so low that it doesn’t deserve the attention that the previous rules would give it. A freshwater farm plan will allow a farmer to go through and, based upon risk, make decisions as to how the farm is managed and then actually implement the changes to manage the environment as they see fit. It won’t reduce production; it won’t mean that there are just forms to fill out for the sake of it. What it will mean is that farmers can take responsibility and can find the most cost-effective, efficient way to achieve what they need to whilst producing the food that creates the jobs and that we sell to the rest of the world.

The farming sector raised a number of issues with the previous law—significantly. They came forward with suggestions for how to improve the outcomes of the new bills that we now have before us, and I want to thank them wholeheartedly for doing that. We are an export nation. Our reputation to sell food around the world is highly dependent upon the way that we produce it. The farmers know that, the exporters know that, this Government knows that, and we are backing them to meet their environmental obligations, to help us clean up water, and to produce more, not merely taxing them and saying that they should be put out of business.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (15:18): In the middle of a cost of living crisis, what have we got from this rotten, useless Government? Absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing.

SPEAKER: Sorry—just keep things a little bit civil.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK.

SPEAKER: No, no, I haven’t finished with you yet. You know that those sorts of descriptors are not at all parliamentary, and I’d encourage the member to avoid them, even though he might have been provoked to do so by other comments that have been made this afternoon.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK, Mr Speaker—this “useless” Government, then. Where is the plan for our communities? They’re at an all-time low. Food is at its highest. We’ve got petrol costs. We’ve got communities under attack. Our people are asking, “Where is the plan?” We have a cost of living crisis, so where’s the plan? Well, we heard the plan yesterday, and it came from the Prime Minister. The plan was about attacking New Zealand First.

I don’t blame him; they’re taking all the National party votes. So we understand that when the Prime Minister talks about a populous movement, when he talks about vulgar and some of the worst aspects of society coming out, we support the Prime Minister in what he said about New Zealand First yesterday. He was on top it—he was on top of it.

And what did we get from the New Zealand First conference? You heard it today: in the middle of a cost of living crisis, $1 billion for their rich mates in the oil and gas industry. That is a disgrace.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Don’t forget the showgirls!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Don’t forget the showgirls—no, well, we don’t want to talk about showgirls.

But, hey, let’s not forget about the candidates. Oh, they rolled out their brilliant candidates. And guess what! Stuart Nash thought—he woke up the other day, and he thought he was Jim Anderton. He said, “Labour walked away from me; I didn’t walk away from them.” No, Stu, we kicked you out. We kicked you out because you leaked Cabinet information. We kicked you out, Stu! Please, someone put that on the TVNZ news: “The star candidate was kicked out for leaking Cabinet Papers.” So, no, you’re not Jim Anderton, Stu.

Then their next star: Michael Laws. The Speaker knows why Michael Laws got kicked out of Parliament. He got kicked out—and I’m just quoting here, don’t sit me down—I go through artificial intelligence, and it said, “dishonesty and deceit”. Now, that’s a that’s a terrible thing to say about “Lawsy” because I don’t mind “Lawsy”. I did a bit of radio with him—good bugger, you know. But dishonest and deceitful—he’s the other star candidate.

Jonesey’s in trouble, because, with respect, these Pākehā boys are coming for the Māoris in New Zealand First—I can see it now. So Jonesy has got to be as offensive as possible, and, as we know, he loves butter chicken, but he doesn’t like Indians. He’s into, Māori—he’s booting every Māori going around because he’s the Matua and we all respect him, and he knows everything about Māori language. So the Jonesy style is to offend everyone, insulting everyone, absolutely condemn everyone, because we all know he wants to be the leader when Winston resigns at age 99. And then, Jonesy will gravitate to the leadership position, if Stuart Nash and Michael Laws haven’t got it by then. That’s the key. But he needs some support there, so he brought in a Māori boy in to help him—his name’s Taine Randell. Taine’s pretty good. He’s pretty good—apart from losing a World Cup and not taking my offer to join Labour. But hey, it’s OK. We don’t mind Taine Randell joining.

It’s typical, he said he wasn’t interested in politics, but I have a note from the chairman of Ngāti Kahungunu, and they’ve officially abandoned Taine Randell, and that’s on record. Bayden Barber has said, it’s disappointing you walk away from Ngāti Kahungunu and you join those mongrels in New Zealand First, but kei te pai. But all we’ll say to Shane Jones is: don’t worry here. We know “Nashy” and we know Laws are biting at your heels. There’s help on the way soon.

SPEAKER: I’ve just got to stop the member—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s help on the way and it’s from the National Party and the person’s name is—Yes, what have we done now?

SPEAKER: You might want to withdraw a descriptor that you just gave of other members in this House, which is also unacceptable.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK. I withdraw that—whoever that member was. Thank you very much.

But I just wanted to say, with Jonesy, help is on the way, and it’s from a National Party person.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, who’s that?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, and she knows everything about National and this Government. She’s the Māori queen—she was the Māori queen of National: Harete Hipango’s going to save Shane Jones’ leadership bid.

The bottom line is we’re waiting for that New Zealand First. They are a bloody disgrace, just like this Government. We can’t wait for the list.

Jenny Marcroft: Sit down, Willie.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Go and jump in the lake, Jenny Marcroft, and go and jump in the lake, Shane Jones. Kia ora tatou.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (15:24): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been bloody disgusting listening to the Minister Chris Bishop crow about how he’s a hero to us, in saving us, as te iwi Māori, through the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms. I absolutely stand in solidarity with the chair of Northland Regional Council, Pita Tipene, who called out this Government and said that the changes to the RMA are cowardly and despicable, because as te iwi Māori, we have worked in RMA for some 35 years—35 years. The system was not perfect; hell no. Iwi Māori, hapū, marae, kaitiaki, even go to the Environment Court to stand up for te taiao, because, you see, Aotearoa cannot thrive if we do not honour our fundamental agreement, which is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Don’t turn your back on te iwi Māori. Don’t marginalise our voice. That’s the issue here, is that the reforms are bringing through legislation that is scrapping Mana Whakahono ā Rohe as a pathway to working at the tēpu, rangatira ki te rangatira over successive years.

I want to pay tribute to Ngāti Tūrangitukua, one of our first iwi groupings who went for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and paved the way for the rest of us. Yeah, only a few of us have entered the door for Mana Whakahono ā Rohe because it was yet to be proven and it ain’t no silver bullet either. But my iwi, Te Parawhau, Patuharakeke, Ngāti Rēhia, Ngāti Hine, and Ngāpuhi have all entered into Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and never had a chance to see it fully executed. Don’t act like somehow that the Government was helping Mana Whakahono ā Rohe to thrive and be all that it could be, because as iwi Māori, we only did it through the sweat of our brow. It was through us and our volunteer hours. There’s no resource for iwi Māori, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, so don’t even think that it’s actually like the solution. Yep, we lined up. We absolutely lined up as iwi Māori because we could see the chopping block coming and it was an avenue to lock in the statutory relationship of iwi Māori and councils working together.

The blind side that this Government gave to iwi Māori and councils who have operated in Mana Whakahono ā Rohe was cowardly and despicable, and I stand alongside Tina Porou who called it out as being racist and not based on evidence. We worked hard alongside the Labour-led Government in the reforms previously—5-6 years, mahi tahi. I sat in the meetings with Crown officials; we were there doing the mahi. We were honourable and worked in good faith again and again. Māori are always crossing the table; we’re always sitting there saying “Haere mai. Noho tahi ki te Māori.”, and yet, what happens? Iwi Māori has to compromise again. At what point is the Government, any Government, going to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Why is it that somehow iwi Māori wanting to be at a tēpu, mana ki te mana, making decisions on economic development, on resource consents, on planning; we’re now marginalised to this new iwi agreement pathway. What is that? All you’re doing is creating more bureaucracy and forcing Māori back into another round of consultation and relitigating our agreements, which already existed through Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Just carry them through. What a rip off. What an absolute rip off and waste of time over many, many years of work.

That’s the thing: the Government’s saying that they are working on efficiencies and trying to bring through progress and development that is unimpeded by us as Māori. We’re not the problem—we are not the problem. The polluters are the problem—the polluters are the problem. Aotearoa cannot thrive without te iwi Māori at the table. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

mate, not at all.

On the new resource management reforms, if you ain’t settled, if you ain’t got those Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) (Takutai Moana) rights—oh, yeah, like the rest of us in hapū, marae, kaitiaki who have been doing the mahi for years—you ain’t got a bloody shitshow of any chance to be—

SPEAKER: Oh, calm the language down.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —represented in the new legislation.

SPEAKER: Dear Lord.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Come on, come on, Mr Speaker. What is happening is abhorrent to te iwi Māori. Let’s get real about what’s happening here. It’s good luck to any of us as hapū, iwi, kaitiaki, MACA claimants who don’t have any recognised customary rights because the MACA thresholds have been put so high up that we can’t even achieve our rights as kaitiaki.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: Ah, OK. Mindblock.

Hon Members: Ginny Andersen.

SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen, sorry.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: My sincere apologies for that—sorry.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That’s all good.

It’s a race to the bottom right now, when we look at those parties opposite. It’s a showdown to the bottom. The bar just keeps on dropping even lower. As we watch the candidates line up, particularly in New Zealand First, I’m reminded fondly of that Michael Jackson video “Thriller”, as one more zombie crawls out from the grave and resurrects themselves and does that zombie shuffle. I can just picture now Winston and Shane leading that zombie move down the street to lead the next generation of resurrected, failed MPs to lead the next generation of what will happen. And these are the guys that are beating National right now. That’s how sad it is right now in New Zealand, that we have a rendition of Thriller beating National for resurrected, failed MPs. That is the standard of the Government’s politics right now going into the election.

There is no wonder that New Zealanders are switching off. There is no wonder that Kiwis are turning off their radios and their TVs and not bothering to keep up, because the standard of policies that have been given by this Government are absolutely not hitting the mark—absolutely not addressing the cost of living crisis that most families are going through right now.

In fact, we have a Prime Minister this week alone who can’t even understand what he’s promised in the past. Because what the Prime Minister said this week was something quite extraordinary. He said that the Government can’t be expected to reduce the cost of living. Apparently, this is because expecting to lower household costs would be “economic illiteracy”. This is after—can I remind people at home who might be listening or watching—Christopher Luxon has said, “The first thing we are going to do is reduce the cost of living—we’re going to reduce the cost of living.” Then he says, “I mean so. The first thing we’ve got to do is we’ve got to reduce the cost of living.” Again, he says, “[We’re] starting our 100-plan with a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”. But wait, what happened? This week he said that it’s not going to do it. What happened there?

But Nicola Willis has chimed in. Nicola Willis said back in 2023: “National will take action to get food prices under control once more.” I think they’ve given up on that one. Here’s another one from Nicola Willis: “National is committed to unshackling the rural economy by scrapping … broken regulations, which will reduce cost on farmers, ensuring agriculture can grow and Kiwis pay less for home-grown food at the checkout.” Was that before or after Wattie’s and McCain’s shut down and moved away because there was no help for those food production companies in the Hawke’s Bay? Also, she said, that we’re going to “help bring down food prices”—that was in July of 2023. “National is committed to unshackling the rural economy and making sure that Kiwis are going well.” She’s also said, “We also have to ensure that across the board we are providing families with lower cost of living.”

Well, how have they done on that one? I say that’s an utter fail on all of those. Because what Kiwis are looking for is something as promising as $20 a week to catch public transport. Wouldn’t that be a great idea? Imagine that: $20 a week to get on a bus, to get on a train, to get to work, to get home again. That’s a real difference and that’s a Labour Party policy that people can put in their back pocket and make sure that they’re doing better.

Solar policy: actual ways of getting people to have cheaper power in their homes and making sure that those savings are counting every single week from the savings you’re getting off your power bill. Making it available for renters, making it available for community batteries—that’s a real plan. Alongside of that, there are some jobs from installing all of those solar units we’re going to see across New Zealand—more jobs for Kiwis. That’s why we’re also putting back the Apprenticeship Boost that was cut by National. Even though they try and claim that it was Labour, Labour has backed apprentices from day one, now expanding it to five more trades and giving $1,000 for your tool kit to get started. So that’s a real thing that Kiwis can show that they’ve got a future here in New Zealand that we are backing them for.

The next one I’d like to put on the table is the fact that prescriptions—taken away by National; put back by Labour. You can go and get your prescription to make sure that costs don’t prohibit people getting the healthcare they need. We will be a Government that puts people first, that puts the cost of living at the front of our agenda, and doesn’t do U-turns and fake promises like those people opposite.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing) (15:34): If the Opposition want to talk about zombies, can I remind the New Zealand public of the zombie economy we inherited in 2023. Can I remind the New Zealand public of the zombie policy programme we are now seeing from the Labour Party. Our plan of fixing the basics and building the future is working. Even in these difficult economic times internationally, we are seeing the numbers that are showing very encouraging signs that our plan is working, and the empirical data is now starting to reflect it.

Let me just go back to budget day 28 May, when the Minister of Finance delivered the BEFU—Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—and some really encouraging numbers there. Over 220,000 more jobs in the forecast period over the next four years. New Zealand returning to surplus a year earlier than forecast. The country’s debt that they tripled arcing down over the rest of this decade. Inflation and interest rates stabilising, and growth averaging nearly 3 percent over the next few years. So the numbers are pointing in the right direction.

Then we look at Statistics New Zealand yesterday, and yes there was a predictable spike in inflation—everyone was expecting that, given the fuel crisis. But when you strip out petrol and diesel, inflation was running at 2.9 percent. Food inflation fell to 2.8 percent. A long way away from 12.5 percent under Labour—that’s food inflation. Rents: rents increased—get this—on an annual basis just 0.5 percent; half a percent. That is the lowest increase in nearly 25 years. What did they increase under Labour? They increased $170 a week. So the numbers are starting to speak for themselves.

Let’s talk about manufacturing, employing nearly quarter of a million Kiwis, making up 8 percent of GDP and 60 percent of our exports. It’s a loud and proud sector. Manufacturing had the best June—the best month, in fact—in nearly five years, hitting a Performance of Manufacturing Index of 59.7: world-leading. Of course, in the first quarter—when we looked at those GDP numbers in the first quarter of this year when things were looking so good before that international conflict—the first quarter showed manufacturing increasing at 1.9 percent; leading the economy.

So the numbers, again, are showing we are certainly heading in the right direction once we see through this Iranian crisis. Two things this Government has done that have made a real difference—this is what people on the shop floor and on the factory-floor are telling me. Investment Boost: an initiative out of Budget 2025; 20 percent off taxable income when businesses invest in their assets, in plants, and machinery. A great policy, lifting investment, and lifting productivity. Another thing that they tell me they’re very pleased with is vocational training—this Government’s commitment to it in 2026. We saw the numbers of places doubling in our trades academies from 10,000 to 20,000 in the next four years. We will see schools leading the charge when it comes to trades academies, building and construction, automotive, hospitality and tourism. Getting our kids work-ready—that’s what the sector wants. Getting our kids work-ready, getting our kids into trades and manufacturing, and we are meeting the market. Earn as You Learn is another programme that’s having huge success in the Waikato, and that is one that we are taking a lead on as a Government.

This country is a country of small businesses. National is the party of small business. In fact, when you look at our caucus, we’re all out of business, we’re all out of private practice, or we’re all off the farm. We are there to represent the working New Zealander. Small businesses are the backbone of this country and National backs them. We back manufacturers, despite all the challenges economically that have been thrown to us this year. New Zealand is ready to launch, and they have a Government that backs them. We are all about building the future and fixing the basics.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:39): To Māori roll or not to Māori roll—that is the question. The Māori roll strengthens Māori influence; the general roll weakens it. I want to talk specifically and directly to our people: our people need to promote our own roll instead of leaving it up to the Government to pay people to be neutral. This is not a time to be apolitical; this is a time to be a Māori. Māori on the Māori roll now outpopulate Māori on the general roll—that is a fact. What we have are politicians in this House misleading—misinformation—and the leader of the New Zealand First party does this quite often because he’s said it for the last 50 years, but he hasn’t said anything new. What is new is that he constantly says there’s no need for the Māori roll, because Māori on the general roll outpopulate Māori on the Māori roll. Now Māori outpopulate Māori on the general roll, he’s saying there’s no need for the Māori seats.

There’s absolutely a need for the Māori seats, and Shane Jones said it so well a few years ago: “Māori will determine when the Māori seats are up.” Our people out there, we have an election coming up, and we have a roll closure coming up in 6 August. This is our time to make sure that our voices are heard loud and clear. For the very first time in 172 years, it will be the Māori seats determining who the next Prime Minister is, out of those numbers. I don’t give two hoots about your polls. The seven Māori seats will be the game changer.

Now, how many parties in this House can, hand on heart, say that they have contributed to the growth of the Māori roll? Nobody! Nobody. No other party has contributed to the growth of the Māori roll. It has been Te Pāti Māori. Now, the maturity of te iwi Māori in this country’s democracy has happened in the last three years. There are 50,000 more Māori on the Māori roll now. There is a hell of a lot more migrating, and there are more new voters coming on to the Māori roll. I can tell you what: that is the big threat to the current Government and their parties. Why? They will no longer have the power to be choosy. No longer will te iwi Māori be somebody else’s choice. We will be doing the choosing. That prospect scares the current Government and its coalition partners—absolutely scares them. I can tell you what: come 7 November, when Te Pāti Māori delivers their part of the rourou, and that’s what kotahitanga is—kotahitanga doesn’t mean the same. It means

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

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

So the change of Government will come from that party giving their rourou, another party giving their rourou, and Te Pāti Māori bringing their rourou.

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

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

The Māori roll strengthens Māori political influence, and my kōrero directly to those Māori organisations that have received funding to go through and say to people to decide which roll they’re on is: this is not a time to be apolitical; this is a time to give the power of the Māori seats where they should be. The Māori seat population outpopulates the majority of the votes that New Zealand First got—and ACT. This is the power, e hika mā, if you want to change the legislation that is harming our people at this particular time, since this Government took office—who have had the most dangerous, have had the most despicable, record in regards to Māori relations—and the legislations that kill Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that kill our workers, that kill our women, that kill those who are in poverty, and that kill the homeless and criminalise homelessness. There is only one way to change that, and that is at the ballot box.

Te Pāti Māori will ensure that we will work hard to make sure that this is a one-term Government. Nobody else will ensure that there is an overhang; only Te Pāti Māori created that overhang in this term and we’ll create it in the next one. This is what scares that side of the House, and I can tell you what: for the very first time in 172 years, Te Pāti Māori will be choosing who the next Government is. The Māori roll is not simply a list of names—it is whakapapa of resistance. Those who choose to be on the Māori roll sit alongside the generations who refused to let our political voice be erased.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:44): This country has not appeared by accident. It was scratched out of a primordial land. For millions of years, these islands existed without a single primate lighting a fire, digging a drain, or arguing with a council consent officer. Then people arrived. We cleared tracks, cultivated land, built settlements, and connected isolated communities with roads, railways, electricity, and communications. We turned this beautiful wilderness into the best place on earth for human beings to live. Kiwis don’t generally choose to commute via dirt tracks and live in cold, draughty huts—as idyllic as that might sound to some during a parliamentary debate. We want warm affordable homes and communities where people trust their neighbours. We want roads and networks that connect us to workplaces that are productive and enriching and—if we can possibly help it—be somewhere that’s inspiring too. We want a natural environment that we’re connected to and proud of. Everything around us that makes modern life possible was imagined, financed, and built or manufactured by somebody. People who came before us built this country, which we should be thankful for. But our responsibility is not simply to preserve what was left to us—we, everybody in New Zealand, are stewards of New Zealand for the decades that we are here. This country has far more to offer to the world and to the people who call themselves New Zealanders.

Nobody embodies that potential more than our makers—our builders, tradies, and engineers. Like thousands before me, I was privileged to serve a building apprenticeship. I worked on sites where progress isn’t measured by the production of another report; it’s measured by whether you stand the frames and get the roof on before the rain starts coming in. Makers have a simple outlook: if there’s a job to be done, let’s get on and do it. Unfortunately, Government has often not had the same approach; it has treated people who build as a risk to be controlled rather than capable professionals to be trusted. It has made building products expensive, consenting slow, and investment vulnerable to political whim, and that is why ACT entered Government, determined to unlock the potential of people who make things, of the people who provide for us. The coalition agreement committed the Government to exploring pathways to allow builders to opt out of traditional council consenting, where they can provide long-term guaranteed insurance for their work. Instead of assuming that a council inspector is the only measure of quality guarantee, we think you can say a stable insurance company and an accountable professional should be trusted to do their jobs.

Government has already made it possible to build small standalone dwellings without a building consent. That means more people who are aged, more families, and more Kiwis who want to make better use of their land can do so. We have opened up New Zealand to high-quality overseas building products and standards. For too long, good products have been used overseas but kept away from plumbers and builders in this fine country. We want New Zealand to be able to get access to windows, taps, and wallboards. The Government has increased the use of remote inspections, published council performance data, and dramatically reduced waiting times for building determinations—a whole lot of other stuff to make building more sensible. The goalposts have been changed too much. H1 is a prime example of that, and this Government is also making changes so that H1 makes at least some sense to us.

That is what we’ve also done with regional deals—setting up a long-term partnership between councils and Government, making sure that it lasts beyond the whim of political cycles. We’re backing that principle with a new $400 million Incentives for Growth Fund, where councils who consent more homes will receive more funding. Instead of treating a new house as another cost for existing ratepayers, councils will finally participate in the upside of growth—an idea ACT have given life. We’re replacing the crappy old Resource Management Act system with a system to recognise property rights, provide clearer rules, and make it easier to build and unlock the productive enterprises New Zealand needs. These reforms matter because delay is not free. Every year waited is another cost. Uncertain pipelines cause businesses to hold back from hiring apprentices, building machinery, and expanding their operations. That cost eventually falls on a Kiwi’s bill. This Government has made real progress, but there is more to do. We need a culture in Government that understands a simple truth: a country cannot regulate its way to abundance; somebody must grow it, somebody must manufacture it, somebody must transport it, and somebody must build it. That is how New Zealand was made, and that is how we’ll unlock its potential.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:49): Mr Speaker, I do love a general debate speech. Actually, today, what a great time it is to have a general debate speech and just talk about how actions speak louder than words. In fact, I will briefly touch on something that is going on around the world today which is mums—working mums—and I actually just acknowledge there was a mum up in the gallery this afternoon. You can be a mum, have a baby, and work, and actually achieve great things. I like to say that in three years, as a member of Parliament for Napier for National, we have achieved more in three years than my predecessor did in nine, and I’m really proud of that, so I’m going to share some of those things.

I think it is really important to share that, in that three years, we have the four-lane expressway under way, progressing ahead of schedule and ahead of budget or under budget. The Waikare Gorge realignment: early involvement tender is back to local ownership, and, of course, they are rebuilding after the cyclone. We have invested well over $100 million in our regional hospital, and more than that in healthcare services. We have built more classrooms, in fact I was at the opening of two beautiful new classrooms for Fairhaven special school at Onekawa School, for 12 new students with disabilities who now have a school to call home. We are building more classrooms because, in fact, we’ve halved the price of building a classroom; now, we can build twice as much.

In fact, the Resource Management Act reform, which we are all talking about at the moment, equals growth. Houses are being built, and across the spectrum, not just houses in the hills that will be lovely for some families but also houses that are affordable, and the Government doesn’t need to build all of them; they need to enable them. We are all about an enabling environment and that is what is important: houses being built, jobs created. Over the next four years, 220,000 jobs proposed, based on the work programme that we have set out ahead of us. That is important to remember because the actions that we show speak way louder than any word that is said that might counter what you’re actually seeing out there in front of you.

In fact, I’m very, very pleased with all the amazing work that’s going in the Napier electorate and the wider Hawke’s Bay region, as well. We’ve got new energy, we have got wind farms, we have got a solar farm happening on just the other side of the electorate, over in the Taupō Rangitaiki Plains. We have new housing developments across the motu; we have bridges, we have stopbanks.

We have a stopbank, I might just share, that without my intervention was going to have a gaping hole in the middle of it where the road goes because we were unable to get funding to get the road to be raised to the height of the stopbank. Now, that is what advocacy of a local MP achieves—they listen to the community, they listen to industry, they listen to residents, they talk to Government agencies, they talk to Ministers, and they make stuff happen.

Representing people is the best part of the job: turning up at the crack of dawn to bless new houses; cutting the ribbon on bridges that the community has helped build; partnership; listening to your community and being there when it matters. I’m very proud, and I will acknowledge it, that after 10 weeks off work because of course MPs, as most people might not realise, don’t get maternity leave but kindly granted parliamentary leave so we don’t have to travel backwards and forwards to Wellington, I was able to take my son with me to some of these incredibly historic occasions. Turning the sod on the four-lane expressway; turning the sod on the new commercial vehicle safety centre in Napier; announcements from various Ministers that we’ve been a part of and advocated for; the announcement for the Waikare Gorge realignment; some of these things that I will remember forever and I got to have my son be a part of it. He’s now 14 months old; a real treasure. Yeah, and you know what? He’s being raised by a village, and I feel very proud that I get to show other young mums that you can do it.

Can I just say I have got so much respect for any parent that has more than one child and does it because, my goodness, it is hard but we work 24/7. I think it a representative with a bit of empathy and a bit of love in their life can do a pretty good job. I just want to thank members from all across the House for their support today. I really do appreciate it, and I will just leave people with the view that actions speak louder than words, and when you hear unkind words said by people, question them, have a look—

Grant McCallum: Call them out.

Katie Nimon: —see what’s real, see what’s true, and actually, yeah, call it out. Thanks.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (15:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I tautoko the previous speaker and give a shout-out to all of our working mums out across Aotearoa New Zealand. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made an extraordinary admission. Christopher Luxon told this House that expecting his Government to reduce the cost of living was economic illiteracy. That says everything that New Zealanders need to know at this particular point. This is a Government that promised to fix the economy. Instead, they have made it absolutely worse. Inflation has climbed to 4.1 percent. It’s the highest it has been on their watch in the past two years. Kiwis don’t need an economics lecture. They know exactly what is happening every time they set foot into their local supermarket.

I ask everyone in this House just to think for a moment about a good, wholesome dish that is lasagna, but the thing is, when you go to the supermarket now, the mince costs 28 percent more than it did only three years ago; the cheese costs 30 percent more; the milk for the cheese sauce—and, of course, the milk and cheese make the best part of the lasagna—26 percent more. If you want a bit of bread or doughboys on the side, 68 percent more. These aren’t luxuries, of course; they are everyday essentials for families. Yet this Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, says lowering the cost of living isn’t the Government’s job.

Lasagna, of course, is a staple diet for students in student flats as well, and they are feeling the pressure more than most. Of course, studying should be a pathway to opportunity; it should be affordable, not a pathway into further debt, but under the National Government that’s exactly what it has become for students. This year they allowed another 6 percent increase to tuition fees, taking the cost to more than 19 percent higher than when they took office. Students are paying more for education, more for rent, more for power, more for transport, more for food, while part-time jobs are harder to find. Where is the support? The evidence is clear: there isn’t any.

When the National Government launched the tertiary education strategy, Penny Simmonds said education is essential to prosperity. She says we cannot afford to leave young people behind—we cannot afford to leave young people behind—but her actions tell a very different story, because, today, there are almost 100,000 young people not engaged in education, employment, or training across the country. There’s 17,000 fewer apprentices than when that lot took office; that is appalling. Regional training opportunities have been cut and our polytechs are worse off. There is not a pathway for them to sustainability without cuts, without job cuts—

Grant McCallum: Investing $40 million in Northland.

SHANAN HALBERT: —and without less opportunities out in the regions, just like Northland. Universities are being asked to do more with less, while students are being asked to pay more.

If making education more expensive, cutting apprenticeships, and reducing opportunities isn’t leaving young people behind, then what is, because too many young New Zealanders now believe that their future lies somewhere else, in places like Australia. That is a direct failure of this National Government, of Christopher Luxon, not a lack of ambition from young people and what they want to achieve.

Under Labour, we have a different plan; we have an approach that actually invests in young people. I take a recent policy like expanding our Apprenticeship Boost into more industries, to support more women into trades, to ensure that young people have the pastoral care and wraparound support that they need to complete their qualifications, that they have the tools and resources to support them in their work from day one.

That’s where it makes a difference, and under Labour, we’ll ensure that we will continue to be focused on your job, your health, and making sure that your home is affordable, and we’re taking real action on the cost of living.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (16:00): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You may have noticed already that National is relentlessly focused on fixing the basics and building the future. We are ambitious for New Zealand and all New Zealanders, and it’s making a real difference for people across the mighty Rangitīkei, and for people across New Zealand in health, education, law and order, defence, business and trade, and infrastructure. We’ve opened the Manawatū Tararua Highway and the construction of Ōtaki to north of Levin is under way. Unlike that disparate, lacklustre lot over there, all focused on borrowing and spending and taxing, over here, we are walking the talk and we are getting things done.

I want to talk about a once-in-a-generation reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’re replacing the cumbersome old broken beast with a new planning system that will make it easier to produce food and fibre, and build the homes, infrastructure, and renewable energy that New Zealand needs while continuing to protect the environment. It’s a big part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future. It will save time, money, and stress. I can speak on behalf of hundreds of constituents, farmers just like me, many of my colleagues—Grant McCallum—and businesses about the toll taken on the welfare and wallets of hard-working New Zealanders forced to go through the current consenting process. The fact that we as a country collectively spend $1.3 billion a year on consenting is an outrage. The economic benefits are significant. Independent analysis shows the new planning system is projected to boost GDP by up to $3.1 billion a year. A cost benefit analysis estimates $13.3 billion in savings over 30 years through reduced administrative and compliance costs.

I also want to talk about trade. Trade drives jobs, growth, and prosperity. New Zealand is a trading nation. Over here, we know that we’re not going to get rich selling houses to each other. We have to trade. Trade—it’s in our DNA. In 2023, we said we’d do a trade deal with India. Chris Hipkins laughed. We got it done. National’s trade agenda has supported rapid growth and exports, which have risen from $94.4 billion to $114.1 billion. We are on track to exceed our goal of doubling the value of exports by 2034. National’s plan to secure New Zealand’s next billion customers includes prioritising new trade deals. This is all part of our plan to build New Zealand’s future, one where our exporters succeed on the world stage because we know that means more jobs, more opportunities, and higher wages for people here at home.

Meanwhile, over there, all they’ve confirmed to date is resort to type. Yep, they’ve announced more than $20 billion in promises with absolutely no plan on how they’ll pay for them let alone deliver them. New Zealanders deserve to know how they’re going to make their promises add up. Why? Because they’ll have to pay the bill. There are two choices available to Labour, and both put this Government’s hard work, progress, our aspiration, and our economy at risk. They’ll either have to type taxes on Kiwi incomes, on our KiwiSaver, on our houses, on our farms, on our businesses, or they’ll have to borrow billions of dollars, pushing up inflation and interest rates, and adding thousands of dollars onto your mortgage repayments or rental costs. Chris Hipkins wants to hide the plans from you until after the election. We’re not having it. The election is only 3½ months away, and I think the choice has never been clearer: fix the basics and build the future with National or return to Labour’s happy place—low growth, low productivity, higher taxes, higher inflation, and more debt.

National’s plan to fix the basics and build the future is about backing Kiwis to get ahead. It’s about growing the economy through responsible economic management, reducing wasteful spending, red tape, and lowering debt. It’s about a once-in-a-generation reform of the RMA that will unlock potential. It’s about being ambitious and aspirational for New Zealand and all New Zealanders. That’s what responsible Government looks like.

I’d also like to talk about a very special event that’s happening in Fielding tomorrow. Talking about fixing the basics and building the future, we have the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party, coming to talk about his vision for New Zealand and how he plans to fix the basics and build the future.

Dan Bidois: Where is it?

SUZE REDMAYNE: Midday tomorrow in Feilding. See you there.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:05): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider Government orders of the day Nos 1 to 4.

Motion agreed.

Bills

Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:05): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This bill seeks to provide closure for victims of families and incentivise homicide offenders to cooperate, and it implements a no body, no parole presumption. It does this by seeking to amend two different pieces of legislation. The first is to amend section 9 of the Sentencing Act to include the failure to disclose the location of a body as an aggravating factor that the courts must take account. Secondly, it seeks to amend section 28 of the Parole Act 2002 requiring the Parole Board to refuse parole unless the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily to identify the victim’s location.

Tom Rutherford has brought this bill to the House, and it seeks to address the additional anguish faced by families unable to recover bodies of their loved ones. Labour supports this legislation and acknowledges those families who have been directly affected by these crimes. The Michael McGrath case, the Christchurch builder whose body, sadly, was never found after the perpetrator was convicted. We know from accounts previously in this House, and also through the media, that his ex-partner described fearing for her life as no body or murder weapon was found and the perpetrator was convicted on circumstantial evidence. The other case which springs to mind is the Sara Niethe case where a mother of three was murdered and the perpetrator was convicted of manslaughter and released six years and seven months and no parole exclusion period. The victim impact statement from her son testified that the perpetrator’s failure to disclose the location of his mother’s body worsened the grief and worsened that trauma, and so we support this bill.

It is important to note, I think—and I haven’t been on to hear the submissions on this—but the member in charge has highlighted that the cases I’ve just referred to deeply affect New Zealanders and deeply affect those families. Their experiences remind us that justice is not simply just about punishment, it is also about accountability, about truth, and recognising the ongoing impact on those families of those victims of crime.

Labour acknowledges the argument that this bill may create a stronger incentive for offenders to cooperate with authorities and disclose information about the location of a victim’s remains. If that results in more families being able to obtain answers, and also achieving some measure of closure, that is a goal worthy of serious consideration. While we do support the bill’s intent, we also believe that there are important questions that deserve careful examination through the select committee process.

It is important to note that I’ve just been reading through now, which is the section 28A report—sorry, the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 report on the section 7 report, and in particular, the concern that has been raised as the new section 28A in the Parole Act. The concern that has been raised is that prolonging the detention on the basis of an offender’s failure to cooperate to the board’s satisfaction with the identification of the location of the victim potentially could remain a punitive measure that is at odds with the public safety emphasis of the parole regime.

It says in this report that is an insufficient basis on which to justify continued detention in circumstances where there is a period of imprisonment considered by the sentencing court to be necessary to serve the purposes of that punishment, deterrence, and denunciation of the offender, as reflected in the applicable minimum period of imprisonment that has passed, and the offender is not considered to pose an ongoing risk to the community’s safety. I’m sure that that will be one of many things that there are submissions to the select committee on, in terms of understanding how we can make sure that this bill works well and is operating as effectively as possible. That is the benefit of having a good select committee process. I’m sure, like the Justice Committee often is, it will be incredibly busy hearing so many of those submissions. I think that this is one of those bills that is likely to have a wide range of people submitting their views.

We would like to consider whether the provisions in this bill can be strengthened, whether they are workable in practice, and understand as to whether there are any unintended consequences that we haven’t turned our minds to at this first reading stage. In particular, I’m sure the select committee will examine the concerns raised in overseas jurisdictions about the possibility of disproportionately extended imprisonment in cases where there may be an offender who is unable or unwilling to provide that information, or, in rare circumstances, where a conviction is later found to be not found or not right.

These are important questions in terms of justice in our country. They do not diminish, in any way or means, the suffering of those victims’ families, but they do require us to ensure that legislation is responsive, is fair, and is effective, and, also, is consistent with the principles of our justice system.

The experience of comparable legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia will be really useful, and I’m sure that will be drawn upon when this is sent to the Justice Committee. It will be useful in informing that discussion that takes place. We should carefully assess what has worked overseas in similar jurisdictions to our own and, also, what has not worked. We want to make sure that New Zealand’s approach in this place strikes the right balance between making sure the victims and their families are well-supported and also maintaining the integrity of our justice system. I’m sure the Justice Committee will do a good job at striking that balance well.

This House has a clear responsibility to listen to those families who have indeed had to live with uncertainty, because the truth has been unrightfully withheld from them. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their experiences very much deserve to be considered. It is for that reason that Labour believes that this bill warrants the full scrutiny and public submissions through that select committee process. We support the purpose of providing greater recognition of the harm caused when offenders conceal the location of a victim’s remains and, also, examining the bill’s legal and practical implications in detail.

I’d like to conclude by commending the member in charge of this bill. I know that Tom Rutherford has worked on the ground and has contact with those families that have been personally affected, and I’d like to commend him on doing the job of being a good MP and bringing real-life issues that affect everyday New Zealanders and making that into a bill. That’s often one of the most rewarding parts of the job of being an MP—using New Zealand’s democracy to serve the needs of people—and this bill is a good example of that.

I’d like to conclude by saying for those people, anyone who is listening, or those representative bodies with legal expertise or even experience on this, to seriously consider making your submission to the Justice Committee. We know that we strengthen bills like this one through having a good, wide range of views being submitted and taking all of those views into consideration when we look at how we can further strengthen this legislation and make it work as effectively as possible. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the harm and trauma of the families and the need they have for closure, and I want to thank Tom Rutherford for bringing this bill to the House. We are very concerned, and we share the concern of Tom Rutherford, at the trauma and harm that a murder victim’s family has when the victim’s remains are still concealed. This is something that, I think, it would be very difficult for us to understand if we’re not in that situation. We’re really concerned by that.

But we don’t see that this bill is really going to address the issue. As my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan wrote to Tom Rutherford back in May this year, the Australian example is that “no body, no parole” laws have been in place in many states of Australia for around a decade, and, unfortunately, have not increased the rate of disclosure. While there’s a good motivation behind this legislation, it’s not necessarily going to achieve the stated goal. We don’t see any evidence that these reforms have achieved their aims. In fact, we’ve heard from the Attorney-General that—the quote is: “I have concluded the Bill appears to be inconsistent with the right to be free from arbitrary detention affirmed by s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.”

What we’re seeing here is that there could be harmful consequences of those wrongfully convicted. Most importantly, we can’t always tell if we’ve got things right in the courts. We’ve heard here that this is a punitive measure on parole. It’s against the purpose of the parole regime, which has resulted in the section 7 report. It says here that the “no body, no parole” law is an understandable reaction to the emotionally fraught situation, but it’s unlikely to accomplish its goal of providing closure to victims of the crime in most cases. As a review of these laws state, prolonged detention on the basis of an offender’s failure to cooperate to the board’s satisfaction with the identification of the location of the victim’s remains is a punitive measure that is at odds with the public-safety emphasis of the parole regime.

We will continue to use evidence-based solutions and best practice to provide closure for families, but we are concerned that this bill, while it has a good intention, will not achieve that aim, and for that reason we are not supporting it through. However, we commend the member Tom Rutherford for bringing it to our attention. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (16:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill. Firstly, I just want to congratulate the member Tom Rutherford, who is in the House, for bringing this bill to Parliament.

It’s awfully horrendous when you hear of somebody who’s lost a loved one under really extreme circumstances, the likes of murder, and then to have to be continually re-traumatised and unable to heal and move on because they don’t know where their loved one is. That is deeply, deeply hurtful, and I know that other speakers have spoken about some cases and some ones that are in Christchurch, where I’m from. It’s not just the families involved; it’s actually the whole entire community that can feel this. It definitely slows down that healing process for the family and for the community.

This bill amends the Sentencing Act to make an offender’s failure or refusal to reveal or cooperate in identifying the location of a homicide victim’s body or remains an aggravating factor at sentencing that the courts must consider. It also requires the Parole Board to take into consideration, or it amends the Parole Board’s ability when it comes to looking at whether there has been a justified reason or an attempt in order to identify where the location of the remains of could be. There, obviously, could be situations where an individual may no longer exactly remember the location or they may have attempted to locate and that may not be able to be located, so I think that there are some exceptions to this.

But I think that, overall, families of homicide victims who may have greater leverage to obtain information about the location of loved ones’ remains should have that ability to do so. Actually, I found it quite ironic when the previous member was speaking around evidence-based solutions in this area. Look, I think that, actually, the evidence does show that when there is some kind of incentive to get parole, for example, that that is something that I think someone would consider in revealing other details. Actually, evidence does show that that does help with this.

There could be some costs associated with this, of course, because the Parole Board will need to assess offender cooperation and there might be some administrative changes with that. ACT, obviously, is going to support this bill, because we think that victims deserve a justice system that puts the interests ahead of the interests of the offender. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (16:21): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill. I do genuinely commend the member for bringing this bill forward, not only because it is very hard to interact with victims who have suffered such a loss, but, also, he has taken that and turned it into a positive programme of work to ensure that we actually, as a country, start a very serious conversation about how we deal with these issues.

The loss of a loved one through violent crime is horrific and, having been in the position of having to inform loved ones of that loss to investigate homicides and serious violent crime, it is traumatising to the extreme. But to not be able to give the family an opportunity to grieve, to put their minds at peace, and to know that their loved one is at rest is beyond horrific.

I would recount that I was fortunate enough to be able to work on an investigation where a young woman was concealed after being murdered. Only after the offender who had committed the horrendous crime died were we able to recover her remains and return her to her whānau. It is an incredibly honoured position to be able to do that and put a loved one at rest, so any effort we can to ensure that there is opportunity to create some level of leverage to force those that have been responsible for these crimes to come forward and to give some alleviation to the suffering of families is really important.

New Zealand First is, of course—our foundation pillar is about the protection of country and protection of our communities. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the very best of law and order and reducing violent crime. I think this Government has done an exceptional job in working towards reducing violent crime.

This is an area that is going to be challenging. It is a complex piece of law around how we deal with the deprivation of rights until a certain condition is met. It is going to be a complex piece of law to navigate, and I’m sure the Justice Committee will receive a number of submissions on both sides of this position as to how we make this law come into effect. It is important that we do have this conversation, however, and we do work out how we navigate this law. We do know of cases in New Zealand where people have been in custody for long periods of time and are later reprieved of that conviction. If we look at the case of Teina Pora in terms of his release, if it had been a circumstance where someone’s body had been concealed, how long would we detain someone who in the end was found not to be guilty of the offence for which he was detained?

There are complexities in this process. It will be challenging to navigate, but that doesn’t mean we don’t look at how to tackle it. That doesn’t mean we don’t look at how we achieve an outcome that demonstrates to those that have lost loved ones through this type of serious violent crime that we as a Government, as a country, and as a Parliament are prepared to consider alternate ways of addressing the loss and alleviating the hurt and suffering. I think it is important that we navigate the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, that we navigate the unlawful detention components of this to ensure that there is a way we can provide some incentive or some input to ensure that we are doing everything we can to alleviate the hurt and harm.

The ability to lay your loved one at rest and particularly to know that they are at peace, the unknown factor of not knowing where someone is, how their life has ended—there are so many unanswered questions. We can stand in this House having empathy, but until you’ve walked that walk, the suffering and incredible pain that you carry just in not knowing—and quite frequently what you pursue in your own mind can be so much worse than the reality. I think it is with great honour that, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a privilege to speak on this bill, the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill, on a members’ day. I just acknowledge the previous speaker and her words and experience that certainly ring true in this House. Every MP brings with them life experience and a skill set which we all add cumulatively to the legislation-making process. I want to make a special mention to part of the genesis of this bill. I will keep it brief.

To the former member for Hamilton West, the Hon Tim Macindoe, who actually, I believe, seeded this bill or was part of the original seeding of this member’s bill many years ago—in fact, he was here 12 years in Parliament and never once was successful in pulling out a member’s bill. Yet in this House, we have some members like one to my left, who has pulled out three, I think, and Catherine Wedd—

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Just two.

RYAN HAMILTON: —who has pulled out three—just two—within two years. The record’s three in less than three years. It’s amazing. It’s a bit of a lottery in some respects, but all credit to you. All power to you for those members who have had that success.

In this case and in this term, it was none other than Tom Rutherford, MP for Pāpāmoa—Bay of Plenty? Tauranga?

Grant McCallum: Mount Maunganui.

RYAN HAMILTON: Mount Maunganui. It’s a moving feast. That general direction. None the less, a great MP—a great MP. In fact, he’s the youngest of the National Party to become an MP in the last term, but don’t let his youthfulness fool you. Don’t let his good looks fool you. He’s a very intelligent, very diligent, hard-working MP and deserves the honour and the ability to take this bill forward. In fact, he has already advanced the work that the Hon Tim Macindoe did by actually aligning—and this is specifically for you, Mr Webb—some of the bill with the legislation from some other jurisdictions just to enhance the legislation and make it a bit more fit for purpose so it’s very relevant.

But the special thing about this is this is justice for victims and families, because families deserve answers and closure. I can only imagine the difficulty when something horrible and traumatic like that has gone on, but then not to be able to get the closure and the proper process of a send-off, a burial, a tangi, or whatever the appropriate cultural send-off would be in those instances—so this is a very measured and thoughtful bill.

It’s only a small bill and it only makes a small legislative tweak, but it is an important one because for every individual, for every family member that is affected by something like this, it’s their world. It’s their everything. It’s also important to know that parole is a privilege, not a right, and so release should depend on genuine accountability and rehabilitation. If an offender was unwilling to disclose information, it does raise legitimate questions about their remorse and their ability to genuinely provide mental, physical, emotional compensation for the damage that they’ve done. It’s also about accountability, because we know that part of justice is accountability. Whilst we can control the offender in the way of prison or sentencing and stuff, part of the process, and many times for the victims, is to hear the offender’s remorse, the offender’s guilt, and to disclose the location of the body is really an important part of that process.

So, on this side of the House, we’re keen to advance this bill to select committee. We know the Justice Committee is certainly the busiest in terms of legislative process in the House—an incredible amount of legislation around justice and law and order. No doubt, they probably don’t enjoy the extra workload. I know that even this week in the House, it’s put extra pressure on their timing with rosters and double-ups and commitments. But justice delayed is justice denied, and so this is an appropriate response to deal with something that’s quite bespoke, quite nuanced, but very appropriate. This bill sends a simple message that justice is not just about punishment; it is also about truth, accountability, and giving families every possible chance to bring their loved one home.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:31): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I just start this afternoon by acknowledging Tom Rutherford and the work that he’s done in his community, and, of course, the success of bringing a member’s bill before the House today for its first reading.

I remember vividly growing up in Napier and the sad time of our community losing Teresa Cormack. Teresa was part of the Maraenui community, only a child, and went to school with many of my cousins. It impacted the whole community for many, many years, and that included their family, it included the local school, and it’s something that has sat with me since my own childhood through to today. As I look at this piece of legislation, our member’s bill this evening, I reflected back to that moment and the sadness and the impact, and the devastation that it had on so many. So, thank you, member Tom Rutherford, for following this through to bring it before the House today.

This bill seeks to provide closure for victims’ families and incentivise homicide offenders to cooperate. It must be one of the most difficult things, not knowing where your loved ones are in something that is such a tragedy in the first place. I know, particularly for Māori communities, all communities across New Zealand, when somebody is murdered, somebody is taken, the grief is much deeper when they can’t put that person to rest and that includes to rest with all of their remains.

This member’s bill implements a “no body, no parole” presumption and would amend two particular pieces of legislation. It amends section 9, of course, of the Sentencing Act 2002 to include the failure of disclosure of location of a body as an aggravating factor, which the court must, of course, take into account. Then the second one is that it proposes to add a new section 28A into the Parole Act 2002 requiring the Parole Board to refuse parole unless the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily to identify the victim’s location.

Part of the work that I’ve seen from the MP that puts this forward today is, of course, the acknowledgement of the Michael McGrath case, the Christchurch builder whose body was never found after the perpetrator was convicted. The ex-partner described fearing for her life as no body or murder weapon was found and the perpetrator was convicted on circumstantial evidence.

This stuff continues to be traumatic for New Zealand and New Zealanders, but my heart really goes out to all of the whānau and families that are impacted by what are very sad, tragic circumstances to so many. Labour’s position today is that we will support this member’s bill to go through to the select committee, albeit quite a complex piece to work through. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee is quite hard-working and it’s not unusual for them to put in extra hours to work through the legislation that goes before them. So we will be supporting this bill through its first reading today, to go on to hear from submitters through the select committee process. Sadly, we will hear from those families too, but no doubt it will influence the decisions of our select committee and the report back to this House, and in many ways I look forward to reading that report to this House at that particular time. I commend this bill.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to support this Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill in its first reading. I’d like to acknowledge Tom Rutherford for bringing this bill to the House, and no doubt he will do an excellent job in the Justice Committee.

When I first read this bill, it took me back to my early days of journalism. When I give this example, lots of people are going to think I’m really, really old, but it’s something that actually happened more than 30 years ago. As a young journalist working for a Sunday paper, I remember getting a phone call from man in prison, a tip-off that somebody was actually going to go and point to the location where his missing wife was buried. I had to think very quickly. I remember having to go and talk to my editor and basically dispatching a photographer to the location, which was in the—I’m trying to remember—Woodhill Forest out in West Auckland.

What it relates to was a missing woman in 1982. It was well before I even came to New Zealand, but for a decade she was missing. But a tip-off came from a contact, someone who had actually heard the prime suspect, which was her husband saying that he had actually buried her, and so the search was on. That was the tip-off that ended up with a front-page news story, which I actually helped to write, and in 1994, the husband was convicted of murder. That came about because they managed to find the body. What had happened was that he had killed her in 1982 and reported her missing, pretending that she had left him because he wanted a divorce. That wasn’t the truth. What he had tried to do is that he buried her in a low-lying area in Woodhill Forest, but then he was worried that he was going to be discovered, so a couple of weeks later he dug deeper in the ground so nobody could find her for more than a decade.

After 12 years since he actually killed his wife, he got convicted of murder. In 2004, he was paroled, but he was called back to prison in 2011. Actually, when he got convicted for murder, he got a life sentence. He was recalled to prison because the Parole Board was concerned that he was going to commit another crime, based on the report from his second wife. So this is a man who had issues with anger, who actually killed his wife, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and then he was recalled to serve his life sentence.

The fact that we have a case where this man eventually ended up pointing to the location of the dead wife was actually very helpful, but there are so many other cases where they do not find the body of the deceased. I think that having that closure for the family—and as a young reporter, I remember feeling so sorry for the wife’s family, who would have been grieving for more than a decade, not knowing where their daughter was or where their sister was or where their cousin was. I think that this bill reminded me of that case and one of the stories that I remember. It’s one of those things that has stayed with me for a very long time.

So, I support this bill. National has been tough on crime and we have actually reduced victimisation: 46,000 fewer victims as a result. This bill will go towards making sure that families and victims get the support that they really need, because when you have the discovery of the body, that actually means that there is closure.

I know that the Justice Committee will do a grand job looking at the bill, going through the bill, and making sure that we actually work through the processes of what is right. In terms of the rights for the offender, we have to look after that as well, but, as far as I’m concerned, the rights of the victim actually trump the rights of the offender who ends up killing people. I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:40): Thank you for taking this call. I’ve just been away from the House because I have been listening to submissions on the move-on orders. I was asking a question, in that process, about the risk there is when we move women on who have had domestic violence and sexual violence in their lives and they’ve ended up on the street, in the light; when we move them on, we move them into the darkness, and there’s a real risk of violence and murder as a result. I think it’s very important when we look at this area that we’re super-realistic about it.

I want to, first of all, say that I have thought quite a lot about the true trauma in the area of this kind of violence, because of my portfolio. I’ve had to meet with people who have lost their children as a result of, often, domestic violence. It is utterly heartbreaking and it is absolutely real that if you can’t find the person, because they have been hidden from you, that adds so much to the trauma of the family of that person. There is clearly a need for us to have closure and to be able to know, even if it’s something we terribly wish we didn’t know, that the person has been killed. I want to, first of all, say that has got to be a fundamental value in our society, that we want to make sure that people get closure, as much as possible, and so has the prevention of this kind of violence, which is why I raise the other issue that’s right before us now, because we can’t have it both ways. If we care about the prevention of violence, we must stop it before it happens, surely, rather than this after-the-event type of law.

Now, that does not mean that it doesn’t have a place—and Labour is going to vote for this going to select committee—but there are tricky things about this particular law. If the person actually is innocent, they won’t know where the body is. It’s just an obvious thing we have to deal with. I worked in law for a long time. I know it’s a very flawed process. It’s one where we make judgments, we have to decide, and sometimes we get it wrong. So it is going to be an important piece of law to examine well and robustly and think preventively, but I also urge this Parliament to think very seriously about move-on orders in the same brief, because they also end up with people who are victims of violence and, even, death. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Tom Rutherford, in reply.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:43): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I, firstly, want to acknowledge the House for the tone and the approach that has been taken to the debate on this legislation. When I first introduced the bill 2½ years ago, it was because I had met the McGrath family in Christchurch. I had met Michael’s brother, Simon, alongside Hamish Campbell, who joined me, and listened to him in his lounge, to hear the despair that he as a brother, that his mother, that his family, and friends of Michael had to experience on a day to day basis. This is a case, now, nearly 10 years ago, and that family and that friend group have still not had the opportunity to lay Michael to rest. What a shameful experience that is for them—and for us, as a country, to allow to take place in the sense that, in 17 years’ time, David Benbow, the gentleman convicted of Michael’s murder, will front to the Parole Board and, without this piece of legislation, can potentially be eligible to walk free, to be reintegrated into our society, and yet Simon’s head will hit that pillow and he’ll wonder “Where is my brother? When will I have the opportunity to lay him to rest? When will I have the opportunity to finally and properly grieve?”

That’s what this bill is about. It’s not going to impact hundreds or thousands of cases, but even one case is one case too many, because that’s one family, that’s one community dealing with the day-to-day impacts of the unknown—the unknown of where their friend, their family member is. That’s what this bill will fix, because, for too long, we’ve said to those convicted murderers “You can reintegrate into society, with no obligation whatsoever to disclose what you have done with your victim’s or victims’ body.” I’m saying that we’re drawing a line in the sand. It’s not only the Michael McGrath case as an example; there’s Sarah Neith, and many others across the history of our country, where families still carry that burden today.

I say thank you to this House. I say thank you to the New Zealand Labour Party, I say thank you to New Zealand First, and I say thank you to the ACT Party, for their understanding and willingness to allow this piece of legislation to go to the Justice Committee, to allow us, as members of that select committee, to hear from members of the public who will submit on this legislation. I acknowledge that there are some pitfalls and shortcomings that this bill may have, and that is entirely the right place to send the bill, to sort it out, to iron it out, to fix it, and to get it right.

In the same breath, I acknowledge the section 7 report prepared by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General said, in his own words, it was a line call. But in his own report—and if you get the opportunity, I recommend you read it—he says that there are opportunities to fix and remediate the issues that he is highlighting in his report. That is precisely what I encourage the Justice Committee to do: to take the Attorney-General’s report, listen to the submissions, and, where necessary, fix this legislation so we make it workable and practical for our communities and our country.

This bill has never been about harming people who are already in prison; it’s solely about putting victims at the heart of our justice system. It’s solely about saying to them, “If you want to be released on parole, then do the right thing: share with our families, our friends, and our loved ones what you have done to your victims’ remains, so that they have the opportunity to finally lay their loved one to rest.”

I say thank you to this House. Thank you for engaging in the debate and thank you for today, in my first member’s bill, supporting it so that it can go to the Justice Committee, and we can progress it into law. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

[The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand subsequently indicated that had a party vote on the first reading been held, it would have cast 15 votes opposed and that Te Pāti Māori would have cast four votes opposed]

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (16:49): The question is, That the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (16:49): I move, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is looking to save an average of 10 lives per year, with a 60 percent reduction in small recreational craft drownings through wearing life jackets that are, mostly, already on board. The problem we are trying to solve is the 115 fatalities in the past decade on all recreational vessels for people who capsized or fell overboard and weren’t wearing a life jacket, and subsequently drowned.

In this reading, I want to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for improving this bill, including by having the wisdom to take it back to the Business Committee for a scope change. Cameron Brewer brought this bill to first reading, and through the first select committee process, there were 158 unique submitters. Two-thirds of submitters requested that the scope of the bill be changed from under-15-year-olds to all ages, on the basis that the average age of death in recreational boating incidents is actually more towards the age of 50 than 15. This was evidenced in the past decade, with eight fatalities in children under 15, compared to 161 fatalities in those aged over 15. In light of this, the select committee received approval from the Business Committee to change the scope of the bill to encompass all ages and to commence a second submission process. This was where the bill was passed into my name.

In the second select committee process, there were 128 unique submitters. The select committee heard that in the past decade, across all size of recreational craft, the vast majority of fatalities on recreational craft were on small vessels of less than 6 metres. The vast majority of fatalities were while the vessel was under way. The vast majority of fatalities were on recreational craft that did carry life jackets. However, despite a relatively high carriage rate for life jackets, 60 percent of fatalities were not wearing them and may have been saved if they were. In summary, officials told us that 60 percent of fatal drownings could be prevented by wearing life jackets on small recreational craft, as this bill recommends, and this would be around 10 people per year.

The select committee heard that recreational craft fatalities on vessels under 6 metres without life jackets accounted for 50 percent of all drownings last year. However, I am informed that, unfortunately, this year is already tracking above that average, with seven deaths already on recreational craft of less than 6 metres where life jackets were not worn. The select committee has taken this into account with its timeliness of progress that brings us here today in order to have these benefits in place for the upcoming summer season.

At an international level, our current position on life jackets is out of step with many jurisdictions, such as Australia. We heard that Tasmania introduced similar legislation 25 years ago, with an immediate 50 percent reduction in small craft fatalities in the first year. We also want that benefit. Domestically, the Waikato Regional Council introduced this policy 13 years ago, with significant, ongoing improvements in life jacket - wearing compliance and an apparent reduction in fatalities, albeit on small numbers, of nearly 50 percent from before and after.

One of the important issues reported to the select committee was the range of life jacket by-laws across the country, from life jackets having to be worn or having to be worn while under way, to having a skipper’s discretion for them to be worn at all or having a discretion for life jackets depending on the region that the by-laws are encompassing. Harmonising these confusing approaches has been requested for many years and it is considered important for saving lives. This bill achieves this.

The select committee considered all submissions when working its way diligently through the issues, with amendments that were then unanimously accepted as 12 recommendations. It was agreed that 6 metres was the correct vessel length, and it is a common cut-off point in maritime legislation, where commercial requirements of over 6 metres include annual surveys, and bilge pump and firefighting equipment requirements. Six metres is also consistent with many current regional by-laws in international jurisdictions.

The recommendations include, as number one, that the age be amended to all ages on the basis that the vast majority—indeed, nearly all—recreational craft fatalities are over the age of 15. Recommendation two is that the title of the bill be changed to the “Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill”. Recommendation three is that existing requirements for all recreational craft greater than 6 metres to carry life jackets and for people to wear them at times of heightened risk are retained. Recommendation four was to change the term “waterline length” to “length overall”, which is better understood by the public and is consistent with the existing legislation in Part 91 of the Maritime Rules.

Recommendation five is to amend the wearing of life jackets “while underway”, instead of “at the time of use”. Officials advise that “underway” is more appropriate as it is already used in current by-laws and, again, in international jurisdictions. It was noted that of the 88 fatalities since 2015 where the phase of voyage was recorded, 77 of the 88 occurred while under way.

Recommendation six is to take the opportunity to embed the soon-to-expire 2022 exemption for stand-up paddleboards in order to bring the exemptions all into one place. Recommendation seven is to use the term “life jacket” as being better understood by the public than the term “personal floatation device” to clarify that life jackets also include other types of buoyancy aids. Recommendation eight is to develop an infringement regime. Recommendation nine is that if an existing by-law has a different standard, then the national rule will take precedence.

Recommendation 10 of 12 is to change the timing for the bill to come into force from the date of Royal assent to 28 days after Royal assent in order to allow education campaign preparations that would position the benefits to be in place for the upcoming summer season. The final two recommendations look to make implementation easier for local authorities who already have existing by-laws, and I thank the obvious local government expertise on the select committee for addressing this. Recommendation 11, then, is that local authorities review their by-laws in order to be consistent with the national rule, with a five-year transition period, and recommendation 12 is to achieve this by-law harmonisation so that local authorities need not undertake onerous public consultation to align with the national rule.

The committee also explored mechanisms to bring this policy into effect in as timely a manner as possible, including through regulatory review. However, recommendations 11 and 12 subsequently involve primary legislation and not just regulations, and so the current process is the most appropriate.

The select committee also considered potential unexpected consequences—for example, the transition period between being on an eligible recreational vessel under way, and jumping into water for water activities such as swimming. It was recognised by the committee that it would be impossible to legislatively cover all transition scenarios, and harbour masters and officials did not indicate that this was an issue, anyway. I spoke with the Waikato Regional Council, who have had this policy domestically for 13 years, and they have had no significant issues. I also spoke with recreational boating safety officers in Hobart, Tasmania, who have had this policy for 25 years, and they have had no significant issues. So this appears to be less of an issue than envisaged. All of this notwithstanding, the committee felt that it was important to provide clarity to monitors around these potential transition activities, and so the committee agreed to the equivalent of having a removal of doubt clause by way of example. This is recommended as new rule 91.4(1B) in clause 8(3).

We also discussed life jacket types, and I was encouraged by experts, who said that this is best undertaken by education from domain specialists, such as Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, and others, including those in the retail and recreational craft environment. They will provide advice on the best of fit for purpose life jackets for each scenario, underpinned—importantly—by the philosophy that any life jacket is better than no life jacket.

In conclusion, this coming Saturday, 25 July, is World Drowning Prevention Day, and this year New Zealand is already batting against the drowning average. Let’s do what we can today and work with Water Safety New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand, harbour masters, and recreational water sports to have this policy in place for summer 2026-27 and for the Water Safety New Zealand education campaign in late October. To that effect, I would like to again thank the committee for their timeliness and diligence in progressing this policy, which was unanimously agreed to at select committee, and we all look forward to the lives that may be saved as we look towards the upcoming summer season. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That was a very buoyant presentation, Dr Reti.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:57): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party to support the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill. As the member responsible for this bill has indicated, if the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s recommendations are adopted, the title will change to reflect the changes that have been suggested.

Can I acknowledge the Hon Dr Shane Reti, who is the current sponsor of this bill. I also acknowledge the Hon Cameron Brewer, who initially held the bill before his accession, but I want to acknowledge Dr Reti’s constructive way in which he has engaged with committee members, including myself, to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the changes that needed to be made and the basis on which those changes have been advanced. I think that it’s important to acknowledge his cooperation in that space.

As Dr Reti has indicated, the select committee had two bites at this particular bill. For round one, as we might call it, we went out, and, as a result of submissions and also the departmental advice that was received by the committee, it was very clear that children are not the main victims of drownings from sailing in small recreational craft. As a result, many submitters asked for the age band to be one of universalism in order to indicate the focus in that. The committee sought the permission of the Business Committee to expand the scope. That was granted, and so the committee went out for round two. I want to acknowledge that that is a collegial thing for a committee to do—to go back out for a full process of public consultation and to hear what the community might say on this change—and I want to acknowledge the 286 submitters who submitted through that process.

The Labour Party supports the justification for this change because when we look at the stats, since 2015, there have been eight fatalities for children when it comes to recreational craft. When you look at those who are aged over 15, that number is 161. The average age of fatalities related to recreational craft is 50 years of age, and so this change that has been promoted and accepted by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is one that, actually, will really tackle those 94 percent of craft-related drownings in 2024 for where there were no life jackets actually used. The advice that’s been received is that a significant number of that percentage would still be with us here today if they were, in fact, using a life jacket.

This requires the person who’s in charge of the recreational craft of six metres or less—and I want to acknowledge the collegiality of Dr Reti, because when I showed him my little drawing of a recreational craft, he gave me some feedback on that, but we were looking at the six sort of metre and where that would fall. But the responsibility is there nonetheless so that those who are going to be on that craft whilst the craft is underway—and that is a term that is accepted and well known within marine maritime circles—they would be responsible for ensuring that all of those people, regardless of age, who are on their craft actually have a life jacket.

I want to acknowledge the officials, in particular Maritime New Zealand, who came and gave a little bit of a practical exercise to the committee about the range of personal flotation devices that are actually out there and that would kind of lend its favour to a whole range of different individuals. The other sort of issue that Dr Reti has touched on is where the measurements would be taken. Would it be on the overall sort of dimension of the craft or would it be the water line? The select committee and the Labour Party agrees with this that, actually, the overall sort of dimension is far more easier to monitor, and so we support that change.

This is a bill that we believe will make a huge difference. We believe that it will provide some consistency around the country as well, as regional councils at the moment set their own rules around this. In particular, where Kiwi families might be moving about the country in some or other parts and wanting to utilise recreational craft and realising that, at the moment, there are different rules for different places, this will provide some consistency.

Finally, I’m delighted, as I’m sure my other colleagues on the committee are, to ensure that there has been some change in the kind of quick fashion that local councils would be able to make this change without having to go out to a full public consultation process. One of the beauties of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that it has a couple of former mayors and one deputy mayor on it, and so all of those members are in the House this afternoon. We were all very keen to ensure that, actually, changes like this are not held up as a result of the full sort of consultation that needs to follow in some particular areas.

This is a good bill. We support it. We support the timeliness of it. It should be enacted just in time for summer. That will make a real difference and ensure that lives are saved as a result. I commend this bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (17:03): I rise on behalf of the Green Party, but also as a kayaker, to absolutely support this bill. It was a really good process, both from Mr Reti and also from Mr Brewer, who originally brought it to us. They were open to the fact that this was a member’s bill that had actually had a longer history, but that this was what they thought should come forward, but they were not dogmatic about the details. That was extremely helpful for the full select committee process to be able to be applied in the way that I understand it should be.

This process would improve much other legislation, to be honest, if it was followed in the same way, if Government bills, when they were introduced, focused more on how you could solve the problem than taking the idea of the solution and never moving even six metres from the proposed solution. I think there is more to this bill and its likely agreement across the House than only the issue of life jackets on recreational vessels.

We did learn a fair amount about terminology and differences between a ship, a boat, a vessel, and what we were going to call it. It was really interesting to hear from so many harbourmasters, Water Safety New Zealand, and other people. Often those submissions are pretty moving because they talked about people who had lost their lives, they talked about family members that had drowned, and often the situation was not, “Yes, they went into these raging storm of 40 knots and they couldn’t manage it.” No, they went out and the conditions changed, or there was a rogue wave, or there was a bar, or they didn’t realise how windy it could get on a lake. Those are all common situations that sometimes the most inexperienced are more likely to be caught out in those situations.

As my colleagues have mentioned, we heard submissions and thought, actually, there’s some quite big changes that we want to make here. Those changes were not consulted on in the first place, and we did the correct and democratic and inclusive thing of saying, well, let’s go out and see people who are quite happy with 15 and younger—because that’s the skippering age—would they be quite happy with everything? Oh, and going to all adults as well. I’m pleased, for the safety of our 50-year-old males, that people were generally supportive of those changes and the change, obviously, to the title that will be a consequence of this.

I’d like to thank the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who helped make it a collegial process. We could drill into the issues that mattered, and probably there are some issues that we’ll get teased out about how effective our definitions of “underway” are, but I just want to be clear on this for anyone that may be listening and have some concerns about recreational boating—if you are at anchor, you don’t need a life jacket. However, if you are using one of the technological ways of anchoring without a physical anchor, that can actually be quite rough, quite exciting, and quite lively, even if you are not physically moving from the GPS spot that you are fishing at or whatever else you might. For me, it’s probably taking eye naturalist pictures of dolphins, but whatever you’re doing, sometimes when you’ve stopped, just being stopped is not that much safer. I am pleased with the definitions that have come about in that bill.

Personal flotation device is something that’s a familiar term to me. It’s one of our wonderful three letter acronyms in this country—PFD—and it is a different term from life jacket, but life jacket is what people understand. So I think we moved around a word. We’re going to call it PFD. We were going to call it life jackets, and we didn’t come up, thank goodness, with the new term for it all, but we explained the inclusive nature of life jackets.

I would like to also say that there are many, many times when regional differences are important, whether it’s soil types, whether it’s housing density, whether it’s ecological variation. Those are valid reasons for different regions to have different rules, to have them locally set, and so forth. Drowning is universal, so I really appreciate the way that we will have one set of rules. It wasn’t just to make it happen quicker that we decided we would be able to allow bylaws to be superseded. It was also one of those rare moments where we collectively agreed to help local government. I really support this bill. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:09): Madam Speaker, wonderful to see you in the Speaker’s chair again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Wonderful to see you, too.

SIMON COURT: The starting point of this bill: the evidence that we were presented with the original proposal—the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill—was insufficient to progress the bill in that form. What we learned is that it would be a very rare occasion where the provisions of the original bill were actually going to save the lives of children and young people. What became very clear from the evidence the Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard was that, in fact, it was adults, and typically men of about my age, going out on small craft with the hero cape on feeling invincible, or simply not being prepared for when the conditions changed and they needed to take action to make sure that themselves or their passengers were safe. What became very clear from the evidence the select committee heard was that, in fact, it is adults—typically men of about my age—going out in small craft with the hero cape on, feeling invincible, or simply not being prepared for when the conditions changed and they needed to take action to make sure that themselves or their passengers were safe.

Now, ACT listens to evidence, so we supported the change in scope to include the wearing of life jackets for all people on vessels under 6 metres. But we also support recreational boaties to make good decisions about the safety of their vessel, to understand the conditions they’re operating in, and how their passengers need to be protected. But a lot of that comes down to personal responsibility, and it will continue to. Because despite changing a law, which is what this bill proposes, in the end, every skipper will continue to be responsible for the safety of their passengers, as they are under the law right now. They will need to make good judgment calls and make sure that their passengers wear life jackets where appropriate and where required.

Now, ACT also believes that there needs to be a reasonable approach to enforcing the wearing of life jackets. We advocated very strongly for that reasonable approach to be written into law. Because if you go out on a small boat and you’re out for the day, you may or may not have a marine toilet, you may or may not be in a depth where you can safely anchor. But on a flat, calm day—say if you’re boating off the Bay of Plenty, like my good friend and colleague Cameron Luxton often does, and you want to have a swim off the boat or you want to have a bit of a play in the water, as he often does, he tells me, you’re not likely to be wearing a life jacket to get in and out of the water, so you technically comply with wearing a life jacket on the vessel at all times.

So ACT advocated very strongly for a test of reasonableness so that if a harbour master or anyone else enforcing a law in the future came across a boatie and some passengers who weren’t wearing life jackets, or one of them for some reason, they could say, “Oh, actually, we understand the law provides for a reasonable reason where you might not be wearing it.” In the legislation, we managed to get some way. The legislation as returned to the House says that if you’re going for a swim, then you don’t have to wear your life jacket. Well, who knew? Because who on earth in New Zealand swims with a life jacket, apart from babies and people learning to swim? But the intention in the bill is still not conveyed in sufficient detail, and we’d like to see further improvements, and we hope the member responsible will take those.

While going for a swim might make sense, actually, there are other reasons why you might not be wearing a life jacket at a certain time. You might be taking a raincoat on or off. You might be donning warmer clothing. You might be going to use the boat’s head. So, for that reason, ACT supports the bill as reported back to the House, but we’d also like to see further changes to make it very clear that there must be a reasonable level of responsibility applied to the skipper, so that they can use their judgment at times when that’s appropriate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:13): I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which considered this—well, I’m not sure whether I call it the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill or the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill, because that’s the new name that we have suggested that it has.

Look, it’s a delight to actually be able to have a 10-minute call, knowing that I’m not going to have members of my good friends over there in the National Party going to give me grief about how long I’m going to be speaking for and tell me it’s only going to stick with 10 seconds. [Interruption] See, now they’re on to it already. They cannot help themselves!

When we have a message to say—we are New Zealand First, and we will have a New Zealand First message to say on any piece of legislation, and we will have to say that because that’s important that we make it our space. While the Opposition are being so supportive of those kinds of message as well, if we were going to be more efficient in this House, both sides of the House need to look at the behaviour, depending on whether it is a Government bill time, when it’s the Opposition who are filibustering, or whether it’s a member’s day, when it’s the National Party who are filibustering. Anyway, it’s a great pleasure to have a 10-minute call on this piece of legislation.

I wanted to start off just by thanking the Hon Shane Reti, but also before him the Hon Cameron Brewer for the work that they have done in shepherding this bill through the process. I wanted to thank the select committee, who, as always, were really, really collegial and worked very collaboratively together through a really, really good process—so thank you very much for that. You were thoughtful, you listened well to everybody, and I think we’ve made some really good changes—well, a lot of good and substantial changes to the bill—because it’s quite a different bill to what it started out as.

I also wanted to thank the advisers and the officers of Parliament who supported us. But I also wanted specifically to thank the submitters, because the submitters here were people who, in many cases, were actively involved in water safety. So whether it was the coastguards, Water Safety New Zealand, and so on, these are organisations and these are people who have dedicated a lot of their lives to saving other people’s lives on the water. They gave us a lot of really, really good advice. When we went through the process, this bill started off as being targeted at under-15s. These organisations and a lot of our submitters were very, very strong in saying, “Actually, the problem is not under-15s—that is a problem—but the main problem is actually adults.”

The data there is absolutely crystal clear, as we’ve already heard. Since the beginning of 2015, eight children lost their lives as a result of drowning off recreational boating craft—eight children. That’s far too many—that’s eight too many—but 180 adults lost their lives in that same time. So it made it very, very clear that children are a problem, but the biggest problem there is actually adults. We had some really, I thought, terrible stories that we heard. You can just imagine the scarring for life which would occur here, where we had children in a boat, wearing life jackets, parents in a boat not wearing life jackets; they got into trouble and the children watched their parents drown. Can you imagine what that does to those children for the rest of their lives? That was avoidable. Those are the things that this legislation is trying to avoid. If we can save those 10 lives a year which the estimate is, that’s worth doing.

Now, I kind of heard from ACT a little bit about personal responsibility there. This is a place where the Crown is stepping in to say, “Actually, we want to mandate that you do wear life jackets in these circumstances”, and I’ll come to those circumstances in a moment. But I want you to think about another area where we also mandate that you are required to wear a safety device, and we do that to save people’s lives and to stop them getting injured, and it is a safety belt. We require people to wear safety belts. We don’t say it’s up to you to make the choice; we don’t say it’s personal responsibility; it is everybody’s responsibility. In effect, the State has got that responsibility, but also the State has a huge investment in every one of us, so it’s important for the State that we want our people to survive. We want our people to be part of our community. They are no good to us dead—they are no good to us drowned. So we are taking some responsibility in that area.

Anyway, we started out as an under-15s bill. We had strong, informed submissions saying that, actually, we needed to broaden the scope. Actually, we did ask the question of “Should we actually just get this through?” It’s an improvement—we’ll just get the children part of it through, and we won’t go and do the adults as well. And they said, “No. We want you to take the chance”—if you like—“go back out to consider it again, and take it to adults as well.” We took that on. We went back to the Business Committee and said, “Can we have an extension of time?” Now, we were told, line call, that we could actually have said, “Well, we’ll box on and we’ll do it anyway. We will go and expand the scope ourselves.” We felt that that would be the wrong thing to do from a democratic point of view. From a scope-of-the-bill point of view, we felt that that was the wrong thing to do because there would be potentially people who would submit against taking it to adults, who might have not submitted at all or been in favour of children being covered. So we went out again, we think that’s the right thing to do, and guess what happened is that people came back and said, “Actually, we support the change to the bill; we support it covering adults as well.” So we think we have a really, really strong mandate there and I think we gave exactly the right process.

There is one other area which we did get in the second round some thought that we could also extend it, and that was the size of the vessels involved. Because we went out, we said 6 metres—we had 6 metres at the water line to start with, which people said, “What’s the water line?” If the vessel if more heavily laden or less heavily laden, that becomes a bit of a challenge. So we said, “Right, OK, well, it’s the bow to the stern.” OK, we leave out the motors and all those sorts of things and we leave out bowsprits. You can’t muck around with bowsprits and that sort of thing. So we were clear about what that is.

But, first of all, there was a scope issue there. We had not consulted on that, and that would have been a really unreasonable thing to do, in my view, in terms of scope. Secondly, lower risk: the largest the vessels, the lower the risk. We certainly heard that. Thirdly, you’ve got things like sleeper boards. Well, you know, if you’re sleeping on board a vessel—the larger the vessel, the more likely you are to be sleeping on board, using a kitchen, whatever else it might be. Doing that with a life jacket probably is not a particularly practical proposition, as well.

And then there’s also that issue that whatever vessel you’re on, even if you don’t have to wear the life jacket in a larger vessel, you do still at least have to carry sufficient life jackets, and if you’re in that situation where it’s a time of heightened risk—you’re crossing a bar, whatever it is, really rough conditions—then the skipper’s discretion there is to say, “Actually, I want everybody actually wearing a life jacket at the moment, whether you need to, or not.” So we felt those things were well covered.

We’re recommending changing the name of the bill, as we said, because, obviously, clearly, it’s not about under-15s anymore; it’s about all ages. So we’re recommending that, as well.

We spent a bit of time discussing the definition of a “life jacket”, as you already heard. “Life jacket” is now all PFDs—or personal floatation devices—rather than the other way round where personal floatation devices covered life jackets and everything else, as well. What is clearer, though, is that for each of those devices, you choose which device is most appropriate, whether you’re windsurfing, kayaking—and like Celia Wade-Brown, I’m also a kayaker; in fact, we’ve been kayaking together quite a number of occasions, including across Cook Strait, which is very, very good, but I wouldn’t dream of not wearing a life jacket when I’m kayaking. It’s an appropriate thing to do, and I wear a life jacket. But there are different floatation devices, different life jackets, and different circumstances, and people are able to choose those, but they’ve got to meet the standards that are required.

We did have some discussion also about this issue of being under way, whether electronic anchors were OK, whether drifting was OK. We had some concerns from Fish & Game about that, the really slow movement issue—so I think there is an issue there that they might have concerns about.

We also had issues around exemptions, which we’ve already heard a little bit about from the ACT Party. The maritime rule also already has a long list of what are pretty common-sense exemptions. I mean, surfing with a life jacket on is going to be a bit strange. We brought in, as you’ve heard, the stand-up paddle boarding in the surf situation because we had an expiring rule, and we thought, “Well, let’s bring it in, so we’re reducing the administrative burden there, in this case, for the Government.” We took on board ACT’s concerns around things like swimming off a vessel. So we said “Look, that’s practical.” We’ve also said, quite specifically, that we expect harbour masters and enforcement agencies to use common sense and discretion when they’re enforcing the by-law.

Look, finally, just in terms of implementation, we did want to make sure—and we changed the implementation date to 28 days—there is time to develop a penalty regime to do the public education. A lot of our submitters were organisations who will be actively involved in that public education programme, and I thank them for that.

Finally, the point that Tangi Utikere raised about amending the by-law process, it’s not often that Government actually helps local government out and makes life easier. Central government’s very good at loading costs on, and we were quite insistent and we said, “No, we’re not going to do that.” So if their by-laws are inconsistent now with the new law, then they can simply just talk to the director of maritime safety and say, “Look, we want to take those out.”, rather than having to go and consult. That just saves them a bit of money. There’s no point in going to consult on something which is, effectively, ultra vires or illegal. So thank you, everybody, for the work that’s been done. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five minutes—Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (17:24): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have to say that I think this might be some of the absolute best work of this entire term of Government. I want to congratulate chair Andy Foster, the member who is now “Hon” Cameron Brewer, who had the bill pulled, and now the Hon Shane Reti, and all the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Normally, I’m a permanent member of that committee, but I haven’t been for most of this bill, just because I’ve been overseeing the Planning Bill on the Environment Committee, but I’m soon to come back to transport—I know you all miss me! My colleague Celia Wade-Brown did excellent work looking after this bill on behalf of the Greens.

I think this is such an important issue. I’m sure everyone’s talked about all of the issues, so I probably don’t need to repeat them all, but, as someone who occasionally gets lucky enough to go on a sailboat with my partner’s family who are fond of sailing and don’t own a boat but charter boats, and we take our little children on a boat, never would anyone consider being at sea without wearing a life jacket. But, of course, it just makes sense to make that the default for everyone. I think it’s fantastic that the select committee listened to the submissions, listened to the evidence, and actually has decided to nge the bill to go further, to do what people were asking it to do. This is New Zealand’s Parliament working at its absolute best to get sensible outcomes.

I do think it’s been too long. We shouldn’t have had to wait for a member’s bill for this to happen; it should have been on a Government programme. But, as is often the case with these things—like marriage equality—it came from a member’s bill, and it was some of the best work this Parliament has done. So good on members’ bills, and MPs putting in really good, constructive members’ bills and having a select committee that’s actually treating the issue seriously and taking on board and pushing to actually get the changes that are needed for the bill to do the best job it can do. I really hope that we see other changes to support this implementation that means that we can actually reduce our drowning record, which is far, far too high, and it can be much lower. So I commend this bill to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:26): I rise in strong support for the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, which has now changed to the Life Jackets Bill in its second reading. At its heart, this is a bill about protecting lives. It is about making sure that when New Zealanders head out on to the water—whether they are fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, or simply enjoying a day with their families—that they can come home safely. This bill is about strengthening that chance through a clear, critical, and common-sense measure: the wearing of life jackets.

New Zealanders have a deep connection with the water. The water is part of who we are. We are surrounded by it. We grew up around it. We enjoy it. But we also know that our water can be unforgiving. Weather can change within minutes. Calm conditions can become dangerous without warning. Even experienced boaties can find themselves in trouble. This is why this bill matters. It is a critical piece of legislation, it is evidence-based, and, most importantly, it saves lives.

One of the highlights of this bill has been the select committee process. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is led by chair Andy Foster. But, above all, I want to thank every person and organisation who took time to make a submission. In this House, we often talk about public participation in the lawmaking process; this law shows exactly why that participation matters. The select committee is not simply another stage in passing legislation. It’s not about just listening to the submitters’ feedback. It’s not about just listening. It is where New Zealanders can bring their expertise, their experience, and sometimes their personal stories to Parliament. It is where legislation is tested, challenged, and ultimately improved. This is exactly what’s happened with this bill.

We heard from Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard NZ, Maritime NZ, emergency responders, boating clubs, and members of the public who care deeply about keeping people safe on the water. Many submitters made one very clear point: if the purpose of this bill is to save lives, then it should not be limited by age. The committee listened. Because of the thoughtful and constructive feedback we received, we agreed to expand the scope of the bill so that it applies to people of all ages. I think this is one of the strongest outcomes of the select committee process. It demonstrates that public submissions are not simply listened to; they genuinely shape legislation. This is democracy working exactly as it should.

To everyone who made a submission, thank you. You have strengthened this bill. Your voices have made this legislation better. Because of your contribution, this bill has the potential to save even more lives.

As the member for Mt Roskill, I want to speak about what this bill means to my community. I had a chance to visit the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Federation’s base in Auckland and talk about what the bill means to my community. I didn’t realise that many families from Mr Roskill actually enjoy spending time on the water—whether it is fishing, boating, or spending a weekend with families. One of the most popular destinations is Manukau Harbour. The Manukau Harbour is also one of the New Zealand’s most challenging waterways. It consistently tops Water Safety New Zealand’s list of country’s high-risk water safety blackspots. Its powerful tidal currents, shifting sandbanks, narrow channels, and rapidly changing conditions make it one of the highest-risk areas in the country. Many Aucklanders know how quickly conditions can change there. What makes the harbour especially challenging is the unique geographic position. Rescue teams require extra travel time before they are able to reach an incident. When every minute counts, those extra minutes can mean the difference between life and death.

This is why wearing a life jacket is so critical. A life jacket keeps a person afloat. It helps them conserve energy. It helps keep their airways above the water. Most importantly, is significantly increases the chance that they will still be alive when the rescuers reach them. Simply put, a life jacket buys time. For those who enjoy the activities in Manukau Harbour, that extra time means everything. This bill recognises that reality. It is not about taking away people freedom to enjoy our waterways; it is about making sure they come home afterward.

This legislation is about creating a stronger culture of safety. Changing behaviour does not happen overnight, but Parliament has an important role in setting expectation. We have seen this before. Seatbelts were once resisted. Motorcycle helmets were once debated. Today, those measures are accepted, because they work, and I hope that, in time, wearing a life jacket becomes just as automatic. Before someone starts the engine, before someone leaves the boat ramp, before someone heads out to fish—putting on a life jacket should become second nature, because prevention is always better than rescue.

I also want to acknowledge those whose work behind the scenes has helped bring this legislation to where it is today. I want to thank Minister the Hon James Meager, the Hon Cameron Brewer, who was originally the bill carrier, and now the Hon Dr Shane Reti for their commitment and support throughout the development of this bill. Much of the work that goes into this legislation happens away from public eyes. It involves careful policy work, engagement with stakeholders, collaboration across Government, and a genuine commitment to improve outcomes for New Zealanders. I also want to acknowledge the officials: committee staff, departmental advisers, and everyone who has contributed to this legislation. Good legislation is never the work of one person. It is the result of many people working together with a common purpose.

Ultimately, this bill is about something very simple. Every life lost in our waterways is one too many. Behind every statistic is a family, a parent, a child, a partner, a friend—people whose life are changed forever by a tragedy that, in many cases, should have been prevented. If wearing a life jacket can give someone a better chance of survival, if this legislation encourages more New Zealanders to wear one, if even one family is spared the heartbreak of losing a loved one, then this bill will have been worthwhile. This is why I support it. It has been strengthened by the public participation, it reflects common sense, it promotes a culture of safety, and, most importantly, it will help save lives.

Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge all the rescue personnel, all the volunteers, and all the water-safety advocates who work tirelessly to save life and keep New Zealanders safe on our waterways. Like Dr Shane Reti mentioned just now, I think this Saturday will be the World Drowning Prevention Day, and there will be multiple events happening in Auckland. I encourage people to go there to have a look, to understand more, to understand how a life jacket can save life—how you can handle when you are drowning; how can you keep calm and ensure you can preserve energy so you can earn more time for the rescuer to come to rescue you.

Also, here, I would like to say that I want to thank all the volunteers, because their courage, dedication, and commitment to educate the public in responding when emergencies arise makes a huge difference. It makes the difference between life and death. This will support your effort, and I hope that it will ensure more people will come home safely. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill

Recording of Party Position

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:36): I would like to put it on the record that the Greens intended to cast 15 votes against the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill and Te Pāti Māori intended to cast four votes against the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That will now be on the Hansard.

Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (17:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on what was titled the “Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill and is now being renamed the “Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, can I just quickly indulge the House on a different matter, because last week I attended a basketball game in Palmerston North between my two favourite teams, the Manawatū Jets and the Nelson Giants, and I promised my friend Mr Utikere that whoever lost the game had to congratulate the other in the House. And so, I do that tonight. Even though I grew up in Palmerston North, I still strongly support the Nelson Giants and wish them well for this Saturday. Having led the game for three of the four quarters and then going into two sets of extra time, it was a fantastic game, and I congratulate my colleague. So, there, I did it.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): He hasn’t turned his back on you, I notice.

RACHEL BOYACK: —as MP for Nelson. We, like many parts of New Zealand, are part of a country that is surrounded by water, and where many people spend time out on the water for recreation purposes and for commercial purposes. This is a very good bill, and one which I support.

Can I congratulate the various members who have been in charge of the bill, the Hon Cameron Brewer and now the Hon Dr Shane Reti, and, of course, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, because they did an excellent job, in my view, of listening to submitters. The bill originally was intended for—as it said on the tin—children and young people, but if you look at the statistics, there is very clear evidence to show that the greatest risk on our waters is adults who don’t wear life jackets. Others have mentioned the statistics—I will just briefly, to have it on the record: there have been eight recreational boating fatalities of children under 15 since 2015, compared with 161 for people over 15; and 94 percent of craft-related drowning fatalities in 2024 involved people not wearing a life jacket, and so we know that life jackets save lives.

The conversations I’ve had with our local coastguard and with our local harbourmaster is that they support this bill. In Nelson and Tasman, we have two very closely located areas under the two different councils, with separate by-laws; they’re very close to each other, but not 100 percent identical to each other. That’s the case around the country. It’s been left to regional councils to make those determinations. A boatie could be going from one region to another on the same day and they’d have a change of by-law throughout that time. What the harbourmaster said to me is that what would be really helpful would be nationwide consistency. That’s actually the most useful thing to do.

Alongside actually making life jackets compulsory—for adults as well as children and young people—what this bill does is it actually puts some nationwide consistency in place, which is going to be really helpful for enforcement but, also, for education purposes. I do want to congratulate those MPs on the committee and MPs across the House who then had conversations around changing the scope of the bill quite considerably for actually taking the time to listen to the feedback. I think this is a change that is probably overdue. On that note, I commend it to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:40): I appreciate the tone of this debate, because we have a debate here about a serious issue. There aren’t many bills in Parliament that you can genuinely say save lives, but this is one of them. As my friend and colleague Dr Shane Reti pointed out, we have terrible cases of drownings in New Zealand: 383 drownings since 2000, and roughly 80 percent of those drownings were found to have no lifejackets that were worn. In economics, we talk about causation, and it’s very clear the causation between wearing a lifejacket and saving a life. So this is a serious bill, and it is good to see that unanimous support has been found for this bill in Parliament.

I must say, as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I’ve learnt a lot, actually, through the select committee process. I’ve learnt about various different definitions of lifejackets, different definitions of boat sizes, what “underway” means and what being anchored means and so forth. It has been a real privilege to understand the current piecemeal rules that we have. The former speaker Rachel Boyack actually just mentioned those. It was very regionalised—regionalised in a way where every region had their own bespoke rules. So if you were a harbourmaster going through from one region to another, oddly enough you’d actually have to, in theory, change the rules as you head from those different regions. So this is about standardisation and about saving lives.

I do want to mention the members who have brought this bill to the House: so Dr Shane Reti and Cameron Brewer. But I also do want to mention Alfred Ngaro, because he was, I think, on record as perhaps the first former member to—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Don’t mention him!

DAN BIDOIS: What’s that?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Don’t mention him!

DAN BIDOIS: Oh, Alfred actually raised this as a member’s bill when he was in Opposition. If you guys can recall, he actually wore a lifejacket in the House to raise the profile of this issue. So I do want to acknowledge him, and I wish him luck in his candidacy and for his contribution to this bill.

As part of the select committee process, I think Carlos actually spoke really well about how the select committee process worked. I do want to thank those that submitted initially on this bill, because what we heard very clearly is that there was a strong consensus to widen the scope of it. That is why we actually heard from submitters and then took it to the Business Committee to see if we could widen the scope. Then we put it out to more submissions and heard from the public. As a result, we came up with some pretty impressive changes from the select committee process. As has been outlined, those changes include extending the lifejacket mandate for all ages. That is in part to save more lives, because the lives lost at sea are disproportionately older adults—it’s not young children, it’s actually older adults that are disproportionately lost. And when you break it down by gender, it’s actually older men. I think it speaks to the culture of New Zealand, where it’s older men who aren’t wearing lifejackets, and therefore are putting their own lives and the lives of their families at risk.

We’ve widened the scope and said that people of all ages will need to be using these lifejackets. We’re keeping the definition and we’ve expanded the definition of “underway”, which is a technical definition that most boaties understand. If you’re anchored, then you don’t need to wear a lifejacket, but if you’re not, you’re expected to be under way, you’re moving, and therefore you are expected to be wearing a lifejacket.

There are technical definitions of what is a lifejacket in the bill. As we heard in select committee, there are different flotation devices. We actually had an exhibition of different lifejackets—

Andy Foster: Great photos!

DAN BIDOIS: Yes—and different devices, and it was really helpful. So I do want to thank Maritime New Zealand for helping to educate select committee members. They have done a really good job of helping to bring us up to speed on the technology and the current rules.

As my friend and colleague Dr Carlos Cheung has mentioned, this is about culture change. It’s not just about legislation; it’s about a culture change. Really, what we want to do is use the legislation to drive culture change in this country. Much like when you get into a car—I’m a bit old-fashioned, but when I was raised in this country, it’s just what you do when you get into a car: you put your seatbelt on. What we want in this country is just common practice, when you get in a boat and you’re going out for the day—whether it’s in a lake or in the sea—you just put a lifejacket on; that’s all we want to see in this country. The legislation is there as a guide and as a stick, but as we know, there’s limited resources to police and enforce these laws. They will be enforced, but it is actually about driving a shift in culture in this country. So that is really the intent behind this is to help shift the mood and the culture of this in New Zealand.

Other changes I think from select committee have been, actually, extensively explained by Shane Reti. I do just want to talk about and thank the members of the select committee for their hard work—ably led by Andy Foster. Andy’s been really engaged in this process, as I think all of us have been, but I appreciate your contribution, Andy, in pushing and guiding the select committee to the changes that we’ve got here today.

I want to thank the submitters, because we had people who submitted on the first round and then had to resubmit, and that’s not easy to get people to do. They’re busy leading busy lives. I want to thank the members of the public who submitted on both occasions as part of that process. As Carlos Cheung mentioned, this is a case of democracy in action. We listened to submitters. People in the public that think that select committees—

Celia Wade-Brown: Try it—see how good it is!

DAN BIDOIS: How good select committees can be. I think there was a lot of cross-bipartisan work together on this right across Parliament. So I really appreciate members of the public for getting behind and becoming part of this process, because there were a lot of submissions. In the first round of submissions, there were 158 submitters, and then the second round was 128. We did hear submissions on both. We’ve come out of that process with some changes around definitions. We’ve changed the title of the bill. So we don’t have to have a lengthy debate about title and commencement, hopefully. It’s now simply called the “lifejacket bill”. We’ve changed that from the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill. So hopefully that’s clear for the public to understand.

Look, there is a desire to get this in place for this summer, so that Kiwis up and down the country, when they’re celebrating the return of the National-led coalition Government, they can actually go about their lives and start enacting this. But this also gives an opportunity for regulators—the likes of Maritime New Zealand—to really start to ramp up the education campaign, because there will be a desire and a need for education and awareness of the new rules. This really literally is a case of fixing the basics and building the future. I know it’s a member’s bill, but it is all part of our Government’s plan to fix the basics and build the future. So it is my pleasure, on behalf of this side of the House, to be commending this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, Mr Bidois, I didn’t want to interrupt you—quite a liberal use of first names. Just maintain the dignity of the House by using full names, not making it sound like a public bar on a Saturday night.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to congratulate all those involved in bringing this bill to the House. I dipped into the select committee process, probably to sub in for someone, and this bill was actually being discussed in its early stages, so it’s great to see it here.

I wanted to start with a personal experience. When I was about six, my mother got a phone call from a friend, and she worked with a beautiful woman called Alice McGlashan, and her son Sandy had gone missing. He drowned; he and his two friends drowned. It was a terrible learning experience of how that impacts on an entire family. It was just such an incredibly terrible event in what was a very beautiful and strong family, and it caused so much harm. That was, really, a really formative experience for me, because, I think, I was about six, and I just don’t think you really understand at that age what the ramifications are of things like that.

But I come from a family that are kind of gung-ho. They’re those kinds of men—particularly in my family—who take risks. In fact, one of my uncles died on top of a roof while trying to fix his electricity during a storm. That wasn’t an uncommon thing in New Zealand culture. They were from a farming background, and you got up and you fixed your electricity, despite the fact that that was completely insane. I think that is true, often, around the culture of boating, as well. People have been brought up in this country to take unnecessary risks, and the consequences can be absolutely devastating.

So I was really pleased to see this bill come forward and to grow into something that wasn’t just about children; it was about grown adults, because I think that that’s probably the part of the culture which has just been a little bit out of kilter with reality, and it’s really necessary sometimes to nudge people. And we did that with some other law here. Like, one of the ones that I remember most profoundly was the smoke-free law. We changed the culture in New Zealand by changing the law and making it inappropriate to smoke in a public place, and we probably saved a lot of people’s lives and a lot of tragedy as a result. This is another example of that.

I thank the Parliament for doing this. It’s obviously something we don’t do every day. We have to be careful when we’re making rules for people, but this is a good one. Thank you very much.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (17:53): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to hear the speeches from members around the House, in support of this bill, and in support of a bill that is going to make lives more safe for people on our water. We are an island nation. A lot of people in New Zealand spend a lot of time in our local lakes, rivers, harbours, out there in the ocean, whether they be swimming, fishing, pleasure boating, and, as some of my colleagues have mentioned—I think Dr Cheung did it very well when talking about Manukau Harbour, how dangerous that can be. I represent Tauranga, which is, as you well know, an area surrounded by water—Tauranga meaning “safe anchorage”—and there are a significant number of pleasure boaters and recreational fishers who are out there on a regular basis.

This bill will deliver a significant change and make things quite clear that if you are below 15 years of age, you must wear a life jacket. For someone with young children, I am always very clear that whenever we are out on the water, children are in life jackets—as should every parent and person in charge of a vessel or out there on the water, be making sure that young ones are protected. Now, assuming this bill proceeds all the way through, that will become a legislative requirement for all New Zealanders.

You do see a lot of unnecessary deaths in New Zealand—young people in New Zealand, I think it’s the third-highest cause of accidental death, is drowning.

Suze Redmayne: We’re a nation surrounded by water.

SAM UFFINDELL: We are a nation surrounded by water, that is right. Even in the Rangitīkei, there is water—probably one of our more mountainous electorates—

Suze Redmayne: We’ve got the sea.

SAM UFFINDELL: But you do have the sea, and I know that you do live on the cliffs.

All jokes aside, it is a very serious matter and it is a bill that we are in favour of. I want to congratulate the member in charge, the Hon Shane Reti; also give mention to the Hon Cameron Brewer, who initially placed this bill into the biscuit tin. I also make mention of Andy Foster, who has helped shepherd this through the select committee process. It’s quite clear from the speeches given so far that the select committee process was a thorough one, that the committee did its job very well and have brought back a strong bill to the House for further consideration.

I think, as another speaker said, it is quite rare that you do get everyone in the House coming together on stuff. It’s great that we are able to put safety first, instead of politics, and say “Look, this is a sensible thing for New Zealanders. If you are a young person in motion on the water, on a vessel, on a small vessel, under 6 metres, you must wear a life jacket.” That should have been common sense and common place beforehand; now it will be a requirement.

Time will tell, as we look at the drowning statistics of New Zealand. But there will be accidents out there. There will be things that happen that are beyond skippers’ control, or weather conditions come up. In time, this legislation will save young people’s lives, and it will, hopefully, also encourage adults on vessels to consider whether they should be wearing a life jacket as well.

Dan Bidois: It applies to adults.

SAM UFFINDELL: It applies to adults, as well.

Suze Redmayne: Life jackets have got a lot less bulky than they used to be.

SAM UFFINDELL: Thanks for the conversation! It will save lives—it will clearly save lives. It will also save many families significant anguish. No one wants to lose a loved one, no one wants to lose a loved one through an accident, and no one wants to lose a loved one in an accident where death was avoidable if only some simple safety precautions had been taken. This is what this bill does.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Fixing the basics.

SAM UFFINDELL: National is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): 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 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, second reading. We are up to call No. 11, a Labour Party call.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (19:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to start proceedings post dinner by speaking about this bill, the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill, and to speak in support of it and also reflect on the fact that this is a really good example of what can happen when a very important issue—the wearing of life jackets—is constructively worked on together across parties. It also enjoyed the appropriate amount of time at select committee for submissions to be received and heard, and I believe that in this case close to 300 submissions were received, which spoke to the reasons that we need to have better laws and better legislation in place in order to keep New Zealanders safe when they are out enjoying the water. We have a lot of water to enjoy, and so it’s great to see that that process could happen so constructively at select committee.

It is also really good to see that a bill that started its life as a bill that was really only about life jackets for children has grown into being a bill that is about life jackets for all New Zealanders on craft smaller than 6 metres. When you look at the evidence and the stats, you can see that there is an overrepresentation of, I believe, men over 50 who are impacted by high drowning rates and by, potentially, not wearing a life jacket, and so it’s good to see that that’s been picked up and that this bill has taken that into account and has been changed to reflect that going forward.

Now, being a member of Parliament in a coastal electorate, I can never let an opportunity pass to acknowledge the incredible work that our surf lifesavers do in and around the water and along our coastline. We are very lucky in Christchurch East. We have five different surf lifesaving clubs, all running along our beautiful coast and along our beautiful beaches, and they are the South Brighton, the New Brighton, the North Beach, the Waimairi, and the Spencer Park surf lifesaving clubs. There is extraordinary work that happens there and extraordinary leadership, with a lot of it from young rangatahi members of our community but also from people who have had a lifetime of involvement in those clubs and who do great work to keep people safe in the water, and that’s ultimately what this bill does, as well.

There are still, I guess, some things that we think everybody should be aware of. One is that this bill has a duty, but no penalty. Also, from an enforcement perspective, I think that particularly with a new bill that sets out new regulations, it’s really important for us to think about ensuring that there is an educational aspect and that that’s well resourced, as are Maritime New Zealand and harbour masters so that they can help to enforce this new bill when it does become law. But, ultimately, I think that we need to see this as just the beginning. It’s one of the many tools that we can have in this House to make sure that New Zealanders are safer in the water and, ultimately, that we can make sure that we save lives. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (19:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill.

This bill has been shepherded through—as has been well canvassed—by my colleague the Hon Dr Shane Reti, and Dr Reti is well-known in this House for his very considered and careful approach to everything that he does. He has great mana, and prior to his coming to this House, he also had a very distinguished medical career. He’s been a very quiet and diligent member of this House, and I would just like to take this moment to thank him for his service and, personally, for his mentorship to me as a fellow medical practitioner.

This bill is a great example, as people have said, of cross-party and across-the-House collaboration. How I see it is that it is a tremendous example of the very best kind of public health intervention. The best kind of health intervention is one where you can prevent harm before it occurs, and, in this case, it is preventing drowning and tragedy by the use of life jackets for everybody. The expansion of this bill to include everybody on a craft under 6 metres while under way is an extremely good development during the process, and I commend the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their deliberations and for the way they went about it. I also commend all of the people who took the time to submit—for some of them, more than once—on this bill.

The organisations involved with saving people at sea are extremely hard-working and extremely dedicated to their causes. I have a number of them in my electorate, as a coastal electorate, and the coastguard, in particular, I’ve been out with very recently. Also, two of the surf lifesaving groups that we have in Banks Peninsula are very hard-working, and I just wanted to acknowledge them while I’m on my feet.

As I’ve mentioned, this is a public health intervention, and what’s fantastic is that public health interventions are things that often end up becoming part of our everyday lives. Things like seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, smoke alarms, pool fencing, drink-driving laws—those are all examples of where legislation is actually public health interventions, and none of those stops every death. However, collectively, they do save thousands of lives.

The other amazing thing about this bill is that it costs virtually nothing for the public purse, and there is evidence that it may save up to 10 lives per year. We don’t like to talk about that, and we feel a little squeamish sometimes talking about the value of a life, but when people are doing the cost-benefit analyses of policies, they do talk about a life saved as being worth up to about $4.9 million per year. So, if we are saving $4.9 million per life saved, that means that it’s around $50 million a year for an intervention that costs the public purse virtually nothing. That stacks up as an extremely excellent intervention.

I actually grew up on boats in the Marlborough Sounds. The Marlborough Sounds, for those who don’t know it, is actually one of the most difficult sailing places in the world, where you can virtually cross a different bay or turn a different head and you have completely different weather conditions and wind directions. My parents were very keen sailors; in fact, some of my earliest memories are of me wearing a life jacket and being rugged up and sailing around there. I always had a life jacket on because my parents expected that something could go wrong. It wasn’t a matter of thinking that this was something that we could avoid; it was always having the expectation that things could go wrong.

Boating accidents don’t usually come with an advance warning. It could be a rogue wave, or it could be a sudden wake, a collision, or even a capsize, and people don’t get a couple of minutes to calmly locate and untangle the straps and put on a life jacket. The moment that you need a life jacket is usually the moment when it’s already too late to start looking for one, and that’s why, when you’re under way, you should always be wearing a life jacket.

My parents had extensive history, as I’ve mentioned, with yachting. My father and my mother, both separately, had done a lot of yachting around the Islands, and on one of the journeys my father was on, they lost a man overboard and they never found him. That event had a profound impact on my father, on the captain of that vessel, and on every member of that crew, and that person and their family were impacted for ever. That’s why, in my family, we’d never be on a vessel without a lifejacket. Even on our concrete boat that we had to go down to the mussel farm, which was over 6 metres, we were always in lifejackets.

This bill has been extremely well-supported by very good evidence. As people have mentioned, the rates of drowning in this country are unacceptable. Those who’ve drowned with potential to have not done so if they had been wearing a lifejacket are absolute tragedies. Water Safety New Zealand did show that numerous accidents happened while they were available to the victim before they entered the water but just weren’t there. Also, the evidence showed, as we’ve heard, that adults were much more likely to be impacted, and specifically older men. This tells us that there is a cultural issue as well as timing and an issue of what happens to the body when you fall in the water. The fact is, once you’re in cold water, you might be injured or unconscious or separated from the boat. There’s really not an opportunity to be able to put on a jacket, so the safest place for the jacket is to be on your body already.

This is a very sensible piece of lawmaking. Rather than having a confused patchwork of local by-laws, we will now have a clear national expectation. This is very helpful. It’s very clear that, if you’re on a recreational craft under way, wear your lifejacket. Everyone knows where they stand. That clarity can make education much easier and, as has been mentioned earlier, we are coming up to the water safety awareness campaign that will be launched. This law will be in place before this summer, so this is a very important and timely issue that we’re bringing forward.

Every Parliament debates legislation, and often we’re talking about enormous sums of money. We’ve just recently been through the Budget, but this bill costs, as I’ve mentioned, virtually nothing. It imposes only a modest obligation on people. For many who own recreational vessels, they will probably already have the equipment. If there are small investments needed to be made, I’m sure people will realise the value of those. However, we aim to and could save around 10 New Zealanders every year. That’s an extraordinary return on investment. If it saves 10 families each year being spared the knock on the door from a policeman, if 10 search and rescue operations become successful rescues instead of recoveries, if 10 children get to grow up with a parent who otherwise would not have come home, this legislation will have been profoundly worthwhile.

Again, I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Shane Reti for bringing this forward and continuing to bring this thoughtful bill to the House and the work he’s done to guide it through, and also to acknowledge my colleague Cameron Brewer for having it pulled out of the tin and for the initial discussions. National is very happy to support this bill. It’s another way that we are fixing the basics and building the future.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill.

Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill

First Reading

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:44): I move, That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for his considerable work in developing and drafting this legislation. During my time in Parliament, Dr Webb has long advocated for a justice system that balances accountability with rehabilitation, and I’m grateful for his expertise and guidance in helping bring this bill before the House.

This bill is founded on a simple principle: people who have genuinely turned their lives around should have the opportunity to move forward with their lives. New Zealanders believe in accountability. We expect people who offend to face the consequences of their actions, but I also believe New Zealanders believe in rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances, and this bill seeks to strengthen that principle.

The current clean slate regime has helped many New Zealanders move on from mistakes made earlier in life. This was a good move by the Parliament when former MP Nándor Tánczos navigated that bill through this House 22 years ago, but there remains a group of people who are still permanently excluded from the scheme, not because they continue to offend, not because they present an ongoing risk, but because years or even decades later after they received a sentence for offending that falls within the current exclusion criteria.

It is important to be clear about what this bill does and does not do. This bill is not about every offence that results in imprisonment. It is also important, to be clear, that in this context a custodial sentence is broader than a prison sentence alone. It does include sentences like corrective training, preventative detention, imprisonment served by way of home detention, borstal training, detention centre training, or any other sentence requiring the full-time detention of an individual.

In the context of a custodial sentence, this bill is focused on people convicted of category 2 offences who received a sentence of less than 12 months and who have subsequently demonstrated at least 10 years of lawful behaviour. Eligibility would also extend to individuals who have been subject to an indefinite period of disqualification from driving if they have completed a 10-year rehabilitation period. Those are people who, under the current law, may have no pathway to a clean slate, despite remaining offence free for a decade or more and demonstrating that they have successfully rehabilitated themselves. This bill creates an opportunity for those individuals to be covered by the clean slate regime.

Since this bill was drawn from the biscuit tin, I’ve heard from individuals, and I want to thank them for sharing their experiences with me. These are people who have accepted responsibility for their actions, served their sentences, and spent years rebuilding their lives, only to find themselves continually held back by decisions that had been made years earlier. They have told me about job opportunities that were lost because of a conviction from many years ago. They have spoken about doors being closed despite having worked hard to rebuild their lives. Many of these stories relate to offending that occurred in their youth—mistakes they readily acknowledge, mistakes for which they accepted responsibility, but mistakes that continue to have consequences decades later. These are not people who’ve sought to avoid accountability. They have already been held accountable, and they’ve paid the price demanded by the courts and by society. What they have been asking for is the opportunity to be judged on who they have become rather than who they once were. A clear desire to be recognised for the person they are today, not solely for decisions they made years ago.

Members will know of people in their own communities who’ve rebuilt their lives after offending. They have found employment, although that may have been a difficult path for some to achieve. They have raised families, they have volunteered in their communities, they have become productive and valued members of our society, yet they continue to face barriers because of something that happened many years ago. A person who has remained offence free for 10 years has personal responsibility. They have demonstrated sustained behavioural change. They have demonstrated that they are not defined by the worst mistake they may have ever made.

This bill recognises that reality. It does not erase history. It does not rewrite what occurred. It simply recognises that there comes a point when someone’s history should not be a permanent barrier to their future.

Let me be very clear. This is a bill that is targeted and measured. It does not apply to all offending, and it does not create a blanket entitlement to the clean slate provisions. It is focused on a limited category of former offenders who have received relatively short custodial sentences or an indefinite period of disqualification from driving and who have then demonstrated at least a decade of lawful behaviour.

The 10-year lawful behaviour requirement remains a significant threshold. Ten years is a long time. It is not a token period. It is longer as a period than the seven-year provision currently in the Act. As such, it represents a sustained commitment to living within the law. If someone reoffends, they will not qualify. This is not about excusing criminal behaviour; it is about recognising genuine rehabilitation where it has occurred.

The Justice Committee of this Parliament considered the petition of Liya Lupala, who called for amendments to the clean slate eligibility. It reported back in August of 2024. Ms Lupala had a previous indefinite disqualification from driving which presented a challenge in securing employment for her because of the required security checks during the job application process. This is despite regaining a full driver licence in 1998 and maintaining a clean record since her conviction more than 30 years ago.

The committee helpfully looked at how this issue is tackled by other jurisdictions. Some Australian jurisdictions allow the non-disclosure of some custodial convictions after a person has been conviction-free for 10 years. Ireland allows convictions that result in short custodial sentences to be concealed following a conviction-free period of seven years. The United Kingdom has similar provisions.

The Justice Committee formed the unanimous view that some of the criteria for obtaining a clean slate may be unduly restrictive. In their report, they said this: “An indefinite loss of licence could be a threshold that unreasonably prevents the achievement of employment opportunities.” They also reference that the current law has prevented people from being eligible for a clean slate where they had custodial convictions during the 1980s and 1990s for offences that would be considered minor today. They formed the view that the current Act should be reviewed to allow former offenders who have sustained good behaviour to be given the opportunity to reintegrate fully into our society. They recommended that the Act be reviewed to better enable former offenders to gain meaningful employment that could improve their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Sending this bill to select committee will provide for that opportunity to occur.

I also want to be clear that, if this bill receives the support of the House tonight and proceeds to select committee, I will approach that process with an open mind. I am open to feedback, I am open to refinement, and I’m open to amendments that might emerge through a robust select committee process. If there are improvements that can be made, the select committee is the place to make them, because the objective is to ensure that we get the policy settings right.

In closing, at its heart, this bill asks a very simple question: should there be a pathway forward for people who have spent a decade or more proving that they have changed? I believe there should be. I believe accountability and rehabilitation can coexist together. I believe public safety and second chances can coexist together. I believe New Zealand is stronger when we recognise that people are capable of change. This is a bill that will make a meaningful difference. It’s a bill that affects real people, real families, and provides real opportunities for change. It affects New Zealanders who have made mistakes, accepted responsibility, turned their lives around, and now simply seek the chance to be judged on the lives they have built since. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and I urge members to support its referral to the select committee so that New Zealanders can have their say and Parliament can properly consider this important issue. Thank you.

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

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (19:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging the member for Palmerston North, who is in charge of this bill and leading this through this process. I think it’s a really worthwhile issue for this House to be considering. When we think about the fundamental principle of Parliament and what it is that we’re here to do, I think these kinds of issues, which have no easy answer, necessarily, are good ones to tease out and to think about and to have this conversation about.

There has been a process over the last three years now that National has been in Government where we have looked to conduct a bit of a reset of the justice system that focuses more on the victim and less on the offender. There are a number of things that might get rattled off later this evening, whether it’s the sentencing discounts that we’ve seen, which we think there should be a limit to—there’s a number of times that you can say, “I’m sorry”, and get a discount for that, but ultimately, that’s not something you can keep repeating—bringing back policies like three strikes, which have made a marked material difference in terms of limiting reoffending in the most serious of violent crimes, or changes for sexual offenders, things that actually bring back the victim to the heart of the system.

I do think that’s appropriate, but I am also caught in those sort of parallel railroads. At the end, the member himself referred to—this isn’t his language; this is mine—consequence and grace. When things go wrong, when people make poor choices, there is a consequence, but there has to be a parallel track of how we reintegrate people into society. I have always tried to live by the principle of “second chance, not second best”, that people will inevitably make mistakes. I don’t think at that point we write them off for ever, that we say, “Well, you’re no good now. We need to find the second-best person because you’ve blown it. Actually, people do deserve a second chance, and I guess that lies at the heart of the 2004 legislation that brought about clean slates. Our clean slate policy as it stands today is that people fundamentally deserve a second chance.

I guess the question—and I’m wrestling with this as we speak—is what does that look like and where do we draw the line? We say, well, for less than 12 months, a 10-year period. Do we say, well, what if it’s less than 18 months or two years? Does that go out to 15 years? How do we draw this? This is the issue that I think that this House has been asked to grapple with tonight, to say: where do we draw the line?

I absolutely agree with the fundamental principle that I think sits behind this and I think probably motivates the member who originally wrote this bill and brought it to the House: how do we reintegrate people when they have committed a crime? Previously, this House has agreed that we draw the line on custodial sentences. As I think was articulately explained, it’s not just about imprisonment. There are some other ones that qualify as a custodial sentence, but that was always the line. If you get a custodial sentence where your life is run by Corrections 24 hours a day, effectively, that is where we drew the line. To get a custodial sentence, we should be clear, is significant, and the offending that leads to that point is significant.

There are a number of pathways that allow people to avoid convictions or to have those convictions removed down the track. There is a diversion pathway that exists in our justice system up front. People get discharged without conviction for some; then, people may receive a conviction but have that removed under the clean slate. I don’t think anyone in this House will be arguing that we shouldn’t have pathways for people that allow them either at the time or further down the track to have a life that isn’t, ultimately, run by past convictions, but what is the point that we change that?

Here’s something I think about when I think about this. If the argument is, “Well, it’s 10 years of no reoffending, it’s 10 years of good behaviour, and the criteria that are listed in this bill, then they can start again.”, I also wonder if that’s inherently wrong in and of itself. Surely all of us want to see, and those that work with people in this space want to see, people reintegrate into society. It is not OK to say, “Well, you’ve served your custodial sentence of perhaps six months. Wait 10 years, and then we’ll reintegrate you.”

I know that’s not what anyone’s advocating for, because this country used to be run not on box-ticking and rules. It was run on judgment, not compliance. It was run on the reliance on someone giving that person a chance, of saying, “Yep, they made some poor choices. They’ve done their time.” Now, it relies on someone ultimately being willing to give them a chance. I don’t think the legislation in and of itself will change that, because we need someone to give them a chance after one month or after six months or after one year. We cannot be waiting until 10 years. There needs to be a pathway to rehabilitation. People need to give them an opportunity, and that will not change regardless of which way this bill goes.

We shouldn’t pretend that this is the solution in isolation. I’m not suggesting that’s what anyone is saying, but we shouldn’t say that passing this will fix an issue that has been identified. I acknowledge there is an issue that was taken to the Petitions Committee a couple of years ago, but I think there’s also another subtext here. There is another underlying principle that we’ve talked about—the grey side—which is the consequence or even the deterrent, which is to say, yes, we believe people deserve a second chance, but that doesn’t mean that we should remove in entirety the consequence. Yes, it will weigh heavy on people, having to carry convictions, where they received a custodial sentence, with them for the rest of their life. That shouldn’t prohibit them from reintegrating into society and from proving their value.

The member over there used the language “being judged on who they have become, not what they had done previously.” I think that’s really eloquently put. People should be judged on what they have become, but that doesn’t mean that, in all cases, we remove the record of what they had been, of what they had committed and what caused a custodial sentence. That is a pretty significant threshold. And so, I think there is something of a deterrent in that.

If we were to remove it at this point, if the House—and the House may say, “Actually, we think this is worth testing,” and it goes to select committee and that would be an opportunity for a really robust debate on this, and scrutiny and the ability to change and tweak and find the pathway through. But if the House was to say, “Actually, we think that’s OK,” I guess the question is—what next? Is that the ultimate end state? Because in 2004, we thought we’d reached that with seven years for non-custodial sentences; 10 years for a custodial sentence less than 12 months. Is there another step? At what point do we actually say that we need to have a deterrent in our justice system; we actually do have to draw the line? That is uncomfortable, but so is the offending that gets us there. People have to live with that for the rest of their life if they are the victim, and that doesn’t get removed after 10 years.

So I do think there’s a principle that actually says, we want to put the victims at the centre of this. That, actually, we do want to remember that the consequence of some of this offending—albeit that person might have reformed—is that other people might have to live with this for a long time. In some ways, having that stay on the record just records—it might be validating the victim’s experience. It may be a number of things. It doesn’t need to prohibit a pathway to rehabilitation, but it also doesn’t say, “Hey, this didn’t happen; this didn’t exist; you don’t matter.”

Now, again, I want to emphasise, I know that no one is saying that, but I do wonder, when we start to unlock this and we do just start to have a little bit of mission creep, where the line moves forward a little further and then a little further—where does it end? Where does it end? Is our focus on what’s best for the offender? In this it is, but in the wider system, it must surely be on the victims and inherently, in the first place, trying to prevent these crimes from being committed. That’s what we’re after. That’s what is at the heart of our justice system. The whole reason we have custodial sentences isn’t just to say, “You did the wrong thing, you must pay a price,” it is to say, “We want to deter people from ever making that poor decision at the right time.”

And so, when we consider this, the National Party position is that we think the line was drawn in the right place in the original bill with non-custodial sentences. It may be the will of the House that we want to look at this further in select committee, and we would, of course, engage in that in a really robust and careful manner to ensure that we can get the best result for the people of New Zealand. But I think the fundamental principle we’re bringing here is, yes, we believe in second chances; yes, we believe that there needs to be a pathway back; but we also believe in that parallel railway track of consequence tied to deterrence. It is for that reason that the National Party won’t be supporting this bill.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (20:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of this bill. I’d like to acknowledge Tangi Utikere for the work he’s done on this bill and, also, that of Nándor Tánczos 22 years ago, who helped navigate the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act as we see it today. Obviously, the Greens have had a history with this this Act, and recently Chlöe Swarbrick also called for the scheme to be extended to cannabis convictions.

This bill actually makes a lot of sense. It’s quite surprising to hear the member on the other side talk about second chances—that it felt like people deserve second chances; “Yeah, nah” from Tim Costley. When you actually have a look at what this bill is achieving, it is not much of an extension. It is for people that have served less than 12 months of a custodial sentence and then have had a rehabilitation period of 10 years. There is a significant amount of time without reoffending—for people to actually to be in a custodial sentence for such a short period of time and then spend another 10 years actually living a good life, being part of society. Actually, it would make sense to extend it, so, therefore, it can make it more easier for them to reintegrate into society, because we know that people that do have records do struggle sometimes to find gainful employment, do struggle in society. This is an opportunity to extend this ever so slightly to make it a lot more beneficial for many more people. The Green Party support this member’s bill and acknowledge the work of the MP tomorrow. Kia ora.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:06): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I just want to congratulate the member Tangi Utikere on having his member’s bill pulled from the tin. It’s awfully lucky. Also, I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has done on this in the past.

Now, ACT is quite tough on crime. We’re known as the party that puts victims first.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You also make things up, but that’s OK.

LAURA McCLURE: We “also make things up, but that’s OK”—OK, you might want to see if we’re supporting this bill first, from the other side over there, before you give us some kind of heckling that I think is completely untrue and uncalled for.

But, look, the thing is, we do actually believe people can change. When you look at, particularly, our young people under 25, the types of behaviours and the types of things that they can get up to in that age group that can go on and have huge consequences for the rest of their lives, for very small mistakes that they may have made—we believe, if they’ve turned their lives around, that should be counted for something. So, ACT is actually going to support this bill to select committee.

It’s for that reason that we do actually believe in second chances. It’s because we are tough on crime. We do believe that people should take accountability and responsibility for their actions, but we also believe that something that you did when you were younger, which you took responsibility for, and you may have turned your life around and you follow on for the next 10 years and you have a completely clean slate—that you should actually be able to go out there and make that official. Like the previous National member spoke about, just because you’ve had an offence and you should be working towards rehabilitation straight away and you should be given second chances by employers—all of those things are true; that should happen right away, where possible. But the truth is, sometimes those little things that hang over you for a really long time can be really significant.

Look, we actually agree. ACT is prepared to support this to select committee. But I think there are a couple of things that we want to flag, as well. We want the select committee to ensure the bill doesn’t unintentionally limit access to criminal history where information is legitimately needed to protect the public. We think that’s really important. It’s also important to remember that the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act is statute agnostic. A change here doesn’t just affect one Act; it can have implications across a wide range of legislation that relies on criminal record information. I think it would be really important for the select committee to look at that and how this change would actually impact other pieces of legislation and the wider system—for example, declaring a criminal offence before travelling overseas, etc. I think these are things that we just need to make sure we look at.

This is exactly why select committee scrutiny is going to be really important. We need to understand the full consequences before extending this eligibility further. ACT will approach this bill constructively, with an open mind, while making sure that any expansion of clean-slate protections maintains appropriate safeguards and public confidence. We hope that those young people that made a mistake when they were younger have turned their lives around, and that they are actually given a second chance. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (20:10): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill, and I commend the member Tangi Utikere for both your speech and your approach to this legislation; I think it is a worthwhile cause. I will state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting the legislation through to select committee.

It is on two aspects that New Zealand First supports this, in that we absolutely acknowledge the importance of holding people accountable for crime—absolutely hold, as a core value, that people need to be accountable for their actions—but, as the member Tangi Utikere said, this is about accountability but it is recognising that once you have been held accountable and you have redeemed yourself over a period of time, you should be able to reap the benefits of turning your life around. This is about those hard-working Kiwi battlers that do decide that they can turn their lives around, that they can be accountable to their families, to their children, to their new lives, and therefore they should have the benefit of being recognised for the fact that they have delivered those positive outcomes.

As the member before me has spoken, there are some considerations that we think will need to be thrashed out through the select committee process. I think it is important to recognise that we are in an era in which historical offending can be reported, and therefore understanding the implications of historical offences that may have been committed well before the 10-year period of clean slate; how that has implications on the clean slate period, even though the offending may have occurred well before but the conviction may occur well after. There are some nuances in that space that I think are necessary to work through in the way we manage this.

The other aspect touched on is the ability to access records. We are in a realm where profiling and understanding offenders is critically important to solving historical crimes—that is the nature of how criminal investigations operate and we’ve had real leaders in this field in our enforcement agencies to understand—so having access to historical records of offences of things that have occurred are necessary in the space, unfortunately. We know that particularly in the instances of offending against children and sexual offending, victims can take quite some time to come forward and be brave enough and strong enough to report those incidents.

I think those are the things that I know will be worked through in a robust select committee process. I commend the member for his assurance that this process will be entered into robustly with an open dialogue, to ensure that we aren’t unintentionally creating a harder pathway for victims who step forward. I think those are important considerations as we work through this legislation.

Fundamentally, the clean slate process is about redeeming and I think all of us have family and friends that have strayed off the path, that have done things that they have regretted. Even in adult life, in raw emotion times—it’s not necessarily when you’re a child—people do get pushed to limits. They make bad decisions over a range of different drivers and that can be as a result of addiction, it can be as a result of emotional or mental harm that has been occurring at any given time, so therefore you can do things in a momentary lapse that is out of character, therefore once you have served your time, you have been held accountable, you have demonstrated your commitment to never do that again, I think that society should be open enough to ensure that your life isn’t ruined through those momentary lapses or youth indiscretion.

I think it is useful piece of legislation. I think it will be an important select committee process to work through. I’m sure there will be a number of submitters who will come at it from angles that this House hasn’t considered, but I think it will be important in that process to ensure that we do recognise that everyone is redeemable and rehabilitation does allow for people to move on with their lives once they have served their time; therefore, New Zealand First will be commending the bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (20:15): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment in the name of my colleague Tangi Utikere, and can I congratulate my friend and colleague on his bill getting to this point. It is heartening to hear that there is support from across the Chamber for what is a sensible bill and that it is likely, tonight, to proceed through to select committee. That is very heartening to hear.

As has been traversed tonight, we all know that the clean slate scheme has been in place since 2004 and that has worked very well. It has given people the opportunity to have a second chance and to be able to continue with their lives, having, I guess, done the punishment for their crime and then had a period of seven years where there have been no more offences and it has worked very well, but there are some examples that we can see where people who have committed a crime—who have done their time, have then led a blemish-free life, and wanted to be a fully reintegrated back into society—and have been unable to do that.

There are two reasons why that is the case: one is because, if there has been a custodial sentence, people are ineligible for a clean slate approach even if it has been for a very short period of time. Secondly, people who’ve had an indefinite disqualification from driving for repeat offences are ineligible as well, even if they then, as Mr Utikere has talked about a particular case, again, led a blemish-free life, are unable to then have that wiped from the public record in order to be able to proceed their life within society.

This is a good bill because it focuses on specific offences listed under category 2. I’m just going to read out what some of those are: things such as low-value theft, possession of cannabis for personal use, first or second drink driving and driving while disqualified offences. These would have to have a custodial sentence of less than 12 months and then a conviction-free period of 10 years after that time. Those are offences where they are not considered as serious as others, so under the category 3 and category 4 offences.

I think most of us in the Parliament would agree that offences listed in those category 3 and category 4 categories are the type that I think are really important that we do keep on the public record; things like family violence offences and breaches of protection orders, and supplying or dealing drugs—it’s a very different offence to someone who has had cannabis for personal use—arson, driving causing death or injury. These are the types of offences that are not covered by this bill, and I think that is the right line for it to have been arrived at.

I think it’s excellent to hear that parties from the Government benches are going to support an Opposition member’s bill on what is a sensible bill, and also be willing to actually have a really robust conversation at select committee around any potential changes, to ensure that it will be workable and that it will be fair. Earlier tonight, we passed the bill around life jacket use, and I think that was an example of the committee taking a long period of time and a considered amount of time to make the bill the best it could be. It’s my hope that’s what will happen with this bill so that it can actually continue its pathway all the way through the legislative process. Again, I commend my colleague Tangi Utikere and commend this bill to the House.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (20:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to speak on this Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill in its first reading, and I’d like to commend Tangi Utikere as the member responsible for the bill, and congratulate him on having this bill drawn. All members know how difficult it is to actually get a member’s bill drawn out of the biscuit tin. I think it’s wonderful that he’s able to see this through. I know that this bill will actually get to select committee with all of the support from different parties but as my colleague Tim Costley said, there are aspects of it which I personally struggle with. The clean slate scheme, as everyone’s mentioned, has been in force since 2004. It actually covers people who have had no convictions within the last seven years and never been sentenced to a custodial sentence. The list actually goes on. The clean slate doesn’t actually include people applying for jobs with the Police and in prisons, or in social worker, judicial, or national security - type roles. This bill extends those seven years to 10 years, and it actually extends to people who’ve had a custodial sentence of up to 12 months.

I was actually curious as to what kinds of crimes people have committed in order to actually get a 12-month custodial sentence, for example. I can just list a few: assault causing injury, which is more serious than common assault; aggravated drink-driving, which is not a first offence but several repeat offences; burglary, especially repeat offending or burglary involving significant loss and multiple victims; serious fraud or theft, such as stealing tens of thousands of dollars; family violence offences, where there are repeated assaults, a breach of protection orders; drug offending, such as supplying of methamphetamine and commercial quantities of cannabis; indecent assault, and lower-level sexual offending is actually included in that; possession of objectionable materials, including child sexual abuse images; and repeated breaches of court orders.

When you look at the range of criminal offending that a person actually gets a 12-month custodial sentence for, these are some of them, and I have to actually think about the victims in this case. I do understand about wanting to give people a second chance, especially the youth who actually made a mistake—that I can understand—but this custodial sentencing also includes offenders who actually do things which, to me, I think a lot of victims will actually find very difficult to forgive. For them to celebrate the clean slate of someone who had actually offended against them, and they became the victims, especially people who have been victims of family violence, for example. I have met so many people who have been victims of family violence, and I do not know if they would actually celebrate this bill getting passed in this House. For me, I’m on the side of the victims on this. I say that, knowing that I also feel bad for young people who actually make a mistake and actually get a sentence that could actually prevent them from getting a job.

This is a balancing act that we members have to actually deal with, and I hope that the select committee will actually look at this bill carefully and come back with a way that we can all potentially support it. But, at this stage, the National Party opposes this bill, and I cannot support this.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:23): I wish to speak to two issues that have been raised by members of the National Party. Before I get to that, though, I do want to thank the ACT Party for their support for this bill. The ACT Party is a party of principles. A lot of those principles I don’t agree with, but weirdly this to me fits along with their idea of their boot camps or whatever they’re called—

Hon Karen Chhour: Second chances.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —where their objective is to create a second chance. This does, in a way, stack up alongside that. I find New Zealand First unpredictable, but I’m nevertheless grateful for their support for this bill. I think the National Party are cowards, actually. This is an issue that does need to be examined.

I want to go to the two mistakes, I think, that speakers from the National Party have made with respect to this bill tonight. The first one was from the previous speaker, who spoke of her concern around people who had gotten 12-month custodial sentences for some types of sexual offending, for family violence, for assault with intent to injure, and so on. The member has made a mistake. This bill would enable people with custodial sentences of less than 12 months to enter this clean slate pathway, but it’s only for category 2 offences. It’s category 2 offences.

Let’s just go through what they are. In practice, it means offences such as common assault—that’s just a punch on the street; it’s not a serious assault; I mean, I still don’t think it’s a good thing; let’s be clear about that—wilful damage, disorderly behaviour, shoplifting, and low-value theft, possession of cannabis for personal use, and first or second drink-driving, and driving while disqualified. But if it’s a category 3 or category 4 offence, then it’s excluded. Assault with intent to injure is excluded. Family violence offences are excluded. Sexual offending is excluded. This bill would not apply to those sorts of offences. I’m going to invite the member, given that she’s made that mistake, to reconsider her position on this bill, because the reasons she gave are just not what the bill covers. There is protection here for the victims of those serious offences, so I do invite the member to reconsider.

The other issue I want to address was the issue raised, I guess, by the first speaker from the National Party, who said this is an issue we could tease out as a Parliament and we could think through some of the complications. Of course, Parliament’s actually the highest court in the land. It’s our job to consider some of these justice issues. But what he said was, “Well, all right, so if we have 10 years of good behaviour following a 12-month custodial sentence, we’ll then let you go to the clean slate.” He said, “Well, what do we do if you’ve got someone who’s got an 18-month custodial sentence and 15 years of good behaviour?”, and he painted a series of possible positions that could be taken to enable people to enter a clean slate pathway. It’s just a bog-standard slippery slope argument. It’s saying, “If we go this far, well, where do we stop?” Well, that’s precisely our role as a Parliament—to sit there and work out where we stop. We are actually paid to do that. Part of the reason we come here is to sit there and to work our way through some of these rather tricky issues and to make that judgment ourselves, to really consider it. When we are elected here, we are elected here because people want us to grapple with these difficult cases. I think it would behove the National Party to consider changing their minds on this and, actually, to take this to select committee where we can tease through those very difficult issues and try to work out where the appropriate place to draw the line is.

Now, I submit that my colleague Mr Utikere has put forward a really good proposal about where the line could be drawn. It’s not lenient. Ten years of good behaviour is quite substantial. Mind you, I say that as someone who’s only ever had one speeding ticket in their life—and some library fines and parking tickets. So badly behaved! But 10 years of good behaviour after a custodial sentence, I submit, is a place where we could draw the line. I commend this bill to the House.

NANCY LU (National) (20:28): I’m standing to share my views, especially hearing the last speaker’s response to some of the comments that were made before her. I just couldn’t believe when she said that “the National Party are cowards” because we’re putting victims first. We’ve made it very clear in our speeches to date that we said we are putting victims first. People commit crime. They serve their sentences. It is the consequence of committing crime in New Zealand. This is why we live in a rules-based country with law and order, where people feel safe to go to work, to come back home, to see their family, and to go out because people abide by the laws. When National Party are putting victims first, I just couldn’t believe that senior member, that front-bench senior member in the Opposition, in the Labour Party, calling us cowards when we say we’re putting victims first. Then, on category 2, she was making a comment to my colleague the Hon Melissa Lee a bit earlier about the offences, and then she said, “Oh, it’s a category 2 offence. It’s just the punch on the street. It doesn’t hurt anybody.”

I’m sorry—for the victims and their family, a punch, no matter what, is unacceptable. It is unforgiveable. You do not just lightly put it to say, “Oh, it’s just the punch on the street.” I’m sorry—it doesn’t work that way.

But I have to firstly say I acknowledge Tangi Utikere, who is the member who is very, very, in my opinion, lucky. I think all members who have their ideas drawn from the biscuit tin deserve to be applauded. I’m actually, in a way, envious, because many, many of us, the members across parties who work in this building, would love to see our idea being pulled from the biscuit tin one day, to have our ideas shared and debated and, hopefully, in the belief and the principle that we have, see that our bills be passed and supported across the parties. To be a member who has an idea, who, obviously, firstly has developed an idea and worked very, very hard into building that idea into a potential member’s bill, and then get pulled and drawn from the biscuit tin, requires a good idea, some hard work, and also a bit of luck. I wanted to congratulate the member in taking this bill to the House.

I do understand that he’s got some great intentions bringing this bill into the House. However, it’s just learnt through experiences that good intentions don’t really mean good bills, and certainly not in this case. That’s why I can’t support it to go to select committee, although it will.

I do believe that people can change and people deserve second chances, but I have to, again, put principle and put values first. I put up my name to go into elections. I choose to put my family at home and be here away from them because I want to serve the country in the right way. I want to protect the people and stand up for people and victims in the right way. I don’t believe, no matter if it’s at the moment, the clean slate for seven years, or later, should some be changed to 10 years—some people may walk out in 10 years’ time thinking, “Tick. I’ve done my 10 years. I’ve been a good girl or a good boy for 10 years—tick. I can now hide my past, things that I’ve done. I can finally put it to rest, sweep it under the carpet. I can move on.”

But for victims and their families, those bad experiences, those traumatising experiences, the money and funds lost, the damages, the broken ribs, the bruises—those don’t disappear in seven years or 10 years. They don’t disappear just because someone else has served 10 years or seven years or has done things that have ticked the good boxes. So although I do believe that people deserve second chances—they can move on, second chance, after the seven years. There is the clean slate available. There is in New Zealand—people can do that. But I do not agree with the Opposition, who call the National Party cowards, because we are a party that stands for victims. When we came into Government, we made a promise to reduce victims in New Zealand, and so far we have reduced 46,000 victims. That is 46,000 people who didn’t suffer injury or trauma, and that includes their families. That’s why I don’t support the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Tangi Utikere, in reply.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:33): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I firstly just thank members across the House for their contributions to the debate this evening. Particularly to the ACT Party and New Zealand First, can I thank you for your helpful and constructive contributions. To my colleagues here in Labour and in the Greens, I thank you for your positive and supportive comments. It looks as though this bill will proceed to select committee.

I want to just, very briefly, reflect on some of the points that have already been made in this debate. I want to particularly acknowledge the contribution of Laura McClure. The ACT Party, it seems, will be approaching this in a constructive way and with an open mind. The role and the impact on young people in New Zealand if we don’t get this right—it can provide a real detrimental sort of avenue for young people in this country. I agree that there needs to be a conversation around ensuring that the limitations, whether they be limitations or not, in terms of access to records, is something around public safety that is teased out through the select committee process, and, obviously, the implications on other pieces of legislation as well.

Can I acknowledge the contribution from the Hon Casey Costello. I, too, agree that many in our community can turn their lives around, and they should not have to constantly and continually, effectively, live a punishment 10 years after they’ve served their time if they are law-abiding citizens that just want to get on, want to contribute to our community and to society. I also agree that we probably will hear from a number of different submitters that have different angles on this issue, but the intention of this bill is not to create a harder pathway for victims as part of this process.

I have to say I am disappointed in the contributions from the National Party tonight. There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what this bill actually seeks to achieve and the types of convictions that this bill would cover. Many of the offences that have been referred to by the National Party tonight actually are not possible under this bill. These are category 2 offences for which a custodial sentence of less than 12 months has been imposed 10 years ago. Even if someone did commit a category 2 offence but was sentenced to a period that is 12 months or longer of a custodial nature, they would not be eligible for the provisions under this bill.

I actually agree with the earlier contribution from the National Party that at select committee we could look at where the line is drawn, what offences should be in, what offences should be out. I do think that there is still an opportunity for the National Party to support what appears to be all the other parties in this Parliament in sending this bill to select committee tonight.

I am very clear and committed to the promise, I guess, that I gave earlier in my contribution to the House, and that is I want the select committee process to work. I want the select committee to tease out the good, the bad, and the ugly, and the opportunity around this. At the end of the day, what I am doing in promoting this bill is ensuring that, actually, those that have done their time, those that should be able to get on with their life, are able to do that. I look forward, through select committee, to hearing from those advocates of victims. I will also point out that in some of these offences, there is not a victim as such. Yes, there is a conviction, but in some instances there will be and some there won’t. Sending this to select committee, that will allow for a range of people to submit to that process, I think is a good thing. I think it actually addresses a number of—I won’t say concerns, but a number of the contributions that members from the National Party have made tonight.

Once again, I thank members for their support. It is a bill that I think is going to make a huge difference. The purpose of putting it through select committee is to make it a better bill than when the Justice Committee receives it. I thank members for their ongoing support.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion, please say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Celia Wade-Brown: Party vote.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Was that a call for a party vote?

Celia Wade-Brown: Oh—no, I didn’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Wake up, please.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (20:38): The question is, That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) (Additional Eligibility) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (20:38): I move, That the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

This bill seeks to end a practice that has no place in a just society, a practice that harms women and girls in silence, in shame, and too often in the shadows and under the guise of cultural or religious expectation. Virginity testing is not a tradition or a rite of passage. It is a human rights violation that is practised in at least 20 countries that span every continent, and so it is not confined to any one community or even any one country.

I will focus on what these practices are, why I believe they should be stopped, and outline the wider changes needed, but first I want to acknowledge some people: first and foremost, women and girls who have been subjected to, pressured into, or impacted by these practices, and those who have supported them or spoken up for their rights and dignity.

One day at a public meeting that my colleague Vanushi Walters and I held, one woman raised this issue and I want to acknowledge her. Samira Ghoreishi, thank you for your perseverance. While that day was the first time I’d heard about virginity testing in New Zealand, I know it wasn’t the first time that she had raised it as an issue. Research by the Helen Clark Foundation shed further light on these practices and concluded that while it’s difficult to determine the scale of the issue in New Zealand, conversations with healthcare professionals and some impacted communities suggest that the practice is occurring here in New Zealand. I want to especially acknowledge Sophia Harré, who wrote an excellent literature review on eradicating virginity-related harm in New Zealand, that much of my speech today is based on.

When this bill was drawn from the biscuit tin, I met with a woman named Kathy Lowe, a clinical nurse specialist with 30 years of experience in matters related to virginity and hymens. Our conversation blew my mind, and I will get to that shortly, but suffice to say that it made me even more determined to champion this bill. I thank Kathy for her years of advocacy.

It was my colleague Vanushi Walters who initially decided to put up this bill. I took it on in this term of Parliament, and when she rejoined our caucus mid-term, I refused to give it up. I acknowledge her work on this and her support. I thank everyone who’s been part of this bill’s journey and ask colleagues across the House for their support to ensure that it continues its journey to select committee, to Royal assent, and finally to being part of a suite of laws that protect and uphold the rights and dignity of New Zealand women and girls.

Virginity is a social construct, a term to describe someone who hasn’t had sexual contact. It has absolutely no scientific, biological, or medical validity. I want to acknowledge that virginity isn’t an issue for everyone, but for some it is everything. According to the World Health Organization, within some groups the concept of virginity can be a significant determinant of social status, of honour and purity and personal safety; while for others it may hold little relevance. When we talk about virginity, it refers to female virginity because the understanding has always been that there’s no medical way to determine whether a man is a virgin. In addition, patriarchal, fundamentalist, religious, and cultural belief systems often create unequal, rigid gender norms and expectations for men and women that have then been used to control women’s bodily autonomy for centuries. Young men are often allowed to be sexually active before marriage, encouraged even to sow their wild oats, but young women had to be policed, chaperoned, and controlled. While I may not agree with such beliefs, I’m not here to ask Parliament to criminalise belief systems. The problem occurs when the woman or girl is required to prove that she’s a virgin. Sometimes it’s non-physical, like checking for blood on bed sheets. Sometimes it’s a physical exam that is virginity testing. It’s invasive and often called the “two-finger test”. It is humiliating, painful, and predicated on a myth.

Now, this is the bit that blew my mind. Much of the myth and misunderstanding that surrounds virginity relates to the hymen, a small tissue membrane located at the vaginal opening. Many have been taught that the hymen is like cling film and acts like a seal, that trauma can tear the hymen and that it will break when penetration occurs for the first time. This is factually incorrect. The hymen is more like a scrunchie. It expands and contracts. Like every other body part, it looks different for different people—natural variation—and it can change through life as a result of hormonal changes, genetics, and so much more. A study of over 6,000 women found only 42 percent experienced bleeding during first sexual contact, because it’s a myth that it’s like cling film. It’s also a myth that virgins always bleed. Some do—that’s because of abrasions in the vaginal wall or when there’s force.

Virginity in women also cannot be determined medically by inspecting the hymen. That too is a myth. I want to also state for the record, if anyone listening has experienced rape or sexual assault and feels that their virginity was taken from them, please know that what happened was an act of violence. Virginity is not something that can be physically or biologically determined. If it’s something you value, you carry it with you and you choose when you give it away—it cannot be taken by force. Kathy tells me that in such situations, a woman can still say she’s a virgin because she didn’t choose to give away that quality that she values. That is powerful, and I’m saying it today because I want it on the record.

Many have asked me why this practice occurs. In many cases, it’s the fear of stigma, the loss of marriage prospects, community pressure, or family sanction that can result in unmarried girls or women being forced to undergo a virginity test. Sometimes young women request it out of concern for their safety or in response to social pressures or coercion. The impacts of virginity testing often extend beyond that specific physical exam and can result in long-term trauma, pain, and significant risk associated with failing a test. Women and girls who are deemed to have failed it are considered impure and can be excluded from their wider communities and support networks, physically abused, and sometimes it can be life threatening.

Hymenoplasty is known as hymen repair or reconstruction. It’s a surgical procedure that claims to rebuild the hymen. It’s been likened to female genital mutilation that was banned in New Zealand in 1996. Like virginity testing, the basis of hymenoplasty relies on myths about the hymen and not any medically relevant science-based understanding of anatomy. A study explored the reasons why women ask for it. Almost half of the participants in that study had a history of sexual violence and all of them either wanted to bleed again or feel tight. Almost 90 percent of the women who had it didn’t bleed during first sexual contact after the procedure, and that suggests that that is not an effective procedure. It can also lead to serious medical complications, and to be clear, it is distinct from legitimate procedures that could be performed on the hymen for clinical reasons.

Now, legislation alone is insufficient. We know that it needs to be accompanied by education through schools to all children, through various community organisations in ways that are safe, culturally appropriate, and tailored to their unique needs, and to medical professionals. Currently, only some of them get this training. Medical professionals have said that they have witnessed virginity testing being asked for in New Zealand. Specialist sexual violence service providers who had received such requests, they felt comfortable in responding with education about virginity, but other medical professionals didn’t feel equipped to be able to respond to those requests appropriately. They need better guidance.

A number of comparable jurisdictions have taken legal action against these practices, including in the United Kingdom in 2022, France in 2021, and most recently, Luxembourg in 2025. This bill was modelled after similar legislation in the UK and, as such, proposes criminal action against people who order or conduct virginity tests and hymenoplasty. This includes anyone who takes a child under 18 overseas for such procedures and specifies that consent is not a defence. However, having worked with young women who were forced into marriage—yet another form of honour-based violence that is often hidden—I know that hardly any young person wants to criminalise their own family, so I ask the select committee to pay specific attention to this and determine whether a civil pathway should also be considered, and, if so, what that should look like.

This is a bill that is ultimately about the rights and dignity of women and girls, and it’s about creating a system that is equipped to uphold them. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (20:48): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure again to rise and stand on behalf of National in support of this bill. The Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill is an example of an excellent piece of work that has been well researched and evidenced and we are proud as National to be able to support it. Thank you and congratulations to the honourable member for bringing this to the House. It’s a great thing to have it pulled from the tin, and as this is debated, I’m sure a lot of people will learn many things, and I do commend you for your excellent speech in introducing this and explaining some of the real problems that exist; the myths that are surrounding the concept of the supposed idea of a medical or clinical ability to test for virginity.

If something is testable, you should be able to say how reliable that test is. If a test has a less than 50 percent chance of being a positive and true test, it is in no way reliable. Some of the evidence that you spoke about showed that there is no validity in testing for virginity. Virginity, supposedly, or the damage of a hymen—a hymen can be damaged for so many reasons. There are physiological variations that are completely normal. There are also things like riding a bicycle or a horse or just running that can be enough to change the physical appearance of the hymen. Therefore, placing any kind of societal importance on the presence of that piece of tissue makes absolutely no sense.

That’s not even talking about the completely illogical way that women are treated, and their virginity is given some kind of importance. Now, that’s a philosophical discussion and a point of view that may be debatable, but from my perspective as a strong feminist who’s happy to call herself a feminist, the idea that a woman’s value should in any way, shape, or form have any relationship at all to her sexuality status and the number of people she may have had sexual intercourse with is completely irrelevant to her value—is completely irrelevant to any person’s value. As a person, we should each be judged on our contributions to society, on the status of our character, on the kinds of things that we give to other people and the energy that we bring to relationships—not on the presence or absence of a tiny little piece of skin.

As has been pointed out, men’s virginity or male virginity is never taken into question. That highlights some of the fundamental gender inequality. In New Zealand, we like to think of ourselves as being one of the most progressive nations in the world when it comes to the status of women. However, the sheer fact that things like this are happening in our country shows that none of us should ever rest on our laurels. We should never ever think that the battle has been won. The only time that we are at risk of going backwards in terms of the rights of women is if we start to think for a second that the battle is won, because there are fronts opening up all around the world, all of the time.

One of the places in the world where this kind of thing probably happens all the time is Afghanistan. The rights and status of women in Afghanistan and everything terrible that’s happening to them shows us that any one of us in any country in the world could go backwards if conditions weren’t right, or if they’re terribly, terribly wrong. The status of women and the political status of gender and sexual rights and reproductive rights in the United States of America should show us all that the status of women can be changed over time. The battle has not been won. I do commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to seeing its passage as it goes through.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to make clear—and I should have at the beginning of this—that this is a split call. I call Nancy Lu for the second half of this call.

NANCY LU (National) (20:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for actually giving me the opportunity, and thanks to my colleague for sharing some time with me so I can share some of my reflections and reading about this member’s bill. First of all, congratulations to Priyanca. I think it’s evident, actually, for many members sitting in this room—many of us women—who do feel, I think, in a way it is funny that, in 2026 in New Zealand, we’re talking about banning a virginity test for females, in whatever way that it comes to what it is today.

I thank Priyanca for bringing this forward. As a woman myself and, also, as a mother of two young girls, I would like for them to grow up in a country where ethnicity is celebrated and is embraced, where gender is celebrated and is embraced, and where such actions—such intrusive and traumatising actions—are absolutely and clearly banned. This is the country that I want to see my girls grow up in. So I thank you. I’m also envious of the luck that you have, of having your bill drawn from the biscuit tin, because I think all the members sitting in Parliament would love for our names to be pulled at midday when it’s a members’ ballot day, because we all have brilliant ideas that we want to bring into the House and, actually, use the opportunity during select committee to hear from the public—to hear from New Zealanders around the country of all backgrounds and from all walks of life—what they think of a particular member’s bill and to have the recommendations heard from the public, and for them to have the opportunity to talk to members of Parliament, should they wish to connect.

The National Party is supporting this bill to select committee, obviously based on the principle that we should be protecting New Zealanders, every New Zealander living in this country, but also including New Zealanders who, with the amendments in this bill, will be protected should they be taken out of New Zealand for such traumatising actions.

Also, I want to use the very limited time that I have in the House to share that it also adds to who we are as ethnic MPs culturally. As Priyanca said in her initial speech, for many, in my opinion, unethical reasons, particularly in ethnic cultures, such testing or such belief to have to test females on this is quite a cultural thing. Then, also, often it is behind closed doors at dinner tables where young female or young children who have certain ideas or questions are afraid of raising it with their parents, because it’s considered culturally sensitive or taboo. The fact that we are now debating a bill to potentially legally and clearly ban such traumatising actions in New Zealand, I think, helps many, many ethnic communities that we have in New Zealand to make it very clear what is acceptable, what is legal, and what is not acceptable in New Zealand.

This practice, as was actually shared by my colleague a bit earlier—and that is Dr Vanessa Weenink, who is an expert for me; I go to her for medical advice—she also shared in her work experience that such practice of so-called testing of that membrane is actually not scientific. It is absolutely intrusive.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: It’s nonsense.

NANCY LU: It is a nonsense. There you go: it’s nonsense, quoting Dr Vanessa Weenink. It’s nonsense—it’s nonsense—and it’s traumatising for girls and women, and to actually even imagine what such test results could deliver for such a person or such an individual. I really commend this bill to be taken to the select committee.

I want to use this opportunity, as some of the public—New Zealanders—don’t quite understand what members’ day means in New Zealand. Often, they kind of come to me and go, “Really? Out of everything that is happening around the world right now, you guys are talking about this particular bill?” Well, yes; that’s what members’ days are for, and the public should seize the opportunity to bring their recommendations and their feedback and their support for members’ ideas that are raised during a members’ day. I look forward to further work in the select committee. Thank you.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:58): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan for bringing this forward, and I would also like to acknowledge her role, together with Jenny Marcroft, Jo Hayes, and Golriz Ghahraman, in bringing forward the female genital mutilation legislation some years ago. These pieces of legislation are both about protecting women.

The World Health Organization—that, generally, New Zealand still supports, thank goodness—classifies virginity testing as the physical inspection of female genitalia. As was mentioned, nobody seems to care about whether a man is a virgin or not, and, in fact, I suspect that if one were to assert that some members in this House were virgins, the males would be insulted, which is ridiculous. It is a pseudoscientific, medically unnecessary, invasive, and patriarchal practice. As people with more medical knowledge than myself have said, it doesn’t tell you anything, but let’s think: even if it could tell you definitively, it would be absolutely abhorrent.

I am very pleased to see that we will be bringing this publicly, openly, as part of a wider education discussion that can start in this House and move into a range of different cultural backgrounds. The sad part is that often this testing is supported by other women, and we have to understand the context that that comes in, and support the change rather than demonise the practice.

I would like to finish by acknowledging that we have heard several really varied pieces of legislation tonight, whether it’s life jackets, whether it’s clean slate, whether it’s this virginity testing practices bill. I note that Nancy Lu, for example, said that it was a matter of luck that these came through. There is another way of getting sensible members’ bills into debate in this House. We have got the opportunity of the route of 61 non-executive members to support these things so we don’t have to rely on luck. They cover such a wide number of areas, and I think this House needs to think very carefully about making more use of that cross-party support for legislation. I will nevertheless be keeping my fingers crossed for tomorrow’s ballot too. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence) (21:02): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be able to stand today on behalf of ACT and support this bill. I’m really grateful for the fact that the member has brought this bill through on a members’ day. There are lots of different ways for legislation such as this to happen, but sometimes this is actually a quicker route than waiting for the backed-up legislation of Government bills at the moment.

As the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, I often go up and down the country talking to many people. One of the saddest things I heard was from some young people who were afraid to speak up about the fact that they had been raped, because they thought that they would be judged for their sexual behaviour, even though they hadn’t consented to that behaviour. For that very reason, they didn’t speak to their family members about the rape that happened to them. The practice of virginity testing just reinforces the fact that, even when sexual consent isn’t there, the judgment would still be there with a test such as this.

I just heard a statement that was made that made me feel a little bit sad. I heard that the test wasn’t reliable and this was one of the reasons why we shouldn’t be testing. We shouldn’t be testing at all. You shouldn’t be putting a woman’s worth in the hands of a test to say whether they’re a virgin or not. Whether the test is reliable or unreliable, this is not the point. The point of the matter is a woman’s worth should not be around their sexual behaviour and whether they are a virgin or not. A woman shouldn’t be judged based on that. Whether or not the test is reliable or unreliable, quite frankly, to me, has nothing to do with the reason why I’m supporting this bill. But, yes, there is no medical, scientific, or ethical basis for these tests. It’s a harmful practice that violates the dignity and rights of women and girls. Such practices cause discrimination and control over women’s bodies. It has no place in New Zealand, but there is no law that is explicitly criminalising this practice. But there soon will be, and thank goodness for that.

We are also looking at the practice of the hymenoplasty procedure. I was just listening to the member speaking around the reasons why women do this procedure. It’s really sad that women feel they have to make themselves something they’re not just to be good enough for people who are going to judge them on that. This practice just needs to stop. I heard about this not so long ago, and I was actually horrified to realise that this practice was being asked about. This was actually something that hadn’t been raised with me up and down the country as a particular issue, but as soon as I heard about this, I knew that this was something I would like to see criminalised, and I was very grateful when I saw it drawn from the ballot.

My concern was around families sending them overseas for this practice to happen, so I’m really grateful to see that we’re closing that loophole and making sure that we’re keeping our young people safe, particularly our under-18s, from being sent overseas for this practice. I agree that there may be another option to look at, whether it’s criminalisation or whether there’s some kind of other way to deal with the consequence so that we do have people speaking up.

I look forward to seeing what the select committee does with this, and the conversation, as well, that is so important to be had. The more we talk about these things, the better it is for us, because we can’t fix what we don’t know. I’m grateful, once again, for this being brought to the House today.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (21:07): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill Crimes. From the outset, I will state that New Zealand First will be supporting this piece of legislation to the select committee.

There is a great deal of comfort that I take in the fact that there is recognition today in the House that there are specific rights and protections needed for women because they are women, that we have unique conditions and concerns based upon our sexual biology, and, therefore, that this bill is recognising that. I would commend my colleague Jenny Marcroft for her legislation that is seeking to ensure these definitions are applied in law.

It is with some hesitation that I recognise the importance of this bill—and I do: women need absolute protections; without hesitation I recognise that. But I think we also have to be cognisant of an adult woman being able to make decisions that she wishes to make for her body, and therefore the encroachment of her inability to seek medical consultation, however she sees fit as a person who is an independent adult and able to make those decisions, should be protected. A law that would walk into a medical consultation room between an adult woman and her medical provider—whatever conditions or whatever treatment she seeks to take, it is her body and, therefore, she should be able to make those decisions. Yes, of course, when there’s coercion, when there are other considerations, we need to ensure the law will protect them from that. No woman should be required to do that. But it is still an adult woman’s choice we’re talking about here, in some instances.

I would like to see the select committee ensure that there is protection for a woman who seeks medical consultation, and to allow discussions about what she wants to have checked or done to her body as her choice. I would not like to see that criminalised.

In the same token, we have to respect religious choice. We have to respect religions of different choices that value different things. This is not to say that we are devaluing a woman because she’s not a virgin, but the fact that a woman chooses to be a virgin and chooses to ensure that her body is protected and valued in that way—she should not be somehow slighted or slanted because that is her choice based upon religious belief or whatever pathway she chooses to take.

I think we have to be careful in this piece of legislation that when we are affording protections to women, we are very cognisant of all of the decisions that a woman is entitled to make about her body. Therefore, we also have to be equally cognisant of their religious choices and how they choose to believe and how they choose to value their body. I would hate to see this House choosing to say that some religious choices are of more value than other religious choices. Therefore, we need to ensure that this legislation is protecting those women who are adults who are choosing to take a pathway.

I’m not talking about any type of discrediting or coercion or enforcing women to do certain practices. I’m not talking about the ability to have freedom from being exploited or traded by any way. But it is about ensuring that women do have choices, that we respect religions that are different to our own, and that we ensure that a woman can have medical consultations, and fundamentally that we recognise the uniqueness of women—that women have needs for specific protections because of their biology, because of who they are as women.

Therefore, we will absolutely support this bill to the select committee. But I would like to ensure that we consider all aspects of this and, fundamentally, that it is important we do recognise that being a woman is a specifically unique need for protection in certain aspects of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:12):

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

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

I rise to support this bill and would like to mihi to the member the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her member’s bill being pulled out of the ballot. Not only that, but the education that I’ve learnt myself tonight and other young girls across the country watching your first reading speech. I just want to commend you and your member’s bill.

This is the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to protect vulnerable women and girls by amending the Crimes Act 1961 and introducing new offences that criminalise virginity testing and the related practice. Te Pāti Māori proudly supports this bill. This is about one simple principle: the fact that your body can be subject to an invasion of privacy and even up for thought or whakaaro to get tested is mind-blowing to me. But also, the bodies of wāhine and girls are not for inspection, control, or policing. What this bill does is make virginity testing illegal, criminalises the related practice when used to reinforce harmful ideas around virginity, and protects vulnerable women and girls from force and honour-based abuse.

What we’ve heard across the floor tonight is that virginity testing is a myth, not medicine. There is no medical or scientific way to determine whether someone has had sexual intercourse by examining them. The World Health Organization, UN Women, and the United Nations have all concluded that virginity testing has no scientific validity. It is medically unnecessary and it is a violation of human rights.

I also want to touch on some of the relevant statistics. Around 38 countries have introduced laws or policies banning virginity testing or prohibiting healthcare workers from carrying it out. The World Health Organization states there is 100 percent no scientific evidence that examining can determine whether someone has had sexual intercourse or not.

I also want to touch on some of the other members’ bills that have been brought into this House this term around the kaupapa of not consenting. For example, we’ve also had Laura McClure’s bill that we’ve supported in terms of AI deep fakes and not having your body consented to being on artificial pornography online as well; and also supporting this bill, which is banning virginity testing practices.

We’re also hearing from across the House tonight around how we do not test males or men for virginity testing. The fact that we, as a country, have been really progressive in supporting women’s rights—the first country to support women voting as well—it’s important that we support this bill. I quote from Auckland clinical nurse specialist in family violence, Kathy Lowe: “For me it’s not a women’s issue it’s [a] human rights issue, it affects men and women. Imagine if we told men that they had virgin semen and the first time they lost it they weren’t a virgin any more and they had to go to a doctor to prove that they were still a virgin before they were allowed to be married.”

Tonight, I just want to bring some of the evidence, the testimonies, acknowledging the statistics from across the world and the data, but also the ethical morals of making sure that we support this bill and congratulating the member.Tēnā rā koe .

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (21:17): I really want to acknowledge the Helen Clark Foundation and the work that they have produced here; the research; people like Sophia Harré who have really shone a light on the existence of this practice in New Zealand. I think that many of us in this Chamber and many more of those outside of the Chamber would not have been aware of the fact that this practice existed in New Zealand or the extent of the practice. I also want to acknowledge the honourable member Vanushi Walters for initially bringing the bill to the House, but of course my good friend Priyanca Radhakrishnan for continuing that work and for having the good luck and good fortune, not just for herself, of having the bill drawn from the ballot.

It’s been very interesting watching the House as this debate has unfolded. I want to acknowledge the parliamentary colleagues who have been watching with great interest and listening, particularly to the speech of Priyanca Radhakrishnan and the level of detail that was provided. I do want to acknowledge Vanessa Weenink and Catherine Wedd and Greg Fleming for the attention that they have paid to the detail that has been given in the House tonight because it is a very important matter.

I want to go back to something that Priyanca Radhakrishnan said earlier, and that is the fact that this is not an issue that sits squarely with one ethnicity, community, or religion. It was a point that was clearly stated in the research that came through from the Helen Clark Foundation. We need to be very clear about that in the House because some of the speeches that followed on were perhaps a little bit out of step with that initial assertion that Priyanca Radhakrishnan made. I think that people could be perhaps surprised to learn where this practice has been undertaken and across the many different communities and circumstances in which it happens. But we must make that very clear.

We also have to be very clear about the misogynist nature of this practice, and the fact that this practice is deeply rooted in misogynist systems.

I worry about a contribution, even though I know it was well intended by the New Zealand First Minister, talking about the fact that adult women should have the choice to undertake this particular procedure when, actually, the Minister, the member, doesn’t seem to understand—

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I never said that an adult woman should have the right to take that procedure. I said an adult woman should have the right to have a consultation with a medical doctor without the law intervening. I never said about having a procedure.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, and that is correct—and I was about to mention that. I was just watching to see where that was going. I think the Hon Casey Costello was very careful with her words, and she also suggested that it would be something that would potentially come up at select committee. I’m happy that the member Casey Costello actually didn’t cross that line.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Madam Speaker, I do want to put on record that medical practitioners in New Zealand will not undertake the practice, so I think they would also steer clear of providing consultation or advice on this practice, given the nature of the practice and the general view of medical practitioners here in New Zealand. It’s important to put on record because what we know is that misogyny is a slippery slope. This is a practice that is deeply rooted in misogynist systems. As a country that has a wonderful record for being progressive in so many ways, we need to make sure that we are keeping ourselves in check with respect to all areas where we see misogyny. That was the point that I wanted to make.

I’m really concerned about the fact that this is still happening in New Zealand. I am heartened by the fact that, I think, there are around 12 countries who have taken the step that this bill is looking to do for New Zealand. But isn’t it absolutely shocking that only 12 countries—only 12 other countries—have made the decision to ban this practice? I absolutely support this bill, along with all of my colleagues here. I’m heartened that Priyanca Radhakrishnan has support across the House, and I look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through select committee and into final reading here in the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (21:22): I rise to support the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill, which will help progress the sexual reproductive health rights of girls and women. I want to congratulate the member and echo a lot of the sentiment that we’ve heard in the House tonight, on your great work in bringing this to the House, putting the spotlight on it, and saying it’s not OK in New Zealand.

Banning virginity testing protects women and girls from practices that violate their dignity, wellbeing, and fundamental rights. We must ensure that every woman and girl in New Zealand is safeguarded from harm and can live their life without violence and discrimination. Virginity testing is a harmful practice that has been condemned by health professionals, human rights advocates, and governments worldwide. It is invasive, unscientific, and psychologically damaging. It undermines the autonomy of women and girls.

As we’ve already heard, there are other countries that have already moved around the world, and this bill ensures that we ban it here in New Zealand. As we’ve also already heard, New Zealand is a progressive country when it comes to women’s rights. Of course, we were the first country in the world to give women the vote, and we must continue to progress.

National is continuing to support the rights of women and girls. We’ve criminalised stalking, ensuring that women and girls are safe from persistent harassment. We’ve announced that we will change the consent laws, and we’re also funding better post-natal care in New Zealand so that every woman has a legal entitlement to three days’ stay after giving birth. We’re also working to protect young girls from online harm. I also had the luck of my member’s bill being drawn—a member’s bill to ban social media for under-16s, which, of course, will also protect young girls from harm.

As the chair of the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD), and a strong feminist myself, it’s been a privilege to stand up for the advancement of the sexual reproductive health rights of women and girls. I would also like to acknowledge Priyanca Radhakrishnan for your work on this group as well, NZPPD, because this is also really, really important work for advancing the sexual reproductive health rights of women and girls.

Our work at NZPPD has included championing access to comprehensive reproductive health services, promoting education around consent and bodily autonomy, and ensuring that every woman and girl in New Zealand is equipped with the tools they need to make informed decisions about their health and their future. I’ve spoken at length about the urgent need to protect women and girls from practices that compromise their physical and mental wellbeing. Virginity testing is one such practice—stuck in the outdated notions of honour and virtue that have been used to control and suppress women for generations. This is not OK. By banning this practice, we take a stand—not just for women and girls, but for the values of respect, equality, and justice that underpin our society.

This bill is a concrete step towards greater protection and empowerment. It sends a clear message to New Zealanders and to the world that we will not tolerate violations of bodily integrity. It also aligns us with the best international practice, affirming our commitment to upholding human rights. As chair of NZPPD, I know how critical it is to continue promoting the sexual reproductive health rights of women. Because when women and girls are safe, educated, and empowered, our society, as a whole, prospers.

It is really great tonight to see that we have cross-party support on this really important issue, and it does show that sometimes we can work across parties to protect our most vulnerable. Progress in this area often cannot be achieved by one party alone—it is a collective responsibility. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:27): Madam Speaker, thank you. First of all, I just want to say congratulations to Priyanca Radhakrishnan for the drawing of this bill and also to Vanushi Walters, who was very much part of the Helen Clark Foundation team that looked at this and developed this bill, I think, in the last Parliament. It’s been a long time coming.

I want to talk about misogyny and the issues around it, because I think that this bill is the tip of the iceberg. We have a situation where things are moving quite fast, and they’re moving back to a very misogynistic viewpoint from quite a few people in our society who wouldn’t have held those views even a decade ago. We are seeing younger men being told that women are second-class citizens; we are seeing people join that kind of view internationally. It is of great concern to me that this isn’t something that is isolated; it is flooding through our society at present. We’re going to have to be vigilant.

I want to tell you a story about a woman that I had at an event about a year ago. She’s from Afghanistan, and she’d come into New Zealand having been a family violence judge in Afghanistan. She was airlifted out with her family because she was in real danger. One of the men that she had sent to prison had killed his wife because she had a cellphone, and he was released by the Taliban.

She was in real danger. I think that she gets her law degree this week in New Zealand—very, very close to getting that degree and being able to go back to her craft in New Zealand. She was at an event for me and we were talking about women getting the vote in New Zealand. She talked about how these things that she thought were firm in her own country disappeared overnight; they lost so much. Last week I was at the Wesley Market and I was talking to a man about whether I could help him in his immigration case for his daughter who has a physics degree, was a professor in Kabul, and is now in her own home and is deeply depressed because she can’t go out; she can’t have a job, and she can’t do what she needs to do. There’s very little I can do for her because she’s going through our immigration system. There’s very little that I can do to support someone who deeply needs support.

That is what we are facing around the world. I’ve taken the example of Afghanistan but I could as well take the example of America. I am very concerned about some of the belligerence and misogyny that I am seeing building up in countries which tolerate sexual assault by people who are in power. We are equating bullying with leadership. Those things set us back. Machismo bullying is not leadership, and we are getting a movement towards this. Things like this help a little bit but we need to see the whole picture and we need to move against it strongly and supportively in this Parliament. We need to wake up and see it and make sure that at every stage, we are saying no: virginity testing, we say no. We’ll be supporting this bill through, and we hope everyone else will too.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:32): Madam Speaker, I’m feeling very feminist today and I feel like it’s a great time to talk about a bill such as this. I want to take a minute to talk about something I really appreciate about our Parliament: our Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP). We meet regularly, we don’t always have the same views because we’re not all of the same political parties, but there are some issues that we all get together, listen to some very wise positions and perspectives of, sometimes former Ministers, former officials, current officials, you name it, and they come to our committee and they talk about these issues, and you just can’t argue with the facts.

I feel very appreciative that we’re here tonight speaking in support of Priyanca’s bill which, honestly, within maybe weeks, Priyanca, we were talking about this, and your bill gets pulled out of the biscuit tin. It’s amazing to be able to stand in support of something and let politics sit to the side and go, actually, whether people want to dispute how often this happens, whether it’s relevant, or the science of it, or not the science of it, that it just shouldn’t be something that we’re doing in 2026. Actually, only women should be responsible for their own virginity and whether or not that is in fact the case and how they define that; only women should be able to do that, and only the individual women themselves, in question. Sadly, the fact that we have to legislate this in the first place is a problem, but really pleased to be part of a wide group of people that support something like this because I think that there are a lot of young girls out there and women that perhaps have gone through this, sadly, over their lives, that will be very grateful that there are a group of people in this current Parliament—men included—who think that this concept is obscene.

I’m really, really grateful that I am serving as an MP in 2026. I’m grateful that I’m the 186^th woman in Parliament, which is actually crazy just to think that; I’m sitting next to—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: 195.

KATIE NIMON: One hundred and ninety-five.

Catherine Wedd: 194

KATIE NIMON: One hundred and ninety-four. There’s been many more men—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: 107.

KATIE NIMON: One hundred and seven; there you go, Carmel Sepuloni. This is the point: actually, our voice really matters because if you went back 40, 50 years or even, I’d challenge, 20 or 10 years ago, this is not necessarily something that we would have been able to get to our caucuses and say, “This really matters and this is why we need to support this together.” It brings a really nice flavour to our members’ night.

I know all colleagues across the House have talked about the science of it, and—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Or not.

KATIE NIMON: —yeah, or not, or lack of science. This is not just an ethnic issue; this is around instances of rape and proving whether rape occurred. It happens to people in the most vulnerable time, and we should be empowering young women in such a way where the argument of virginity or lack thereof is just not something that we bring into question, legality, or science, pseudoscience. I think that this is one of those cultural things that is a safeguard for future generations. The law changing might not mean that next week a young girl in a particular household or a young woman in a particular case is no longer subject to things like this happening because we know when we change the law that it doesn’t mean that things happen overnight. We do these things sometimes to change the culture, and we also expect that they take effect over a period of time, but I know that there will be a lot of people thinking, “Actually, I’ve got a protection. It’s something that I can say.”

I mean, I take myself back to when the anti-smacking law came in and all of a sudden every child and sundry says, “You can’t touch me. I’m calling the police.” Not that that was necessarily going to be the case but it meant that children felt empowered. I think in some of these cases, these young women will feel empowered and young girls will feel empowered that they are solely responsible and have the complete right to protect their own personal story. We don’t even need to talk about virginity or not virginity; it is your personal story. I just feel very proud to stand here, riding the wave of feminism as I have since I was a young girl, not even knowing what feminism was, telling my dad, “Women can do any job they want.” Now, when I’m mentoring young women, I say. “Women can do anything. They don’t have to do everything.” This is very cool. Glad to be a part of this, and I really look forward to seeing it progress, and power to the CWP. I commend the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Priyanca Radhakrishnan, in reply.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (21:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I begin by thanking colleagues across the House for supporting this bill. It’s reasonably clear that this bill will make its way to select committee and will be examined by the select committee in great detail, so thank you, and particularly wonderful to hear the feminist contributions from that side of the House, as well, so I thank members for that.

I also thank members who have made it very clear that this is not an issue that is confined to any particular ethnic community, and I want to emphasise that. I think members will be quite surprised to learn how it is something that is experienced, or women from various communities are subjected to currently in Aotearoa New Zealand. I also want to emphasise that the only culture that perpetuates this practice is the culture of patriarchy.

Just to clarify a point that was made, I think by Hon Karen Chhour, who said quite rightly that she believes that this should just not be practiced—the practice of virginity testing and hymenoplasty—and not because it is not reliable as a test. I just want to clarify for the record that that wasn’t the point that I was making. I was making the point that people believe that it is a practice that is rooted in medical evidence or science, but it’s not. So some people who practice it or subject others to it believe that they’re actually doing the right thing because it’s based in medicine, but it’s actually not. I, too, am very clear that it is a human rights violation.

To the point that the Hon Casey Costello made—and I take her point that she was saying that adult women should be able to decide for themselves to have a medical consultation and that she would like for that to be teased out at the select committee, and I absolutely would support the right of women to make any choice that they would like to make. The point here, though—and I’ve just had a had some comms with Kathy Lowe, who has spelt this out as well—is that the problem is that very few doctors actually are trained around the myth of hymens and virginity.

I mean, Kathy is one person who has been training MEDSAC doctors particularly, so that’s the Medical Sexual Assault Clinicians Aotearoa; a very few doctors from Auckland Hospital; and mostly nurses and social workers. That speaks to the point that I made about the necessity to broaden the scope of training for medical professionals as well, so that people can have medical consultations and then be quite rightly told that there’s no medical basis for a practice like this.

The final point that I would like to make in my reply is to encourage everyone, anyone who has experienced or been impacted by virginity testing or the related practice of hymenoplasty to please submit to the select committee. I want to also put on the record that there are ways in which submissions can be made where it is made in private or secret and the details of the individual making the submission can be kept confidential by the select committee and by this House—and just also clarifying that that must be put in writing when a written submission is made to a select committee. If evidence is given in private, that information will be kept confidential until the select committee reports back to this House. If it is given in secret, it will always remain confidential in perpetuity, but the downside is that the details that are shared, the evidence that is shared, can never be used publicly.

I just want to make it very clear that people should give evidence. It can be given in ways that their information is kept confidential. There are two different ways there, and there are upsides and downsides to both. However, I look forward to this bill being considered by the Governance and Administration Committee. Once again, I end where I began, with a word of thanks to everyone who has come forward who has helped this bill on its journey to this point in this Parliament, and to all my colleagues from both sides of the House for their unanimous support. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (21:42): The question is, That the Crimes (Virginity Testing Practices) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) (21:42): I move, That the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

At its heart, this bill is about a very simple question: who is actually in charge of our local councils, the people elected by the public or the people who are not? That may sound abstract, but it’s not. Picture a councillor in a meeting room about to vote on whether her council should sell its airport shares. She is told there may be a personal legal risk if she votes one way or another. She asks to see the legal advice that explains those risks. The advice exists. Ratepayers paid for it, but the access is refused, yet she is still expected to vote.

That is not a hypothetical example. That is what happened at Wellington City Council during the debate over the proposed sale of the airport shares. Elected councillors were expected to carry responsibility for a major decision but were denied the information they needed to make that decision. That goes to the heart of this bill. Democracy does not work if elected representatives are accountable for decisions but are unable to access the information, advice, and authority needed to make them.

This bill is not an attack on council staff. Most council officials across New Zealand do difficult work professionally and under pressure. Councils need capable chief executives and skilled managers to deliver services, manage complex projects, and keep organisations running, but there is a clear difference between management and governance. Managers manage; elected representatives govern. When that line becomes blurred, accountability breaks down. New Zealanders elect mayors and councillors because they expect them to set priorities, make decisions, and answer for the results, but increasingly, voters find that the people they elect do not always have the practical power to do the job.

The genesis of this bill came when I looked at the Local Government Act and realised that there was a deficiency from a governance perspective. Drawing on my own experience as a former board chairman, it was clear that the relationship between elected members of council and council management was not as clear as it should be, particularly when it comes to information. The Wellington case shows the point clearly. Councillors were expected to make a decision without access to the legal advice needed to understand the risk and discharge their duties properly.

Sadly, this is not the only example. In Queenstown Lakes District Council, a councillor had to use the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to try to obtain information about a major $2 billion development, only for that request to be declined. In Hawke’s Bay, disputes arose over whether key council decisions had effectively been predetermined behind closed doors, with information being held through formal processes. In Napier, councillors used formal information requests to discover why council staff had compiled material about their social media activity. In Auckland, elected members who believed they had not been properly informed about a significant contract had to turn to legal processes to compel the release of information. In Nelson, a councillor seeking basic operational data found the request treated as a formal information request, and it was ultimately refused.

These examples point to the same underlying problem. When elected representatives have to fight their own organisations for information, governance is not working as it should. When councillors must use the same legal tools as any member of the public just to understand what is happening inside their own council, that is not transparency; it is obstruction. Ratepayers see councillors struggling with basic delivery, rising costs, delayed projects, strained infrastructure, and decisions that appear to drift away from the priorities people voted for. They are then told to hold their elected representatives accountable, even when those representatives may not have had the information or authority needed to shape the decision. That is unfair to voters, that is unfair to councillors, and, ultimately, it is bad for local government.

This bill addresses that imbalance in three practical ways. First, it makes clear that the chief executive is subject to the direction and supervision of the governing body. That is the ordinary principle that those employed to manage an organisation are accountable to those elected to govern it. Second, it affirms that elected members have the authority to direct the management of council activities. That does not mean councillors interfering in operational matters; it means the council will get on with the priorities of those elected to govern it. Third, it ensures councillors can seek independent advice. That is essential. A governing body cannot properly test advice if all information is filtered through the management structure it oversees.

Independent advice allows councillors to ask informed questions, weigh options, and make decisions they can stand behind. These are not radical ideas; they are standard governance principles. A company board, a charity trust, or a school board would expect access to the information needed to govern. Local government should be no different. This will not politicise council management. This bill does not remove professional development, stop chief executives running councils day to day, or turn councillors into managers. It simply makes clear that management remains accountable to governance, and governance has the tools to do the job. The real risk is not that elected representatives know too much; the real risk is that they are expected to vote without knowing enough. We cannot have a system where unelected officials decide what the elected governing body is permitted to see and where responsibility sits in one place but power sits somewhere else.

This matters because local government is closest to people’s daily lives—roads, water, waste, planning, libraries, parks, footpaths, and their rates bill. People notice when services fail and when costs rise. This bill also matters because it helps strengthen local democracy at a time when local election turnout has fallen to 39 percent—its lowest level ever. Strengthening the governance function will help restore public confidence and will ensure councils deliver the basics well. New Zealanders also expect something more fundamental: that the people they have elected are the people making the key decisions and that those people have the information needed to make them responsibly. When that does not happen, confidence erodes; people begin to feel that voting doesn’t change much.

Every time an elected member is denied information, and every time a councillor has to lodge a formal request to understand their own council’s business, that confidence is weakened. This bill is a practical response to that problem. It restores balance, it strengthens transparency, and it makes accountability real by ensuring elected representatives have both responsibility and authority. It says to ratepayers that the vote they cast still reaches the table where decisions are made; it says to councillors that, if they are expected to answer for decisions, they must be able to see the information behind them; and it says professional management is vital, but it must serve democratic governance, not replace it.

This is a modest bill, but it addresses an important principle—that is, that local democracy cannot function if elected members are not empowered to govern. This bill restores that proper order. Managers can manage, elected representatives can govern, and voters can see who is responsible. I commend this bill to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:53): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Look, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the Government’s senior whip, Mr Smith, on having this bill drawn from the ballot. I know he’s had a previous bill drawn around cellar door sales, so I’m not too sure—

Stuart Smith: It’s number three.

TANGI UTIKERE: It’s number three, is it? OK. There we go. Look, it’s always good to acknowledge the fact that on members’ day we could have bills drawn, and so I want to acknowledge Mr Smith on having his bill drawn.

From the get-go, Labour will be supporting this bill, this evening, through to select committee. The member in charge of the bill is right; it is a modest bill. It’s a very small bill, but we believe that it actually delivers on an issue in an area that is vitally important when it comes to democracy but, even more so, when it comes to accountability. There are many members of this House who have sat around a local government decision-making table—some of them have sat at the head of that particular table. When elected members are elected by their community, they need to have access to the information. They need to understand what lies behind decisions and directions that are taken. When we talk about “them”, we talk about them as an individual in their role, being able to have access to information, and Stuart Smith’s bill seeks to achieve that, but it also underscores the importance of the collective being able to make decisions.

One of the things that’s really vital in the member’s bill is that it’s not about individual elected members giving direction to a chief executive; it is still the governing body of the local territorial authority doing that. On the one hand, it empowers local elected members to have access to information, which is a good thing, and also to independently seek additional advice outside of the advice provided by the chief executive if an elected member chooses to do that in order to do the job that they’ve been elected to do. It also makes sure that we don’t have rogue councillors and rogue elected members who are off trying to issue directives towards the chief executive when that is not the view of the collective decision-making table.

We do think that there are a couple of very important protections, and one the member himself has touched on is around the role of staff, and we certainly accept that this is not a bill seeking to attack staff per se. The fact that the protection, in terms of the employment of staff, is something that still sits in the responsibility realm of the chief executive is important. The moment you start having political interference in that process, I think, can be very, very difficult—particularly given that the responsibility of elected members is collectively to make decisions on who the chief executive should be. Ensuring that that responsibility remains with the chief executive is important.

The other is around the need for those collective decisions to be taken. There is one aspect that we do have some hesitancy around, but we think the select committee is the right place to tease some of that out. It is around the important nature of the separation of regulatory functions and how far a governing body could give some direction to the chief executive that might create a bit of tension around the regulatory powers and functions that local councils undertake. A lot of this, my colleague Arena Williams is very familiar with in the building and construction space, where there are real discrete and not so discrete regulatory powers that are given over to those warrant holding officers. There is a real tension there around how far the governing body can actually delve into that. We’d be keen to explore that at select committee.

Fundamentally, the Labour Party supports this bill through to select committee. There are some things that can be teased out. We think that elected members, elected by their communities, are accountable to their communities, so they should be able to understand what the directions are and be in a position to issue those directions so that you don’t have a circumstance where there is a lack of continuity or alignment in terms of the organisation and, in particular, the role that chief executives may head down. Again, congratulations to the member. We commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day.

Debate interrupted.

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

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 23 July 2026

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Arms Bill, the Employment Leave Bill, and the English Language Bill.

Bills

Arms Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Arms Bill, the Employment Leave Bill, and the English Language Bill.

We come first to the Arms Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13—“Preliminary provisions”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

The Hon Nicole McKee has indicated to me that this first point could be longer than usual.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:01): Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to be leading the Arms Bill through the committee of the whole House stage. First, a quick overview of the bill as a whole. This bill will overhaul New Zealand’s firearms laws, the first full rewrite of the legislation in over 40 years. In particular, the bill repeals and replaces the outdated Arms Act 1983 to deliver fairer, fit for purpose firearm laws. It also strengthens our country’s commitment to public safety and an effective firearm regulation.

Public safety is at the heart of the Arms Bill. Stronger enforcement measures will also help keep firearms out of criminal hands. The bill introduces new offences and tougher penalties to close loopholes and tackle emerging threats like 3-D printed firearms. It also automatically disqualifies criminal gang members from holding a firearms licence. Importantly, the bill separates day-to-day firearms regulation from front-line law enforcement by establishing a new independent arms regulator. This independent regulating agency will focus on clear and consistent oversight of firearms licensing, education, and compliance. It will operate at arm’s length from police to enhance transparency and public trust. This separation will allow police to concentrate on pursuing criminals who put the public at risk, not on law-abiding licensed firearm owners. The arms regulator will work constructively with the firearms community to ensure safe practices and support responsible firearm ownership.

At the same time, the bill simplifies and streamlines compliance for responsible firearm owners by rewriting the law in plain English and removing unnecessary complexity. I’ve been told by licensed firearm owners that the current Arms Act is burdensome to navigate and difficult to understand. I hope that these changes will lead people to have a better understanding of their obligations under the Act.

Together, these reforms will deliver stronger firearms laws that will better protect the public and the simpler regulatory system that supports compliance. I’d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee and all submitters for their thoughtful input during the bill’s select committee stage. Over 8,000 New Zealanders made submissions on this bill. Their contributions, along with the committee’s recommendations, have helped to refine and strengthen the bill’s provisions.

Now, I turn to what is being discussed today. As is often the case when Cabinet committees hear from submitters, a range of potential improvements to the bill have been identified and I’d like to amend the bill to reflect these. I’m proposing an Amendment Paper which will remove all references to permanent deactivation in the bill to reflect an earlier Cabinet decision; better aligned penalties in order to address inconsistencies and ensure similarity across like provisions; make changes to the operation of the Firearms Licensing Review Committee to ensure it can be implemented effectively; remove the clauses in the bill that allow the arms regulator to proactively extend firearms licences; remove the need for both an endorsement and a permit to possess or to acquire major parts for restricted items, streamlining requirements for people who are able to possess them; and ensure that police can access licensed dealer records to support their law enforcement functions.

What will result from these amendments is a safer and more user-friendly firearms regulatory regime. For far too long, our firearm laws have been piecemeal, burdensome, and insufficient at stopping serious offenders. We are fixing that. This comprehensive reform strikes the right balance. It strengthens public safety, holds offenders to account, and supports responsible firearm users. It is my privilege to champion these much-needed changes in the committee today as part of our commitment to uphold law and order and also keep our communities safe.

Mr Chair, I’m happy to take questions as we proceed with the debate on this bill.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:06): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll just be working through the bill as it runs. Under Part 1—for purposes of this Act, I’ve got some questions for the Associate Minister of Justice that I’d be interested to get her views on to understand not only the bill, but some of the amendments that have been put forward just recently that we have been working our way through last night.

Under the purpose of this this bill—and we had good information about this in the Justice Committee as well—but there’s two parts to that purpose, and that’s to “promote the safe possession and use of firearms;” and also to “impose controls to prevent the possession and use of arms for criminal activity.” It’s “criminal activity”, those are the words that I’d really like to concentrate on because what this bill also does is it removes the ability of sworn police officers having any ability within the regulator to have a view on that. My concern is that it potentially weakens the public safety focus of this bill by having an ideological approach that removes uniformed police officers, or sworn police officers—those that have office of the constable—from having a role within that regulator and having a say on how that’s operating.

I’m really interested—this will be a theme as we come through different parts of this bill because it is a real question from us inside of Labour, and surprisingly not National, that they’re quite comfortable with just simply removing police officers from having the ability to prevent the possession of firearm and possession of use and having a say in terms of this new regulator that’s being established through this legislation. If it was genuinely wanting to promote the safe possession and use of firearms—as the purpose in clause 3, Part 1, states—then why are police officers being removed from that? Because it would seem to me that that’s just simply an ideological approach that has an aversion to police officers when most New Zealanders would think they have a pretty good head on their shoulders for understanding risks associated with firearms and how to prevent those, so I’m interested to hear that.

I won’t take the full call, but I’m also interested under the next clause, under the principles, that “The arms regulatory regime [is] established [in] this Act to achieve the purposes”, again stating “that the possession and use of firearms is a privilege;”. That’s great. I mean, anyone doing anything involving arms must act in the interests of personal safety and public safety. If public safety is running right through the purposes of this bill and the principles of this bill, I’m really interested to hear from the Minister why police can’t make decisions within the new regulator, and why police are actually being discriminated against. I’ve had a letter just recently from uniformed police officers who would like to keep their jobs within the Firearms Safety Authority, and they don’t understand why they’re being prevented from being able to play a role in public safety.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:09): I invite the member to actually study the parts of the bill—she’s had quite a lot of time to be able to do that—because what she’s asking relates to different parts of the bill. This is about the clauses setting out the bill’s purpose and principles, of which nothing has been changed. All we’ve done is put it into plain language, but there’s been no changes made within that bill. When we get to the part that is specifically about what the member is asking, I invite her that we have discussion at that stage.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister for beginning this committee stage with an explanation of the different parts of the Amendment Paper, which I understand was tabled last night. That was really helpful for the committee’s scrutiny of this Amendment Paper, and we will follow the Hon Ginny Andersen’s lead when we come to the amendment provisions.

What I want to ask the Minister is a more general question about the operation of this Amendment Paper. She’s set out for us the substantive changes, but throughout the bill a number of language changes, syntax changes have been made—they’re more than drafting changes that could be made when the bill is finalised. But for the ease of the committee—really just because we’re here in an extended sitting—is there anything in those changes which are throughout—the smaller sentence changes—which would give the law a different effect? Are there changes where you have instructed officials to take, say, a more hard line on something which was discretionary, within a rule-maker’s power? Are there changes from “may” to “must”? Are there wording changes in the provisions which are not set out in your preamble at this committee stage that are part of the five substantive changes which you set out? To assist the committee in doing our scrutiny work, should we focus on those substantive changes, or are there also things in the Amendment Paper which are worthy of some discussion around the temperature of the regulator? For instance, the wording to remove the sorts of restricted arms, like permanently deactivated firearms—you’ve highlighted that, but then that has a number of flow-on changes which are throughout the bill.

It would just be really useful for the Minister to clarify what the instruction was. She has said it is plain English drafting, and that is a good thing. We should make sure that our legislation is accessible to the people who use it. But are there also sort of temperature changes, for want of a better word?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:12): I thank the member for her question. I think it’s actually quite a relevant one, because it is a substantial Amendment Paper that’s been put in place. What I will say to the member is in answer to all of her questions, yes, to all of it. This isn’t an amendment to the Arms Act 1983. This is an amendment to a new Arms Bill. What I will say is I have prepared on every single clause that’s within the bill, including where a change has been made by this particular Amendment Paper, and including every change that’s been made by the select committee.

As we start to move through each clause, I will highlight what’s been changed with the Amendment Paper, and I will highlight what’s been changed by the select committee as well, and let you know if there’s been plain language used in order to make this work clearer for all of us and make it easier to understand. So, in answer to the member’s question, what might be important to you may not be important to me, so it would be hard for me to stand here right now and say to you what is substantial and what’s not. If you will indulge me as we work through all the clauses, I will point out to you what is actually in the Amendment Paper, clause by clause and in each part.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (09:13): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. This is quite an important piece of legislation, and I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to this and coming into the Chamber. A question I have—two questions, actually—for the Minister. In “Purposes of this Act”, clause 3(a), it states that the purpose is to “promote the safe possession and use of arms;”. So my question to the Minister: is this to promote more arms or not? Because it’s a critical question that I think New Zealanders would like to know. I am from rural New Zealand, and very aware of the need for, and utilisation of, arms in rural areas by people who are running farming operations and all the rest of it—pest control and the like. The reality is we’ve had, for quite some time, a declining population in the rural areas. We’ve had, I guess, more efficient use of arms for pest control, so the reality is there’s probably fewer people using arms in rural New Zealand because there are fewer people there. And it does go to quite a substantial—not just philosophical but important—issue: are we going to see more arms or less arms as a result of this piece of legislation? I think the public need to know.

The purposes of the Act promote the safe possession—and it is promote the use of arms? Or are they tied in? The member has been an advocate for the use of arms, and sporting uses of them, and I appreciate that, but if she’s come to the House and brought this legislation through to promote more arms into this country, then I think we need to be aware of that. Promoting the safe use of what we have, and the wise utilisation of what we need, is fine, but if it is to promote more arms, at a time when we have fewer people in rural New Zealand, then the question—of course, the sporting use of arms, I understand that—can the Minister clarify whether she actually intends to promote, as the purposes of the Act say, greater use of arms or more arms?

The second question that I have for her is around the value of uniforms across this country. My colleague has asked a question around the role that uniformed police will play in the oversight of this. So it is in the purposes of the Act, and the promotion of—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for the member’s information, that part comes up in Part 7.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I appreciate that, thank you, and I’ll go to that. I’ll ask that question in Part 7. But I ask, in promoting the safe possession and use of arms, whether that does include the value of uniformed police through that whole purpose. I welcome answers from the Minister.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:17): I’m a little bit surprised by the question, because the purpose and the principles of the Act have been carried over from what Labour put in. I have made no changes whatsoever. It’s not about promoting people purchasing firearms. If you read the purpose of the Act, it’s to promote the safe possession, and therefore use, of firearms, just as Labour had put in. So if that wasn’t understood back in 2019, 2020, then it actually speaks volumes to why we’re at this juncture that we are right now.

But to give another answer, I think promoting the safe use and the safe possession of firearms has been sorely missed since 2019. Once we do get to parts further on, where we will change the name of the Firearms Safety Authority to Firearms Safety and Education, that will help to promote safe use and possession. In answer to the question, are we going to get more firearms? How would I know? I’m not a member of New Zealand’s society that is licensed or unlicensed to be able to say that they’re going to all of a sudden say this bill’s going to allow them to purchase more firearms. What this bill does is promote public safety. It makes sure that New Zealand Police can concentrate on their core business that they do so well, which is the effective enforcement of these bills, and ensure that those people that are licence holders will be able to be educated in how to possess and use their firearms in a safe manner.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (09:19): I’m just going to take a short call, because I have a very specific question for the Minister, and it’s in relation to her Amendment Paper that has been tabled in the committee. And just on that, because it has been tabled so late, and it’s certainly substantive in its length, to be able to work through it to find where the differences are between what the committee has reported back and then what is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, it’s going to take us some time this morning, so I think you can expect more questions. In order to be helpful, if I look at the Minister’s Amendment Paper on page 22, which relates back to the report back from the—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got clause numbers?

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, I’m going to get there in a second.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, cool.

RACHEL BOYACK: So it’s Part 1—I’m just giving the page numbers first and then the clause numbers, and so I’m just getting there—and page 21 of the Justice Committee report back. So, clause, page numbers, I’m looking at Part 1, clause 5. So it’s subpart 2, clause 5, where it talks about an approved ammunition seller. This is on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658, page 21, and then working over to page 22. It has a definition of an arms item, and on the report back of the bill, it excludes (b)(ii) “permanently deactivated firearms”. That has been amended in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so it has removed “permanently deactivated firearms”. My question is, why? Why has this been put into the Minister’s Amendment Paper today? It’s different, and, obviously, a permanently deactivated firearm, we know they don’t necessarily present risk, but they do exist. So, I’m interested in what the Minister’s rationale is for removing that part about a permanently deactivated firearm and what that actually means in terms of the impact on the entire bill. So just noting that I’m not an expert on this, but these are the kinds of questions we’re going to have because they have come in at a late stage, they haven’t been able to go through that select committee process, and so this is the opportunity for our members, such as ourselves, to be scrutinising this on behalf of New Zealanders just to find out what the rationale for that particular change from the Minister is. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:21): Mr Chair, thank you. I understand the reasoning for asking the question. I think it’s a good one, and because it is in the Amendment Paper, it gives me an opportunity to speak to it. In the original bill, we were looking to allow people to be able to deactivate their firearms and still be in possession of them. This was thinking of people who may have inherited a firearm, say, from a grandparent, but don’t actually have a licence. We thought that if you can deactivate it, then maybe you can keep that as part of family history. But feedback that we got from submissions—those that we went out and spoke to and those that actually came into the select committee—had concerns around a deactivated firearm. They were worried that, you know, if you could deactivate it, could you reactivate it? Could a criminal get hold of it from an unlicensed person and perhaps reactivate it? Could it potentially be a public safety issue as a result? Could somebody have a deactivated firearm and start waving it around at a shopkeeper, for example? So I removed it from the bill because I actually saw it as the potential public safety risk of people having what looked like—or what actually are—real firearms, but don’t work.

While we’re on this, though, I think I’ll bring up the other pieces of the Amendment Paper that is in clause 5 regarding, for example, a change in wording: changing “excluding” to “including” in the definition of a restricted part. That’s to clarify that all parts of a restricted firearm and restricted weapons are subject to licencing, import, and endorsement requirements, that are no longer captured by the permit to possess requirements that only apply to restricted firearm and restricted weapons. Those were in clauses 20 and 31.

Also, we are amending the definition of “firearm” to remove the exclusions for “airgun” and “an exempt airgun”. Airguns do not fall under the definition of a firearm because the projectile from airguns are not discharged by a force of explosive. These exclusions are therefore unnecessary. So that addresses all of the amendments to clause 5 in the Amendment Paper.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I begin by just thanking the Minister for her statement earlier that we’d be walking through, piece by piece, to best understand the new amendments versus the recommendations from the committee. I have some general comments/questions for the Minister who spoke about the purpose and principles of the Act and those largely remaining the same. Of course, obviously, there’s an opportunity for clarification when amendments like this are made to a full Act.

My first questions are around the direction of the bill, which directs decision makers to act in the interests of personal community and public safety, but that doesn’t have a statutory definition of the composite term. I am just wanting the Minister to clarify, for the purposes of the Act, whether public safety is intended to import the same meaning it bears in comparable regulatory statutes and how a licence holder or the regulator is to resolve a conflict between personal and community safety where the two principles point in different directions. For clarification, for example, there could be an amendment that inserts a new subclause in clause 4 that would say something to the effect of “in the event of conflict between the principles in clause 4(b), the principle that best protects public safety prevails.”, thereby just elevating the public safety considerations should those two come into conflict with one another.

I also just had a question in relation to clause 5. Just noting that there are a number of exemptions there, all done through regulation. The question is whether that is the appropriate way in which to have what to my mind are fundamental policy decisions made, or whether those exemptions should sit within the legislation itself or be subject to sunset clauses, and certainly be disallowable instruments so you could have a narrower framing of how those powers would be exercised, just because there does seem to be a large amount of discretion provided to the Minister. So I’d love the Minister’s feedback on those issues.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:26): Mr Chair, thank you. Looking at the principles, and the principle in clause 4(b), what was given to the House when the original bill was tabled—clause 4(b) was added: “that anyone doing anything involving arms must act in the interests of personal and public safety.” That was put in there to ensure that every single person who is in charge of a firearm would come under the control—well, not control; making sure that their principles and purposes align with the Arms Act so they’re not doing anything that would be illegal. To give you an example, there could be an armed services person who is allowed to use firearms in the course of their employment, but without a firearms licence, can’t go hunting, for example, and say that just because I’m a member of the Defence Force somewhere and I use firearms in my everyday work, I can then go out and hunt, and that sort of thing. It means that everybody has to apply the laws to them. I think that we do have that quite clear within there.

The monitoring—I’m actually not quite sure what the member’s talking about in clause 5 about exemptions because I can’t see exemptions in clause 5. Could the member just clarify that?

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:27): I can. This is the definition of what is an exempt blank-firing gun, for example. I’m just questioning whether it’s an appropriate mechanism to exempt by regulation as opposed to via primary legislation or through a narrower tool—so a disallowable instrument or providing some sort of sunset clause and requiring them for later legislation. It just allows quite a broad scope for the Minister to make those fairly significant decisions about what is within the regime versus what is exempt.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. What we’ve done is actually broadened the list of arms items. This is part of the plain language exercise and consolidating and making sure that the bill makes sense. In the interpretation for “arms item”, we have taken what has been other items in other sections of interpretation and put them under an arms item list to try and consolidate it and make it all reasonably placed into the one area. So that’s why you have a list there. In the previous bill, the list had arms—well, not so much arms items, but this list throughout the interpretation. All we’ve done is just bring it into one place.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:29): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to speak to clause 5 under “Interpretation”. I’ve only got one tabled amendment on clause 5, and it’s in relation to the specification around “monitoring department”. It is the primary Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you read that out because it actually hasn’t landed with us yet.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Clause 5, in my amendment in relation to monitoring department in clause 5 of the “Interpretation” section of the bill. I don’t have a number, sorry; it’s been recently tabled, but there’s only one amendment in my name for clause 5.

Presently, it reads in the bill: “ ‘monitoring department’ means the department, departmental agency, or interdepartmental venture (as named in Part 1, 2, or 4 of Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act 2020) that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act”, and when I go to that provision, it says the “Ministry of Justice”. This is quite a significant shift. In the past, in New Zealand, arms have always been administered by the New Zealand Police, and so my tabled amendment proposes to replace in clause 5 the definition of “monitoring department” with “the New Zealand Police”.

I’m even comfortable, if the Minister is open to it, with having more than one so that you’d still get Police intelligence and Police information and front-line expertise in that space, but this tabled amendment amends the Arms Bill to amend the definition to enable keeping it with the New Zealand Police. If they’re going to be the host agency for the Arms Regulator, as the monitoring department, that would help to alleviate some of the major weaknesses that are in this bill. Police are more at risk than any other group from the illegal manufacture, distribution, and use of firearms, and so we and many others believe that this “no blue shirts” rule for the new firearms regulatory agency will potentially weaken intelligence gathering, enforcement, and licensing, and it triangulates that relationship and weakens it further. I think that it’s a sensible amendment—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for the member’s information, your amendment hasn’t been lodged.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It has been lodged?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It hasn’t been lodged, so—

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Oh, it hasn’t been lodged? OK, I’ll check that out, and I’ll make sure that that’s happening. It’s on its way—I think they’ve just gone to the office now.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, filing—do the hui.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It should be coming out. The proposal is that we would like to—

Arena Williams: Your Minister couldn’t lodge her amendment till last night.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yeah, we only got it last night—so there. I’m really keen to hear from the Minister her views on including the New Zealand Police. Clearly, National don’t want the police having a say over firearms safety in New Zealand because they’ve been quite happy to allow this change to happen, but on our side of the House, we actually think that the police have a clear role. By inserting the New Zealand Police into the interpretation section as a monitoring department—we’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member Vanushi Walters, I think I have another answer for you about the question of why it was not in the regulations. The answer is that this was both in the Act and the regulations originally, and so, for plain English reasons, we’re putting all of the existing exempt firearms into the same place to make sure that they’re not in both. I hope that answers that question.

For the definition of “monitoring department”, we are definitely going to be removing “New Zealand Police” from the regulatory side of firearms administration, leaving them with their core business, which they do so well at, which is the enforcement of our arms law, and that is allowing them to concentrate on that. In order for that to occur, and as part of the separation, we need to ensure that there is a monitoring department, and that’s why they’re in there. The monitoring department has been agreed by Cabinet to be the Ministry of Justice, who will work very, very closely with New Zealand Police.

The member Ginny Andersen had said that she was concerned about intelligence and information not being passed over, but that will not be a reality at all. These two organisations will work very, very closely together. They will also have the information-sharing agreement set up, as well as the monitoring department establishing red flag agreements and information sharing with other entities such as the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, as well. We’re actually going to be strengthening this process, rather than what the scaremongering is that’s coming from the other side, saying that we’ll be weakening it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just speaking to what the Associate Minister of Justice has helpfully added and to my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen’s amendment, which is coming, I wanted to ask the Minister when Cabinet made the decision to make the monitoring department the Ministry of Justice, because the bill as presented left that open. Clause 312 of the bill was the sort of openly worded monitoring department clause.

The reason I bring it up in this section is because it is relevant to clause 5, which has their definition, and what the Minister has told us is that Cabinet did decide that. But the reason why it was open, I imagine, in the first draft of the bill was because the bill was presented to Parliament without that decision and the bill, when it was drafted, was open-minded as to what the monitoring department would be. I want the Minister to clarify: did she present a bill to the House where the Cabinet policy position was not made?

I also want to ask her whether it’s quite correct that Cabinet did make this decision because, yes, it was part of the New Zealand First, ACT, and National coalition agreement that the monitoring department would not be the New Zealand Police, but I just wanted to be clear around whether the policy decisions that were taken by Cabinet reflected that position, because the coalition agreement doesn’t have the effect of a public decision itself. We can’t look at that decision, and we don’t know what advice would inform that decision, if any, and so I just wanted her to clarify at what point that decision was made, because I can’t find it.

The second question I have is about the clause 5 definition of deactivated firearms. I also want to understand whether that position which was taken at the beginning of this bill’s process to include something that is arguable about whether it is a firearm or not was a deliberate decision on behalf of the Cabinet and then that position changed. She’s been really helpful at outlining it, and I understand the rationale for taking it out—she has provided that. What I want to understand is why the deliberate decision was made to put it in and then take it out. What representations did she receive to, I guess, change her mind that the sorts of deactivated firearms that we’re talking about here do not now need any of the protections, given that it’s a graded protection? We’re not talking about the same protections that exist for rifles; we’re talking about a sort of a shade of grey here, where you might require some protections around, say, the storage and keeping of those sorts of deactivated weapons.

Has she received further evidence around how many of these arms—well, these things might have been included in a regulatory net that was drawn at the beginning of this bill, and is that the reason? Are there just so many of these things and that’s why they need to come out, or is it actually the opposite, which is that there is a very small number but that they impact people in sort of deeper ways? It is also legitimate for a Government to make a decision about a small number of people who are legitimately impacted in a way which is unfairly burdensome, but we just want to know the sort of scope of why this was an important change to make from A to B.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member refers to another section with regard to the monitoring department. In clause 5 is the definition of the “monitoring department”, but the reason why the two words “monitoring department” came in was because it was a select committee change that asked for them to be identified as that. The Ministry of Justice had of course been accepted by Cabinet as being the new regulator. That decision was made in Cabinet decisions. I’m not quite sure how Labour thinks the process of making law goes, but we actually do have agreement in Cabinet to go through and do things. We don’t have single Ministers just going about, standing in the chair and saying that they’re the ones that have done this, and so the monitoring department is within the select committee changes, which they wanted to make.

Just some more additions for the member Vanushi Waters’ question—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Walters.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —Walters, sorry; sorry to the member—on why definitions are going into regulations rather than into the Act. That was for flexibility, noting that it’s subject to consultation under clause 364A.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (09:39): Thank you very much. Again, these seem like perhaps minor and insignificant questions, but it is a huge Amendment Paper 658 that’s been dumped in the House. I’m asking the Minister—and it comes from my, perhaps, trade portfolio suspicions, going from what you might call a negative list to a positive list. In clause 5, under the definition of “import”, in (a), it is quite critical, because all firearms coming into New Zealand—or the vast majority—of course, are imported. It’s defining an import, and it says, “to bring the item, or cause the item to be brought, into New Zealand; or to send the item, or cause the item to be sent, to New Zealand; but”, and the previous bill said, “does not include doing any of the things in paragraph (a)”, and that has been changed now in the Amendment Paper to “excludes”.

The question for the Minister is to why we did that. That may seem like a simple change of language, but, actually, in legal terms, some of these things do matter. I’m sure that there is a reason for this to be changed, and so I just ask if the Minister can explain to the House why. Have the legal implications down the track, when these things will be challenged—and given that the exclusion refers to firearms that can possibly be transiting through New Zealand, then claims have been made, of course, and we’ve seen it with methamphetamine and other illegal products, that we become a transit hub for illegal and illicit goods. If these things fall off a truck in New Zealand on their way through, and we’ve excluded close scrutiny, then are we exposing ourselves to the risk of these firearms, supposedly in transit through New Zealand, falling into the hands of gangs or some other people who may hold them illegally?

It comes down to that change of wording but whether the implications actually go way beyond that because of possible abuse of the situation for arms that might be transiting or supposedly transiting through our country.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. The reason for that exclusion that the member has asked for is because imports that come into New Zealand do need an import licence. That creates a whole lot of bureaucracy. There are firearms that transit through New Zealand where the person is actually not stopping in New Zealand; they’re on their way to another country. But under our current legislation, even though the firearm itself would not be leaving the airport, they would have to go through an entire import/export permit process in order to just be able to stop here in New Zealand and to get on another plane and carry on. That change there doesn’t work for some items that are not staying in New Zealand. The drafting choice for this was for symmetry and consistency. “Excludes” versus “does not include” is really just to make sure that it’s really quite clear in the legislation.

A New Zealand entity should not be responsible for importing arms items that are simply just passing through the country. This was, again, to get rid of red tape, to make sure that there weren’t any extra processes that were put on people, because the regime that is in place at the moment for importing and exporting firearms is really quite extensive. It could include a hold-up of a person trying to just get to another destination because they can’t get their import and therefore export permits as well. All this is doing is allowing the transit of firearms that are stopping briefly in New Zealand to be able to carry through.

The import definition change was also agreed by the Justice Committee, and this definition of import is one of the things that the select committee had actually asked to be changed, so we have decided it was a really good idea and we’re going to do it.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (09:44): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister McKee, for your engagement today. I came in at the tail end of the consideration of this bill through the Justice Committee, so it would be good just to clarify a few things today. My question is around clause 5, “antique firearm”. “Any firearm or pistol that is held in the possession of any person solely as an antique (but not as a copy or replica of an antique);”—that makes perfect sense. Then: “(B) is not designed for firing, and is not capable of firing, rimfire or centrefire cartridge ammunition;”, which makes sense. But the question I had was around subpara—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What page are you on?

DAN ROSEWARNE: That is on page 21. But the crux of my question to the Minister was: “does not include any firearm or pistol manufactured after 1899”. I was just wondering how you landed on that date. Look at a Royal Enfield, for example. Production started around 1895, but then they were produced up until around 1941. I was just wondering why 1899 specifically. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:45): That date was carried over from the previous Arms Act.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:45): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just had some questions. We know that prohibited weapon, as referred to—I think it’s the same. That’s my question. When we’re referring, in the interpretation section, to restricted weapon—“has the same meaning as in section 11”—and we talk about restricted firearms, I just wanted to clarify if that was what was previously called a prohibited weapon. I know that the—because I’m going between the two papers—Amendment Paper 658 spells out “semi-automatic firearm” and “semi-automatic pistol” and gives quite detailed descriptions. For example, semi-automatic says, “fires a cartridge and ejects its case; and unless all cartridges loaded have been fired, chambers another cartridge”. For semi-automatic pistol, it means it “when loaded, with each pull of the trigger, fires a cartridge and ejects the cartridge case; and unless all loaded cartridges have been fired, automatically loads another cartridge in the firearm’s chamber”.

I’m interested, because of your expertise in this, Minister—you know this well—what consultation did you take into account, when we’re quite specifically designing the practicalities or, I guess, the engineering practicalities of how a semi-automatic firearm actually operates? In that, I’m just interested to know—we know that weapons can be modified; there was the instance with March 15^th, when you had a weapon being modified to make it fully automatic—whether she’s comfortable with the existing provisions within the current interpretation section to cover off the fact that we know technology emerges and new ways can be developed in terms of how you convert a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic weapon, and whether that is sufficient protection, by stating them as being restricted. Just that final point is where does the definition sit around the prohibited weapon, the fully automatic weapons, and is she comfortable with the definitions that currently exist to sufficiently futureproof the ability to modify weapons to make them fully automatic?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. We have changed the definition of “prohibited firearms” and “prohibited weapons” to “restricted firearms” and “restricted weapons”, in a way to make the wording within the Act more positive and move away from the negativity that was introduced in 2019 and again in 2020, making it quite user-friendly. The member is fundamentally incorrect when she says that on the March 15th incident, the guy, Brenton Tarrant, was able to convert his firearm to fully automatic. That is incorrect—completely incorrect—and probably speaks to why we have such a mess of an Arms Bill right now. Fully automatic firearms are not allowed to be used in New Zealand. They never have been. It’s just wrong that that’s even been introduced.

Restricted weapons have been carried over. Prohibited firearms are now restricted weapons. We never had a term called a “prohibited weapon”. New technologies can be accounted for through regulations. A change that we’ve proposed in the Amendment Paper 658 is to delete subclause 11(b) so that a major firearm part of a restricted weapon—and this is a part of a restricted weapon—is not, within itself, considered an entire restricted weapon. That then requires an endorsement and a permit to possess. That is mainly because some of those parts can actually be put on unrestricted firearms—what we would now call standard firearms. To ensure that they don’t need endorsements and endorsement licensing, we have made those changes within this Amendment Paper.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:50): Just further to that point—and thank you to the Minister; I appreciate she’s got expertise—I’d be really interested to know, in the instance of March 15, then, what did occur, and she does know more than me, in this space. I’m just interested to understand—if that was incorrect, how I reflected it—if she could specify exactly what did happen, then, and then highlight how the current legislation would prevent that from occurring in future.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:50): What happened there was you had a type of firearm—it’s called an AR-15. You could have it as a standard type firearm, which means a person on an A Category licence could have it, or you could have it with certain combinations of items on it, which would then turn it into an E Category or a military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) type firearm. Now, for that to occur, that firearm would need any one of five aspects on that firearm, such as a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding stock, a muzzle break, and, finally, a large-capacity magazine. What Brenton Tarrant did was he had a standard firearm, an A Category AR-15, that did not have any of those live components making it an MSSA, and he went and bought a large capacity magazine. The moment he introduced that to the standard firearm, he then converted it to an E Category.

In 2019, the law was changed so that large-capacity magazines—and this was one thing I had been advocating for since 2012, personally—would need to have an endorsement so that you couldn’t get people with standard licences going and buying a large-capacity magazine and introducing it to their standard licence, converting it—not because we thought there would be a massacre but because we thought someone would accidentally go and buy one of these thinking, “Well, I can legally buy it.”, not realising that when they actually put it into that firearm, they had converted it. That is what that person did, and the law was changed in 2019, thankfully, to ensure that only people who had the endorsement could buy those large-capacity magazines in the future. I will note, however, that that was missed out on pistol magazines, and so people could still go about buying large-capacity pistol magazines, and the change later on in this bill is actually restricting large-capacity pistol magazines to only those with endorsements as well—just to clarify that, and closing loopholes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that Part 1 actually does extend quite a bit, and then I will be on clause 5. But I’m happy to be on a separate clause, noting that I do have a few questions for clause 9, in this case.

Can I just check, for clarification, Minister—and thank you so much for your engagement, as always. I want to discuss, this morning, the regulation section, later on, but I just want to check: the way that I’m reading clause 9, “Meaning of restricted firearm”, it means that particularly when we’re looking at clause 9(1)(b), I just want that clarification of the fact that you can only include new firearms declared by Order in Council under secondary legislation, but secondary legislation would not be able to remove the existing criteria for restricted firearms. I see you can only add more things but not remove things through secondary legislation. That’s the first point of clarification I would like from the Minister.

From what we’ve been discussing, and, Minister, from what you’ve been saying, as well, you do have emerging new technology or the way that things can be modified or manufactured and may need to be considered at a later date through secondary legislation. I think that flexibility is important, but, yes, I just wanted to check that you can only add but not take away.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:54): In secondary legislation, any Government of the day can remove whatever they like—in fact, they can do it coming from a legislative process as well. So, yes, we can add, and we’ve put in there that we want to be able to add, and be able to add quickly, and make a point of that so that we’re sending a clear signal that, if we do get dangerous items appear, we can add them to the list.

Once they’re added to the list, why would you remove it? If it’s been deemed to be really dangerous, why would you remove it? However, any Government of the day has the ability to go into secondary legislation and amend whatever they like. But, as we are on clause 9, I would like to point to a specific amendment in the Amendment Paper, where we are proposing to delete clause 9(1)(c) so that a major firearm part of the restricted weapon is, by itself, not considered a restricted firearm that requires an endorsement and a permit to possess, as I had just mentioned in the previous part—it’s here as well.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:55): Thank you so much. That is very helpful because that answers my next question, which is on the deleted section. I do acknowledge what the Minister is saying. I guess the thing that I was sort of looking for is that I know that the secondary legislation is able to add and take away, but it won’t be able to, in some ways, change some of the criteria we’re seeing in clause 9(1)(a), in particular—some of those. But, from what the Minister said, I’m actually quite happy with how that would land, and I do agree that flexibility is needed.

Can I just check, moving on to clause 11—I’m just signalling to you, Mr Chair, that there is still quite a few more clauses here, as well as Schedule 1, which I want to check with the Minister on; I just wanted to wait until the conversation around interpretations is done before I move on to a further clause. There has also been quite a few changes to clause 11 in Amendment Paper 658. I wonder if the Minister wouldn’t mind just elucidating for the committee why that has been updated. It looks like it is a simplification rather than explicitly excluding anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, but can I just check whether there is a rationale? Does that mean that anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions are now included under the meaning of “restricted weapons”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:56): Yes, it does. Anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions are not included in the definition of “restricted weapon”. All the drafting changes in this particular clause were done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) to clarify, simplify, and put things into the right place. And just coming back to changing the criteria—the first point that the member pulled out—you can’t change the criteria in primary legislation through regulations; you can only do it in regulations, and Cabinet needs to agree. It can’t be something that an individual Minister does; it needs to go through a Cabinet process.

I have just been given a list. A drafting change about munitions is included under clause 364. So, as I mentioned, it was just about PCO tidying up. The current Arms Act 1983 has duplications all throughout it, so what we’ve tried to do is just clarify: remove it where it’s been duplicated, put it into the right place, and you will see this throughout the bill, and, hopefully, we’ll be fast enough to be able to come up and say exactly where we’ve put certain things, as I have here—it’s gone to clause 364.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:58): Thank you so much, Minister; I really appreciate that. I just want to move on to the next sections. I will come back to Schedule 1, but I’m going to move on to clause 13 now, and I specifically want to note clauses 13(5) and (6).

I understand, in terms of clause 13, particularly if you’re looking at subclause (2), “subsection (1) is subject to subsections (3) and (4)”. Those are happening kind of domestically, and this is under the remit and control of the Crown, but subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 13 are not, and I specifically want to look at subclause (5): “Nothing in this Act makes it unlawful for any person who is a visiting law enforcement officer from another country to do any of the following,”. I guess the question here, just for clarification, is that if we do have someone from an overseas jurisdiction coming here to Aotearoa New Zealand, does this clause mean that they can carry firearms that will be considered restricted under this legislation, because they are coming from an overseas jurisdiction that is not under the control of our Crown? And what is the process, then, that will be required to ensure that that person has the right requirements to be able to carry such a firearm here?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (09:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member, clause 13(5) and (6) is a carryover, straight over, from the Arms Act 1983, and so that’s always been in place. In regard to what they bring over, there will be consultation with New Zealand Police, Customs, and Immigration at the time. No doubt there will be agreements that have been in place as well. It’s operational. That has always been occurring. There’s just been a bit of a carryover, but, effectively, they ultimately need to be authorised by New Zealand Police before they even land here.

While I may, we also have changes on the Amendment Paper in regard to clause 13, to include a reference to “restricted ammunition” so that the exemptions that apply to the Crown also apply to the carriage and possession of restricted ammunition instead of just standard ammunition. The select committee also, at subclauses 13(5) and 13(7), wanted clarification, so we have replaced “chief executive”, in clause 13(5), with “the Commissioner [of Police]” to maintain consistency and avoid any unintended consequences. We’ve also removed “good faith” wording in clause 13(7) to align with the existing wording of section 3(6) in the Arms Act, as per the select committee’s request.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a couple of final questions for the Minister on Part 1. This is to do, now, with Schedule 1, clause 12.

Minister, I’m going to use your Amendment Paper 658 page numbers just for clarity. This is page 219 and onwards as well. In terms of “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”, I know that there is a bit of a break with how this will come into effect on 23 September, but there’s also, later on, when we will discuss the commencement date, also a secondary commencement date on 23 July 2027. I just want to check: in terms of the licences that have been mentioned as well as the ammunition sellers, what sorts of communications will need to be done or have been done already with licence holders, and also with ammunition sellers, in terms of some of the changes and the transition that’s required in terms of compliance with the new legislation as they started taking effect? That’s my first question.

Just moving on to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, Mr Xu-Nan, would you mind just referring to the piece of Schedule 1 you were referring to?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, this is pages 219 and 220 on the Amendment Paper. This is, I guess, clauses 2 to 9 of Schedule 1—Part 1, under Schedule 1, “Provisions relating to Act as enacted”.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you very much.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: That’s my first question around licences and ammunition sellers as well.

Moving on through the schedule, there are also other things in terms of importing and also transitional requirements for shooting clubs and shooting ranges. There’s quite a few things in there. I wonder if the Minister wouldn’t mind just highlighting, in general, how some of those transitional measures are going to work and how—for licence holders, ammunition sellers, shooting ranges, and importers—that communication is going to work to ensure that there’s a smooth transition from the old regime to the new one.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:03): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to the ammunition sellers, the select committee had asked for some drafting changes to be made since its introduction, just to make it clearer in regard to time frames for commencement, which would have been adjusted. It’s enabling a firearms licence holder who sells or supplies ammunition to be treated as an approved ammunition seller until 22 February 2028 or before that date if the licence holder applies to be an approved ammunition seller.

Let me just put this in plain English. You sometimes have, say, a retail store, and a person might be working at that retail store, but they don’t have a firearms licence, and yet you get somebody that comes in and says, “I want to buy ammunition.” They cannot legally sell them that ammunition, because they don’t have a firearms licence, so we’re introducing an ammunition seller clause for those businesses so that it means that a person can still work in that store and only sell ammunition to a person, but they need to go through a process, and they need to be approved by the regulator. It’s not just anybody that comes in can automatically get it. They have to go through that approval regime as well.

If the Member can ask me the next question again, I forgot what it was, sorry.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:05): Sorry, it was just on importers as well and, I guess, again, the transitional measures we’re looking at for shooting ranges and importers and how the Minister’s intending on communicating with the people in terms of the transition from the old regime to the new one. That’s all. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:05): Thank you. Thanks for re-asking. Communicating all of these changes is going to be quite a big thing for the regulator to do, but it will be an operational matter for them to be able to get out there how they’re going to go about doing this. More importantly, the different time frames, because a large amount of the bill will come into effect from 23 September this year—but there are other challenges, as we go through, to make sure that IT is up to spec before we actually start making some of these changes. The bill, in full, will be operational by February 2028. That’s when everything will be implemented, so there will be different scales of information that go to people as required. We don’t want to bombard everybody with absolutely everything but, rather, with what people need to know and understand their obligations will be at the time that the different changes are proceeding.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (10:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. Now, I just want to touch on clause 9 and take a few minutes on that. That is on page 33. I think it raises a wider issue about whether this firearms bill is keeping pace with the developments in the market and with the experience of comparable jurisdictions. Over recent years, we’ve seen the emergence of a class of firearm commonly referred to as the push button rifle, and just for the House’s awareness, these firearms use a mechanism that allows the working parts to be released with a button. While they’ve been designed to fit within the existing legal definitions, their appearance and operation have led to an increasing discussion about where they should properly sit within a modern firearms regulatory framework.

I suppose what concerns me is that these firearms are increasingly available and are establishing a presence in New Zealand. Information released by written parliamentary questions confirms that import permits have been issued for push button rifles capable of accepting the STANAG 4179 or the AR-15 Peden detachable magazines, including models such as the Alcor 223 push button and the Ranger 223 push button rifle as well. I raised this in my second reading speech when we were debating this bill, and the Government has confirmed that 81 Ranger push button rifles came in over the last two years, of which 80 have come in as at 14 June this year. Eighty-one firearms is a relatively small number, compared to the wider firearms market, and I’m not suggesting that the people who lawfully own these firearms are doing anything wrong. Law-abiding firearms owners should not be unfairly categorised—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Do you have a question, Mr Rosewarne?

DAN ROSEWARNE: The crux of my question, Minister, is: what assessment has the Government made around the increasing number of push button rifles entering New Zealand? What assurance can she give to the people of New Zealand that the framework established for this bill adequately addresses the risks associated with centre-fire push button 223 rifles?

My second question to that is: given that New South Wales has chosen to place tighter controls on push button riffles, what consideration has the Minister given to that approach, and why has it concluded that a different legislative response is appropriate in the New Zealand context? Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:10): I see Labour are still trying to rush through, trying to ban different types of firearms without evidence, without data, without consultation, as well. We are rewriting the firearms Act to make sure that we have a really fit for purpose regime, and the first thing we get is an Amendment Paper that’s looking to put more restrictions on different types of firearms just because that’s something that New South Wales has done. I will note that, if the member has a look at what the other states in Australia are doing, they’re actually starting to jack up on some of the rushed legislation that is starting to occur over there. We’re not looking to Australia; we’re looking to really good lawmaking processes here in New Zealand—lawmaking processes that require consultation with the users.

When it comes to the push-button firearms, we are not interested at this stage in trying to rewrite an arms law to ban something that has shown no evidence of any harm in New Zealand. In fact, what I’ve heard is that these particular types of firearms are really beneficial for people with disabilities—those that have been unable to open bolts themselves, who may be missing digits on their hands. To just even think that because somebody else has said there might be an issue and there is no evidence, we should jump on that bandwagon—that’s why it’s so important that we keep this Government in its coalition and going next term, because that sort of attitude is really disappointing.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:11): I appreciate her views in relation to push-button or button-release firearms, but I just wanted to understand—she did reference New South Wales, and I’ve done a little bit of reading up about what happened in New South Wales—specifically why she thought that was not the right pathway to go down, because we thought over here that the New South Wales model was actually quite a good one of being proactive in terms of looking at an area which is emerging that may have some potential dangers in relation to that.

I appreciate her argument that people within the disability community may have an easier way of physically being able to operate a firearm if a push-button gun is able to be used freely—a self-projecting lever button or similar release-repeating firearm. I guess the fear I’ve seen in some of the communications that have come into my email box is that people seem to think they’re very similar to a rapid-fire weapon, which would be a military-style semi-automatic weapon or a rapid-fire weapon, which have been used in the past for quick dispensation of ammunition, which can be deadly in mass events, which we’ve seen in New Zealand and other places around the world. I just really wanted to understand if the Minister had looked at New South Wales as a model, and specifically why she thinks that is not a viable option for New Zealand, if it would provide safety.

While I’m up, I just wanted to ask one further quick question on the previous clause, which was under restricted airguns. I’ve also had some information showing that some of the velocity, some of the power under some of those newly designed airguns, can be pretty strong. Is she comfortable with the current settings around restricted airguns? These aren’t just the airsoft or paintball type ones; these are the other kind. There’s been some instances of them being used on animals with some really pretty awful results as a consequence of that. Given your background, Minister, and experience in this space, I’m interested to know about the more modern airguns which have quite strong firepower: whether the current seatings under this legislation are sufficient to protect things such as people using them on animals and that being really quite awful.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:14): To the member: I did not raise New South Wales; her colleague did. I responded to that and invited him to look at all the other states in Australia who are fast rejecting some of the legislation that their Federal Government is asking them to look at.

In regard to airguns, yes, airguns are starting to get different what we’ll call joules of energy. I understand that the Justice Committee looked at this; perhaps this is the reason why the member is raising it. We will be addressing this when we start to go through the regulations. We believe that this actually requires further consultation, because just setting an energy limit on a particular airgun may have unintended consequences on others, but there are some that are coming through that have a high velocity, hence they’ve become restricted airguns. We have decided that, instead of trying to set something in primary legislation, that is worth a consultation process for secondary legislation, as to whether or not we set a kilojoules or a joules velocity for those particular firearms or not.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:15): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just go back to clause 9 here, and I was a little concerned with the dismissive way in which the Associate Minister of Justice answered the question from my colleague Dan Rosewarne. It was a legitimate question about push-button firearms, and I guess the question to the Minister is—and she claims she is, but when it comes to new and innovative ways, Kiwis are great at this. We’re always using off-the-label chemicals. We innovate; we have the number eight wire. So it will be with firearms too, whether it be 3D printing or the push- button firearm, which I’m not familiar with. I’m asking the Minister: is she taking a precautionary approach?

She dismisses change in legislation offshore, and so when it comes to restricted firearms—and I’ll tell you one thing: visiting Washington, having visited after we had changed this legislation in Government, they were in awe of what we’d been able to do and were praising us for our bravery and our effectiveness in reducing harm across our nation. We’re stepping back from that, and the Minister claims that it’s to enable the wise and careful use of firearms. We’re not trying to ban the use of firearms, but we are looking at restricted firearms and defining them in clause 9, so I’m asking the Minister whether she is genuinely taking a precautionary or a dismissive approach to new innovations.

If push-button firearms are available now, even in small numbers—and the Minister is saying, “Well, they may be of use for people who have disabilities.” I can accept that; for what purpose, I’m not too sure. The question is whether that opens a door for some evil use of a firearm, and whether the push-button mechanism then means it should be a restricted firearm is something that I would hope the Minister, rather than dismissing, actually investigates more carefully. I’m not quite sure whether my colleague might put an amendment up, but we would hope that this comprehensive Amendment Paper, having looked at ongoing and evolving information and technical tidy-ups, would include push-button firearms, in the precautionary way that we hope this whole legislation is being approached.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:18): Madam Chair, to the member: I’m not trying to be dismissive at all, but push-button firearms are not new. They’ve been around for a very long time. They were around in 2019 and 2020, as well. They are a type of firearm that has come to the attention of people because New South Wales has decided to take the precautionary approach. We on this side of the House want to take an evidence-based approach and make sure that any decisions we make are made based on data, facts, and evidence rather than being concerned.

It’s a different type of way of being able to utilise a firearm, as I mentioned, especially for those people with disabilities. The member asked, and I don’t know where that might be; it would possibly be on a shooting range for competitions for those people. Also, the bill itself includes broad regulation-making powers so that we do accommodate new technology, like the 3D printing technology, as well, so if there’s advancement, for example, on that type of firearm or another type of firearm, another different action, it can be looked at and looked at quickly. We’ve made sure that we’ve put that emphasis in the bill so that we can be addressing different types of firearms and their actions in the future if we get evidence and data to say that there is concern. If we start looking at restricting, we are putting red tape and compliance on people, again, who have done nothing wrong, based on no evidence that there is concern, apart from the concern of legislators who mostly don’t even understand how this type of tool or sporting equipment may work. So that’s why we are not addressing it here; it is not new technology.

When the member mentioned about visiting Washington, one thing I do really need to point out is that we do not have a regime in New Zealand that is anything like the United States. They have the Second Amendment which gives them the right to bear arms, including the right to bear arms for self-defence. We do not have that here in New Zealand. I know that they are alarmed about the amount of firearm deaths over in America. We are not America, we are New Zealand, and the regime that we had previously, before 2019, made us the best in the world. We were recognised as having the best firearms legislation in the world. Now we’re recognised as having the most confusing legislation in the world.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I accept a closure motion, I’d just like to point out that since I’ve been in the chair, we have traversed the same topics over and over. So I am looking for new material, please.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (10:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to the new clause under Subpart 3—this is clause 13—and it relates to the change of the drafting. So the initial drafting said, “(i) a member of the New Zealand Defence Force or a member of the cadet forces;”, and that was split out into two separate points. And it just made me consider whether we ought to have different levels of exclusion for the defence force as opposed to the cadets, because, essentially, one might expect that the defence force had broader exceptions than the cadet force.

The question is whether the Minister turned her mind to splitting out those levels of exemption. And indeed, you could do that—you could have the defence force, and potentially the police in their very own category, as having broad exemptions, and then have a separate set of exemptions which are more restricted, potentially using language like “authorised training activities” instead of that person’s “duties”. Or you could specify that it needed to be under direct supervision. You could also specify the areas in which that subgroup B could exercise the ability to carry restricted weapons, etc.

It just seemed to me to make sense that you would have two separate categories: one that was police and defence, and the second that was cadets and others. And the separation of those two—what was initially one point into two—suggested that that might be appealing. If the Minister didn’t turn her mind to that, what was the intention of separating out those two separate groups?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:23): I think what’s really important here is the fact that under the purpose and principles of the Act—I think it’s at clause 3—we have made a different approach here. We were saying that everybody who is in charge of firearms, regardless of where they are—and I mentioned earlier because we have traversed this, about how the defence force or those in the armed services will still need to ensure that they are under the same regime. Well, not under the same regime; they work under their regime, but they still apply the same safety aspects here.

In regard to this, there is no substantive change at all. All we’ve done is a drafting change to provide clarity as researchers at the New Zealand Defence Force have regulatory requirements, but not the military—they don’t. So that’s why there’s a little bit of a change there, but we’re also, in the interests of safety, making sure that everyone is still captured under the greater Arms Act.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:24): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just had a question in relation to clause 11, under “Interpretation”. I know the Minister’s already spoken about her reasoning around the classification of restricted weapons, but my question here is in and around the ability under clause 11(a) where it provides, “anything, whether or not a firearm (as [identified] … in section 5), declared by the Governor-General, by Order in Council” may be a restricted weapon.

I just wanted to clarify with the Minister, whether that means that a future change to what is classified as a prohibited, or under this definition, restricted weapon, whether that means that future amendments to what is classified under that category are able to be done by Order in Council, and whether she thinks, if that is the case, whether that’s a sufficient check. Because I know that there are members of the community who have been impacted negatively by firearm safety, who are of the view that an Order in Council is an insufficient protection to changing what would be classified as a prohibited or restricted weapon. There is a degree of concern around public safety that that bar is simply not quite strong enough to protect, potentially, making those military style, semi-automatic weapons less prohibitive or not restricted at some stage in the future.

I’m interested to know what advice she’s received in relation to this, and whether she can reassure New Zealanders that simply having a change by an Order in Council is a sufficient protection in place to prevent situations such as 15 March from occurring again in the future.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:26): This is basically a carryover, and it’s the way that things have operated in the past, in regard to defining restricted weapons as anything been declared by Order in Council. This is the way that it was in the bill previously. It’s carrying over section 4. It’s got some drafting changes to improve the clarity of the provision, but, effectively, this clause is about having the ability to enable a firearm to become a restricted weapon by way of Order in Council as the previous Government had used in the past. The member’s now asking me if I can use it to change back and go the other way.

I’m looking at the intent of this bill. I mean, anything that—a Government can do anything that they want. The difference with this Government is that we would consult first about how you would go about doing it, and instead of changing it in a piece of legislation, you would change it in Order in Council, especially with really fast-moving situations, like say a 3D printed firearm all of a sudden tuned up and was widely available, and it became of some sort of concern. You want to be able to restrict it as quickly as possible.

The member asking about unrestricting, I mean, that’s just going against what it is that we are trying to do here, which is improve public safety. I would expect and hope, because I’m a big fan of consultation, that we would go about a due process if we were ever to do that again.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (10:27): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 3(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing the definition of “monitoring department” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 9(1)(a)(vi) relating to centrefire firearms be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 9(1)(a)(vi) relating to pushbutton firearms be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 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 General requirements

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 14 to 66, “General requirements”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. I start by having just a few questions for the Associate Minister of Justice on Part 2, clause 14, and potentially the Minister may also, probably, respond to other parts, because I think it’s quite a general one.

I’m curious to know: clause 14(3), in terms of the offence—now, we’ll see lots of “offence” and different requirements later on in the bill, but over here it says, offence is “not exceeding 3 years if the person, without reasonable excuse, contravenes this section.”—“this section” being holding a firearm licence or visitor licence. As we see later on in the bill, there is also offence of different year requirements, or different limits on years, as well as some of, if we’re looking at clauses 251 to 254, there is also a fine attached to it, ranging between $15,000 to $20,000. I guess, the first question is: what’s the rationale for there not being a fine attached to this section, and also how does, then, this section interact with later sections, such as clauses 251 to 254? That being my first question.

My second question is also—I guess, it might be quite obvious, but I do want to have it on Hansard that the assumption would be that a firearms licence or visitor licence is a current one, because I do know that the definition part doesn’t explicitly state “an expired licence or etc.”, and noting that clause 76 does say the “Duration of [a] licence”. Would that be the correct assumption to say that they must hold a current firearms licence? Those are my three questions for clause 14.

I am just going to move to clause 18, very briefly, and this is just on the back of the Minister’s previous response on airguns. I think the Minister has also acknowledged that this is something that Governments will continue to monitor in terms of the power and velocity of the airguns. But I’m just checking, in here, whether the Minister considers that it be the right balance, that “airgun” as currently stated under clause 18(1) does not require any form of licence—and, if it gets to a stage where airguns would then have the similar impact or potential harm as a standard firearm, would that be something that needs to be considered: to include a licence requirement, or incorporate it under a standard firearms licence?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:37): The clause 14 referring to a person requiring a firearms licence to possess a standard firearm sets out that they do need to have a firearms licence. There are other penalties for people who don’t have a firearms licence and are in possession of firearms. This is relating to the penalties for a person who does have a licence and are not behaving, so to speak. The penalty has been increased from one-year imprisonment, or a maximum fine of $15,000, to three years imprisonment solely. We have actually gone through the entire offence regime, which has been dawdled with here and there—tinkered with—over the last 40 years. So you will see an upgrade in the offences, an upgrade in some of the fines. You specifically asked a question about “Why not a $15,000 fine?”, it’s because we are ensuring, throughout all of the offence regime, that they all line up with each other.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:38): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question in relation to Part 2, clause 14, which is the “Requirement for possession of [a] standard firearm” and also the defence to prosecution under that particular clause. Clause 14 specifies “A person may [only] possess a standard firearm only if the person holds a firearms licence or visitor licence.” The only exception or defence to prosecution under that is: “Defence to prosecution for offence under section 14” is that if the defendant proves the standard firearm in their possession for the use was under the immediate supervision of a firearms licence holder, and at all times they were in possession of a standard firearm, they were under the immediate supervision of a firearms licence holder. So, for example, on a gun range, the way I understand that to work is that someone who doesn’t hold a firearms licence, if they’re standing beside someone who does hold a firearms licence, they are legally allowed to shoot that firearm and operate it.

Now, what we do know, and there have been reports that I have seen through the Official Information Act (OIA), is that there have been instances where, for example, a gang member has been in that situation. Under legislation, we know that gang members are prohibited from having a firearms licence and from having access to firearms. My question for the Minister is: if that person who is under the supervision is also a member of an organised criminal group that’s been listed under legislation that we have, if they’re clearly a gang member, is that still a “Defence to prosecution for offence under section 14”, as set out in clause 15 of the bill?

We do know that there have been instances that we have seen through OIAs to the Police and there have been reports that members of organised criminal groups or gangs have been on firearms ranges, on gun ranges, practising using weapons, because they’ve been the guest of someone who is a member of that club or they have been under the immediate supervision of someone who has a firearms licence. I’m just wanting to seek reassurance from the Minister as to what protections would be in place for public safety in order to prevent a defence to prosecution under section 14 if the supervising person with the firearms licence is in fact supervising someone who is a gang member.

The next point I’d like to understand is, what if they don’t know? What if they’ve lied or they’ve taken their jacket off, but they still are a gang member and they’re practising on a range? Is that still a defence?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:41): I think that last point that the member just raised, which is, “What if they don’t know?” Well, if they don’t know—“they” being the person that is on the range that is running the range, for example—then they don’t know what they don’t know. Clause 14 is actually setting out what is required for those people with a standard licence.

In regard to gang members, there’s a whole other series of different clauses throughout the bill that actually deal with that. Anyone can use a firearm under the immediate supervision of a licensed firearm owner, unless they’re excluded from doing so. Gang members with a firearms prohibition order (FPO) placed upon them are excluded from doing so. That is something that the member’s party had brought in under the last Government, the FPO regime, and this Government has come in and made them tighter off the back of that to ensure the public safety outcome that the member is also looking for. We worked harder on that as well to make sure that we were trying to close some of those gaps that had arisen.

Clause 14, in the situations that the member had expressed, would not be used to charge a person; there would be other clauses throughout the bill that would be used to try to ensure that the right people were able to be in possession of firearms, including under immediate supervision.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (10:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m also on clause 14. I just wanted to clarify with the Minister: when I first read this clause, I thought that its intention was to replace current section 45 of the Act, and I was comparing both language and penalties, but just from the Minister’s earlier comment, it sounded like perhaps that’s not the case. The current penalty under section 45 was four years, and it looked to me like it had gone down to three, but I’ve probably got the section wrong.

Hon Nicole McKee: Section 20.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Section 20? OK—well, that make sense. My read of the comparison to section 45 may then not be relevant, but could the Minister confirm that the language that is contained in current section 45 is still there in a sufficiently broad way to cover things like stockpiling without necessarily criminal intent? My current read of section 45 is that it’s quite broad in its language; it talks about sufficient purpose, and lawful and proper purpose, which is quite different from “without reasonable excuse”. I’m just wondering whether that scope to cover stockpiling is still there.

Then, on clause 16, “Requirement for possession of blank-firing gun”, I note that in the current legislation, there’s no precise offence around that—prosecutions could be brought under possessing an imitation firearm. Now, we have these two offences that sit side by side; we have “possession of a blank-firing gun” and “imitation firearm” with two quite different penalty regimes. Under “blank-firing gun”, we have “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years”, no financial penalty; and for “imitation firearm”, the penalty has been increased to two years and $15,000. I’m just wondering whether there’s a risk of almost duplicate offences, or how the Minister sees those two offences operating separately—just giving me a sense of what the factual circumstances would be in terms of the different application of those two offences given the very different penalties that apply.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:45): One of the things that we’re bringing in is that you were allowed to a have a blank-firing gun without the requirement to have a licence—that’s always been the way. You can remember at the racing track at school, they would use the blank-firing guns to start your races, and we use them all over the country. But, more recently, police have found that gang members in particular are starting to convert or are trying to convert some blank-firing guns into operational guns. This is why we are now putting it into legislation to ensure that they are actually captured under the regime.

We’re not using those very much now; there’s only small rural schools that are using them, so we think that we can actually progress past. We’re basically saying that, effectively, those that are still out there can still be held, because we don’t want people having to rush out and get licences, but if they’re being imported into New Zealand or somebody new wants to purchase one, they need to have a firearms licence, in order to try to close what we think could be a public safety gap in that respect.

When it comes to the different offences and the penalties, it was quite a job to go through and not only look at what we had in the Arms Act and make sure that we bring it up to a standard that is also dissuasive for those without licences to be in possession—so we don’t want to incentivise people by having low penalties; we want to make sure that only the right, fit, and proper people are in charge or able to possess some of these firearms. When you have a look at the offences, not only has it been upgraded based on what we think we needed to do within the Arms Act but we had to look comparatively at other pieces of legislation, like the Crimes Act, the Sentencing Act, etc., to ensure that they also aligned with other regimes there.

I’m not going to go throughout this specifically answering why we have increased or decreased to this amount, because I think I can just cover that off by saying that we are increasing penalties across the board to improve public safety by disincentivising people from trying to use firearms in an illegal manner.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:48): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There should be an amendment—it’s just been lodged a few minutes ago, so if it’s not there, it should be there shortly. It was just further to—here it comes now—the “Defence to prosecution for offence under section 14”. My proposed amendment is to add another subclause that says, “this defence cannot be used where the defendant is a revoked or a suspended licence holder”.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments that there are provisions in other parts of the Act that provide for gang members, but I think this would be a sensible change to the bill that would make it very clear right from the outset, and potentially would also help clarify situations, if prosecuting in a court of law, where if the person who is being supervised by the lawful firearms licence holder is in fact someone is in fact someone who has had a firearms licence revoked or suspended, that defence simply would not apply. That would make it incredibly clear in law, and it would also provide further protections to all of that.

We could actually add that provision under clauses 15(c), 17(c), 19(c), 23(4), 25(3), 41(3), 43(c), 45(4), and 49(c). It would be consistent right throughout the legislation that there’s quite simply no way at all that someone could use that defence if they have had their firearms licence suspended or revoked. I think this is a sensible public safety measure. The Minister said at the outset that the focus of this bill is increasing public safety. I’d be really interested to understand from her whether she thinks this amendment would in fact make the law clearer and enable our courts to clearly prosecute when someone has circumvented public safety, and whether she’d be open to adopting this change.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:50): Again, this particular clause is a carryover. It’s equivalent to section 22(2)(a) of the Arms Act. As it currently stands, I think it has been working quite well. It does not need to just ban everybody outright, including people who have been suspended. They have not been revoked. Suspension quite often can mean that somebody might need to have some hands-on work with them, and this will allow them to be able to do that.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (10:50): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ahh—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Madam Chair, we’re only at 16. Madam Chair, we’ve only just started Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, I know, but nobody was seeking was a call either. The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:51): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Todd Stephenson: Very lucky.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re very lucky.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I would like to ask the Associate Minister of Justice in relation to the requirement for possession of an airgun; that’s under clause 18 of Part 2. The current provision in the primary bill states that—and it’s also covered off in the amendment as well—under 18(1)(a) “A person may only possess an airgun if the person is over the age of 18; or (b) aged between 16 and 18 years and holds a firearms licence or visitor licence.” It goes on to provide that “A person commits an offence [under this] is liable [for a] conviction or a fine not exceeding $1,000 … without reasonable excuse, [or] contravenes that section.”

I’m really interested to know—I’ve received some information that airguns, the numbers are increasing. I’m wanting to know if the Minister has received any advice on the number of airguns being used and whether she’s seen an increase in importation and use of airguns at all, and whether she is concerned if there’s any safety concerns over someone aged 16 who’s able to access one of these. I do note that the defence to a prosecution under this—it’s clearly laid out that it’s a defence for prosecution if “the airgun was in their possession for use under the immediate supervision of someone [who is] over the age of 18.” In that situation, you could have someone who’s 16 and someone who’s 18 using an airgun. I referred to it earlier around another provision that some of the calibre—I don’t know if that’s the right word—but the velocity or the strength of the power of those airguns, some of those are pretty powerful these days. Just interested to know whether she thinks it’s a sufficient public safety protection that we would potentially have someone who’s 16 years old operating one of these weapons who doesn’t have a firearms licence, under the supervision of someone who’s 18 years old, and whether she’s comfortable with that in the legislation.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:53): This section is a carryover, once again, of the Arms Act 1983 in regard to who can be in possession of an air rifle or airgun. It does make mention that if someone aged between 16 and 18 wants to purchase one of these, or be in possession of these, they actually need a firearms licence to do so. It’s only over the age of 18 where they don’t. There is a category of restricted airgun that speaks to the high velocity joules that the member was referring to, and I have already covered previously around those joules and how that will be addressed in regulations as to whether or not a velocity needs to be set, but that will be done in a novel way—it’s called consultation with the community.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:54): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to move on a bit further into Part 2, into clause 21, and it provides—I don’t understand actually why it’s in the amendment as well, but never mind; it’s in both—“Exception if repairs or modifications to pistol or restricted weapons undertaken by a licenced business.” This section provides that section 21B, which is a requirement for the possession of a pistol or restricted weapon and endorsements. That was endorsements being made specific to the pistol, the issue of a permit to an import pistol, or the permit to possess the pistol.

In this section, there is an exception if modifications are made, I understand, by a licensed business following repair and modification, and if it has not been out of the possession of the individual for more than 21 days. I’m interested to understand whether she thinks—and I need to actually check—whether she is reassured. What advice has the Associate Minister of Justice received that there won’t be unauthorised modification of firearms as a result of having that carve-out that is an exception if repairs or modifications are made to a pistol or a restricted weapon by a licensed business?

I would also like to know—we know that there are some rapid-fire weapons that are used—that there’s a carve-out for, say, pest control and for specific purposes. We know that those are permitted. If someone wants to have repairs done to one of those weapons, are there sufficient protections in place that they won’t get into the wrong hands? If there is—I’d also be interested to know how: do we know the difference between what is a modification and what is a repair, and are there any kind of eyes over what’s happening once those weapons come into a licensed business?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (10:56): I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for the change that they had suggested of moving from a seven-day possession for a gunsmith through to 21 days. It was really important that this change was made, because when Labour rushed through their laws, as part of that, it was determined, not necessarily in the legislation, but by police policy that they would stop gunsmiths from being able to hold stocks of supplies, such as, say, if there was a broken trigger—they’d have triggers and firing pins—they’re no longer actually allowed to hold those stocks. And so a person comes in and they bring in their firearm for a repair or a modification, and the gunsmith has no stock. They’ve actually got to try and apply to get it either from somewhere in New Zealand, which is quite rare, or get them in from overseas, which with the current state of the world is actually quite hard to get parts in. The gunsmiths have said to us we’re spending more time on a computer trying to fill out forms for being in possession and they’re finding it very cumbersome. It means they actually can’t get on with the jobs that they have been tasked to complete.

Another side to this is where it might be a very quick job. It could be that, say, for example, somebody’s firing pin isn’t working properly; the bolt just needs to be quickly disassembled, cleaned, put back, and it can be given back to that individual. That’s what was envisaged at first: to be able to keep it for seven days so you can do a quick repair job without having to spend more time on the computer filling in the paperwork than actually doing the job. I commend the select committee for doing that, especially with the unavailability of parts and the very limited number of gunsmiths that we have around New Zealand.

With unauthorised modifications throughout this bill, anything that modifies a firearm in a way that could perhaps make it become a restricted-type firearm does need approval from the regulator first. To not get that approval would be committing an offence in itself. Then what we find, actually, is that the gunsmiths around New Zealand are really good people, very law-abiding people, who have a business that they want to maintain, and of course, it’s a service that the 220,000 licensed firearm owners do need to have.

I will point out that, during the select committee stage, the bill was asked to be extended, the timeframe extended to 21 days based off that select committee, and there are proposed changes in the Amendment Paper to clause 21, and that is in regard to the definition of modification. The effect of this is that a licensed business undertaking a modification to a pistol or restricted weapon to permanently deactivate it must have a permit to import or possess the pistol or restricted weapon, and the owner of the pistol or restricted weapon must have a permit to import or possess before it is returned to them. Cabinet has agreed to rescind its previous decision to enable the permanently deactivated firearms, as I had mentioned before, but I’m just bringing it up again because it’s in the Amendment Paper and you’ve given me clause 21 to be able to speak to that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it is a genuine question; it’s one of clarification for the Minister. It’s about the use of restricted firearms and it’s in relation to biosecurity and pest control. What I’m just a little confused about is the qualifications of the individuals—and I know if they are employees of a company, then they are permitted to use it.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What clause are you speaking to, sorry?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Sorry, we’re talking about clause 30 here, “Exception for employees of approved ammunition sellers”, or “Requirements for possession of restricted firearm”, which is clause 31—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —and whether the Minister considered and whether there was a need for any greater checks and balances of employees of companies that are permitted to hold these firearms and use them, and whether a character check or other requirement is a sensible way forward. I’m just familiar with the realities, I guess, of people who will be working for many of these companies. Many will be familiar with firearms, but when it comes to the restricted firearms, I guess—and the Minister has acknowledged herself—this law places greater obligations, checks and balances, on the company and access to those firearms.

The one around “the personal use of” is something that I’d just seek some clarity from the Minister on. I know she probably will have an answer and that’s great, but I just think it would be good to have it in the House.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. You’ll have a company that might do pest control and every individual that works for that company will have to have their own endorsement to be able to use restricted firearms. In order for them to work for that company and use restricted firearms, they must have their own personal endorsement. The company itself doesn’t have an endorsement as a company, but they have permission to operate from the regulator.

The reason why we’ve bought this in is because, quite often, pest controllers—and a lot of them are Department of Conservation workers, actually, from Government agencies—they’ll be out in the nether, nether lands, way out there where there is no reception, and they may be in a helicopter or they may be on land. At times, they will have to use different types of firearms. One might be using a shotgun from a helicopter, for example, and another one might be using a rifle. What they use will depend on where they are shooting and what the background is, and making sure that they use the correct type of firearm for the environment that they’re in is extremely important.

Under current legislation, it would mean that “Well, we’ve flown over to here; I now need to use a shotgun instead of a rifle. Wait a minute. I can’t shoot. I’ve got to go back in to do a transfer—get on the computer and do a transfer—to be able to use that firearm.” What this is allowing those pest controllers to do in that environment is to be able to swap firearms with each other so that they can still do their job without having to do all the unnecessary paperwork. They can just get on with doing it. The reason why we have agreed to this extension for them is because they are fit and proper. They have been given an endorsement, so that means that they’ve gone through the rigmaroles—even more so than a standard firearms licence—to be able to achieve the pest control wording.

I’ve also got here biosecurity: yeah, they still need the endorsements. The change relates to permits and pre-approved agreements.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:03): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I know the Minister, at several stages through the debate, has referred to parts of the former Arms Act that have carried over. I’m just interested to hear from her about section 49A in the 1983 Act, which expressly makes it an offence for any revoked licence holder to possess a firearm or ammunition in any circumstances if they are not a person authorised expressly by application of the Act to be in possession. This is because a revoked person is not fit and proper to possess or use a firearm. But it seems to be—and this is my question—that this hasn’t carried over into the present Arms Bill. There seems to be no provision in the Arms Bill, and I can’t see it in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658, either. There is no reference to section 49, as the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) offer notes. There’s no fine print inserted by PCO that refers to the former Act.

I know that the Minister has, in the past discussion, stated about the prosecution for unlawful possession if a person is under immediate supervision of a licence holder—but my concern is there is no immediate supervision provision as it was in the old Act, which is designed for situations where you might have a younger person or a trainee learning how to use a firearm who’s out hunting or in a shooting range. It’s not to allow a revoked person to keep hunting with their mates and shooting at rangers with their mates.

Essentially, my concern is that the fact that it’s not carried over from the 1983 Act and it’s not explicitly stated around whether section 49A is there—it kind of appears to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail card for revoked licence holders to be able to keep using their guns. I’d be really interested to know what the rationale is for why that provision in the former 1983 Arms Act, section 49A, has not been carried over as far as I am aware into the Arms Bill or into her Amendment Paper 658 that was just recently tabled.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:06): I am not going to go through the Arms Act 1983 to specifically pull out exactly the clause at the member has spoken to, because I’m really interested in the Arms Bill that we have in front of us right now. What I do have are our different clauses, and I’ll talk about where I can see some carry-over or some changes—modifications—that have been made in those particular ones.

What I will point out to the member, though, is a massive amount of duplication that has been found throughout the Arms Act 1983. While something may have been removed in clause 49, as the member points out, it is more than likely it has been inserted elsewhere for better clarity and in a better place. It may not be in the section, it may be somewhere else, but we have a robust piece of legislation that will keep the public safe and there are no gaps in this legislation.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (11:07): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be quick in terms of my questions for the Minister. Firstly, on clause 26, it sets out a single penalty regardless of whether the offender is an individual or a licensed business. I just want to know whether the Minister considered a higher culpability for a licensed business given the greater scale, in my view, of the risk there. Then, in clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I please get you to confirm the clause for us.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Clause 20, subclause (6)—the seven years. Then, clause 23: this is the reverse-onus offence. I just wanted to get an understanding of whether the Minister considered being more specific about what the accused was required to prove or whether that would be left to common law.

My third and final question is in relation to deleting “expressly or by implication”, in terms of being “authorised or permitted”. Is the Minister’s intention to suggest that the individual must show expressly and that it cannot be via implication, or—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause is that one?

VANUSHI WALTERS: This is clause 23, and I’m asking specifically about subclause (1).

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Subclause (1). Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:08): Clause 20, as the member alluded to, is equivalent to section 19C of the current Act. Again, just some drafting changes for clarity there. Clause 23 is carrying over section 36(5) and section 50(5) of the Arms Act, with drafting changes, again, for clarity and for plain language. My expectation is that the removal of certain words is to increase that clarity and plain language throughout the bill, and to also give some consistency for the wording that is used throughout the bill.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:09): Thank you very much. Just to clarify that the Minister confirmed that section 49A has not been carried over, and that she did not point to a place in the bill where it has been replicated. I think people deserve an answer. That was a clear provision to prevent someone who—you know, it’s a safety issue. I think it’s only fair that a person who is not fit and proper shouldn’t have access to guns. I really would love her to point to one part in the Arms Bill that provides for that provision that previously existed under the 1993 Arms Act. Where is it?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:10): Thank you. If a person doesn’t have a licence, they can’t behave like they have a licence. I think it’s quite as simple as that. There’s no need to carry over every single provision of the Arms Act. What we have done is tidy it up to ensure that we do have consistency and clarity throughout the bill. If the member is going to sit on the past Arms Act and ask why every clause hasn’t been rewritten into the new Arms Act, we would say we wouldn’t have a whole new Arms Act. We’re tidying it up; we’re making it efficient. For those that have been revoked and don’t have a licence, they should not behave like they do. Maybe the member wants them to, but we don’t.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Associate Minister of Justice a couple of questions on clause 23. This is to do with the defence. My first question is quite a straightforward one, which is on clause 23(2), in terms of the defence, and I’m assuming all four criteria need to be met for the defence to stand—being my first question. My second question is: are those four criteria, paragraphs (a) to (d), exclusive, as in, they are the only four criteria that, for example, anyone would consider as a defence?

My second question is around clause 23(3). For that, it doesn’t explicitly state that the person needs to hold a firearms licence, but the supervisor of the person needs to hold a firearms licence. I’m assuming that, with clause 23(3), this kind of defence is exclusively in relation to shooting ranges.

I guess my final question for clause 23 is that nothing in this part, I’m assuming, exonerates or exempts a person if there should be any sort of injury or harm to another person—I would assume, right?

I just want to check those three questions for clause 23. I admit this is purely out of my personal curiosity, but I want to check with the Minister, for clause 24, what is a pistol carbine conversion kit and what is it used for?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:13): One of the things that we have done within the Arms Act is actually start to introduce what a defence would be to a certain offence. The reason for that is to help people understand—especially with a whole new rewrite—what the requirements are and what they need to do. While we say it is a defence, we’re basically outright, in clause 23(2)(a) through to (d), saying if you are doing all of these, this is your defence. It’s in an effort that the layman could then pick up the Act and go, “Oh, I can do that.”, because it can be quite confusing—legislation, for the man on the street, can be quite confusing. That’s why we’ve laid it out there.

Now, I was asked whether or not that’s an exhaustive list. That’s not up to me to decide. That would be up to a judge or the regulator to decide. There could be something else where a review committee might decide, actually, they have another defence, but this is just to make it quite clear that these particular things are a defence.

In answer to the member’s question about clause 23(3) and pistols and ranges as an example, in New Zealand, you are only allowed to shoot a pistol on a range. You’re not allowed to shoot them anywhere else in the country. You can’t take them hunting. They can only be used on a range. That’s why we make specific carve-outs here about pistols and also the immediate supervision.

A pistol carbine conversion kit is, effectively, where you can take—I’m trying to think of how to not be so technical with my answer. You can buy a conversion kit and you can add it to a pistol and turn it into something else. It’s, effectively—it’s that. We’re restricting that, because if you think about it, pistols are short firearms. You might be able to convert it into a carbine, which makes it a longer-type firearm with a pistol grip on it—easily concealable if in the wrong hands. You want to be able to ensure that we keep that technology really, really tight as well.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:15): Just two quick follow-up questions. Thank you so much, Minister. I just want to check that the criteria—and this is also clarity, I think, from what the Minister is saying, for the public. If a member of the public looks at clause 23(2), they need to know they need to fulfil, at the minimum, all four requirements, right, for a defence, because it’s “and, and, and”? Cool—I got a nod from the Minister. That’s enough for me.

In terms of clause 24, with the pistol carbine conversion but also any endorsement, I’m assuming that’s all going to be captured in a register of some sort as well, so we’re able to keep track of that, right?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:16): Yes. Anything that’s pistol-related requires an endorsement to possess. You need to have an endorsement on your licence to even have a pistol. I’ll just point out here that that actually requires a pistol club to back you, to support you in your application, even to have an endorsement to have a pistol licence full stop. Then anything that you purchase for that pistol, like the pistol conversion kit, would need to have a permit to possess as well as to import, if you were, indeed, doing that as well.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:16): Thank you. I do have a question around the clause 27 requirement for possession of large-capacity pistol magazines. I just wanted to clarify—I know we have raised this, and I took notes when the Minister answered last night on the failure to carry over section 49A. She stated, I understood, “revoked people shouldn’t behave like that”. My concern is, well, shouldn’t it be Parliament’s job to write the law to ensure that there are, in fact, consequences when revoked people do actually behave like that? We can’t just operate on the basis that we’re hoping and they shouldn’t be doing that. That doesn’t seem like a very effective way of approaching public safety.

I’m still interested to know from the Minister—haven’t got an answer yet—where are the section 49 protections in the new bill? Give me the page, give me the section—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just point out to the member that the Minister has addressed that question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I haven’t had the section. She hasn’t told me the section of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): She has addressed the question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, I’m asking—where is it in the bill? It’s not question time. I want to know where it is in the bill.

Hon Nicole McKee: It’s a new bill. We’re not carrying over every single section.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: My question is: where is the protection for someone that was in the older—can you show me the section in here where it exists? That’s all I’m asking—that’s all I’m asking.

I flagged earlier on that I had a question in relation to that, which was on clause 27. It states that a person may possess a large-capacity pistol magazine only if the person holds a firearms licence or visitor licence that bears an endorsement permitting them to possess a pistol. Thank you for the explanation you gave my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in relation to how you convert. I’m really interested to understand: when we went through the changes to the firearms ranges, there were greater protections in place, particularly for pistols, more so than other weapons that would be like a .22 or other long-barrel - type firearms. One of the reasons we were told in select committee back then was in relation to the fact that a pistol can be concealed. That’s why it’s seen as a potentially more dangerous weapon. I’m really interested to know if that is the same logic that’s been used here in terms of the, I guess, probably, extra protections put on requirements for the conversion for pistols. Is there greater emphasis on making sure that’s specified in this legislation for the very same reasons that were put forward in the changes to firearms ranges—if she could speak to that?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:19): The member is really caught up on section 49A and I think actually probably went about trying to misquote me or—not misquote, but sort of try and put my words somewhere where they weren’t. Effectively, if a person is revoked, they can be revoked for all sorts of things. I know that the member has it that, in her mind, it could just be for criminal activity or serious violent activity, but some people are revoked or suspended for things to do with alcohol. It might be a driving offence for example, which they’ve been revoked for. It doesn’t mean that you’re not fit and proper to be under the immediate supervision of another person. In regard to different regimes—and I had said to the member—I had addressed it by saying we have other clauses throughout here. I had mentioned, so I will mention it again to the member: the Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPO) regime will stop people from even being on a range. Therefore, they will not be able to be under immediate supervision if they have an FPO upon them. There are other areas throughout this where we are ensuring that those that should not be in possession of firearms or using them are not—but we are not coming down with a hammer on every single person for every single thing that they might do, especially if they’ve been suspended for something that is quite minor.

I refer the member perhaps to clause 157 for the FPOs. In regard to the prohibited magazines—the large capacity pistol magazines—this is closing a loophole that Labour had left after 2019. This is ensuring again that only large capacity pistol magazines can be possessed by those people with the pistol endorsements; to stop anyone with a standard firearms licence or not. What we had in the previous regime was that you didn’t even need a firearms licence to go buy a large capacity magazine. One loophole was closed there—finally, since I’ve been asking since 2012 for that to happen. Since then, we’re now also closing another loophole that was not addressed in previous legislation by ensuring that the large capacity pistol magazines are also maintained only by fit and proper people with the correct endorsements.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (11:22): Minister, I’m just looking at clause 28 and I’ve just been trying to work out what the effect is of the proposed change in language. It changes “a person may possess a part of a restricted weapon only if the person holds a firearms licence” etc. to “a person may possess a major firearm, part of a restricted weapon, or any other part of a restricted weapon.” I would have thought that that second part captured the first, so that the original drafting was sufficient and clear enough to ensure that we were covering any part—whether it be a major part or a less major part.

I’m then looking at new clause 31: the requirements for possession of restricted firearm. I note the change to the language in subclause 2(b) which says, “the licensed business takes or took possession of the restricted firearm from another person”. Is it possible that the licensed business could take possession from another licensed business, in which case, wouldn’t the original language be more suitable? Or specifying the words after “from another person” and adding the language “or another licensed business”—that’s my second question.

Then my third is in relation to the penalties. Subclause 4—and I absolutely understand that the Minister isn’t going to speak about an increase or decrease to every penalty within what is a very substantial bill. I do know that the offences under this section are quite broad; you could have an unlicensed premises, you could have licensed but unendorsed, or you could have lapsed endorsement, perhaps. The scale of offending, again, seems to me to be quite broad, but we do have a singular penalty. So I’m just wanting the Minister’s view on whether she believes that it is appropriate that that scale of offending all fits within that seven-year cap on penalties. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:24): I’m advised that—in regard to the penalty side of it—because under the Sentencing Act the court can impose a fine of any amount if an offence is punishable by imprisonment, we want people to be punished by imprisonment and not get a fine instead of it to show the severity and seriousness in which we take those potential causes. That’s why fines have been removed to make sure that prison is the requirement there. Under section 28, this was for emphasis really—and to make it very, very clear what our expectations are.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:25): I’m going to jump on to a couple of new sections, noting that my colleagues may have questions for other sections. I want to first start with clause 38. Minister, you’ve made some changes in the Amendment Paper 658 on clause 38(1)(b)(ii). That’s helped clarify that we’re looking at the whole entire process of making and also production. One of the questions then—it occurred to me as I’m reading the Minister’s amendment—is what happens when it comes to, for example, storage or transport in between some of that production? Is that being captured now by the changes we’re seeing in clause 38(1)(b)(ii)?

I do want to jump on to a further section—this is something that I am curious about—and that’s clause 54. This is to do with selling arms or ammunition by mail order or online, and what I specifically want to ask is clause 54(1)(a) is signed by the purchaser—can I get the clarification from the Minister that “signed by the purchaser” is at the point of purchase or does it also include a signed delivery? Now, the reason I ask this is that an item referred to in subsection 1 could refer to a standard firearm. If you buy a standard firearm online and it gets delivered to your house, you’re not there to pick it up, and it was just left on your doorstep, is there a requirement for signed delivery in those cases? Or should it be more explicit, like you can buy ammunitions etc. without a signature, but if you are buying anything that could be a firearm or turn into a firearm in itself, it would require a signed delivery? I just want to check clarifications on that.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:27): In response to section 54, the mail-order purchasing came in quite a long time ago. I won’t mention her name, but there was a journalist who tested the provision and found a loophole—so that came in at that time. What it effectively meant was that we didn’t want mail order just going to anybody, especially people who were unlicensed. When a purchase occurs, you actually have to go through the regulator to get signoff, and that regulator will double check that the seller and the buyer both have the appropriate licences and endorsements. When they sign these particular forms will depend on who they are at what stage they sign them. It will depend on where they are, as well, because someone can go down to your local Firearms Safety Authority—it will become your local FSA—to get it. Some will do it online; some will go in person.

Effectively, it’s confirming that the purchaser and the seller both have firearm licences, that the transaction that’s taking place is being recorded, and the stage at which it’s signed will occur before the transaction takes place. You’re effectively putting the regulator in the middle of it to understand exactly when these transactions are taking place, and that they are lawful in the way that they are taking place. Especially when people may live in different parts of the country—one in the North Island, one in the South Island—in ensuring that we know exactly where and how that firearm, or parts or ammunition, is being moved from one place to another both legally and in the correct manner.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:29): Just a follow up clarification, because what I was referring to is not so much the purchasing side for online orders, but the delivery side. If you go through all these processes and you buy it, and it gets delivered but you’re not home, and it is just left on your doorstep—I want to check if that needs to be a consideration.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:29): Yes. They will definitely need to be signed if that occurs, which I think is what is happening right now. There is a provision—a bit of a policy—that’s gone through, where they’re not actually being delivered to your home. They’re not being left on the doorstep; they’re being delivered to a business, say, a retail shop, say, a Hunting & Fishing, or to a gunsmith. It’s being delivered to a place. So if you say, “I’m not going to be home. I’m at work. I can’t take delivery of it.”, it won’t be delivered, effectively, but it can be delivered to a business on your behalf who will also sign for it and will also have to do a transaction to get it back to you. It should all be captured.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:30): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a question for the Associate Minister of Justice in relation to Part 2, clause 40, and specifically to clause 41. Clause 40 is “Requirements for selling or supplying standard firearm, blank-firing gun, or airgun”, and clause 41 is “Defence to prosecution for offence under section 40”.

The guts of it is that a person can supply or sell a standard firearm to another person only if they meet the right requirements, and it is a defence to that offence if that person took reasonable steps to ascertain whether the person to whom they sold or supplied the standard firearm was a licensed firearms holder or was a licensed firearms business, in fact. The reason I ask this question is because we know that straw purchasing is a problem in New Zealand. We’ve got this information from New Zealand Police, where there might be instances where someone is making a legal purchase of a firearm but then it falls into the hands of someone who is not legal, or a criminal, or doesn’t have a licence.

I know that there have been successful prosecutions, but I’m really interested to understand, from the Minister’s point of view: what are those reasonable steps to ascertain whether the person to whom they sold or supplied the standard firearm was actually a licence holder? Because, then, we also see situations where—and this is slightly different but she might want to comment on it—there’s been, like, a burglary or a robbery that wasn’t really, but someone’s kind of just left the keys out and they’ve taken the guns that were left in the garage.

I think it’s really important, if we’re talking about being able to deter people from engaging in getting their hands on weapons illegally, that there needs to be strong protections in place that don’t incentivise people who are legal firearms owners profiting or being able to undertake straw purchasing in order for criminals to get their hands on weapons, when otherwise they wouldn’t have access to it. I’m really interested to understand, from her point of view, what those reasonable steps should be to ascertain whether the person to whom they sold or supplied the standard firearm was a licence holder or a licensed business, and whether there is sufficient protection in place to prevent and deter straw purchasing from occurring in New Zealand.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:33): As I mentioned earlier, we have put within the Arms Act what defences are to certain clauses. With the changes of a whole new arms regime coming through, we want to make it quite clear to the users—a quarter of a million people out there—exactly what their rights and obligations are.

When the member asked, “What is a reasonable step?”, a reasonable step would be asking to look at a firearms licence. It could actually be where somebody turns up and goes to purchase a firearm off an individual and they don’t even bother to show that they are in possession of a firearms licence. A reasonable step would be to double-check that a person actually has a licence.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (11:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. A similar clause but a slightly different question. I just wanted to ask the Associate Minister of Justice to confirm, kind of, the logic behind the slightly different reverse burden standards in clause 37, compared to clause 41.

In clause 37, “A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction … for a term not exceeding 3 years if the person, without reasonable excuse, contravenes [that] section”. Then, in clause 41, we have a much more explicit set of requirements of proof and the deletion in the clause above of the language “without reasonable excuse”. There appears to be a distinctly different choice being made about that reverse onus, and, on my reading—although, I’d be grateful for the Minister’s view—the clause 37 approach allows for a broader range of opportunities for an accused individual to justify why they weren’t compliant. Clauses 40 and 41 offer a much narrower set of reasons for the accused person to justify why they’re in breach. I’m just wondering whether that was intentional.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 37 is not a reverse onus clause, so I’m quite happy with the way this is set up.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two additional questions for this part, and one of them is around clause 60—I guess Subpart 6, in general, in terms of business activities. I’m just curious as to whether this is something where, for example, the business will have certain compliance requirements or there will be monitoring to ensure—let’s say, in clause 60—that there will be, like, annual or biannual checks that, indeed, all of the businesses have employees that hold firearm licences. Or would the checks and compliance requirement be proactive, rather than reactive, as in someone makes a complaint and then people will go into investigate? Or is it something of the nature of the business itself needing to require an update? I just want to check in terms of the compliance requirement. That’s my first question.

My second question is around clause 65, also noting that this is a clause that has some changes in terms of the Associate Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 658. As far as I can see, the main change is around the previous clause 65(2)(b), which is that the licensed business must have a permit to possess each of the items, but that has now been moved to “the chief executive must be satisfied”. I just want to check on the rationale for moving it from the business, I guess, producing it—I guess—as opposed to, now, the chief executive requiring that information from the business, if the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying that change.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:37): Thank you. I’m hoping that my answer to you about clause 60 is answering the question, because I wasn’t too clear on the question.

Let me explain why we’ve done this particular clause: it’s permitting an employee of a licensed business to assist with the carrying out of the business activity. Effectively, under the regime that we have right now—and I’m going to come back to a retail shop—the owner of a retail shop will have an endorsement and be able to operate the business to be able to sell firearms and ammunition, and that person might also be able to sell, to people with the correct endorsements, restricted types of firearms, as well. The employees that work there also have to have an endorsement to be able to do this sort of thing. Effectively, we’re saying that this is just compounding the amount of people who, at the moment, also have to be renewed every 12 months.

We’ve actually changed it so that we’re expanding the scope that people are able to sell but also making sure that those employees are the correct type of employees that have the special knowledge, without having to get the endorsement. It’s just a bit of trying to clarify it, get rid of a bit of red tape, but still keep it quite strong so that the regulator knows who those employees are, but they don’t have to go through this 12-monthly regime of having to get an endorsement. They’ll still be looked at, they’ll still need to have a firearms licence, but they won’t necessarily need to have those endorsements. Clause 60 is about compliance requirements.

Clause 65, the firearms licence holder seeks to—it’s about manufacturing. I’m just going to say, because I wasn’t quite sure, as well, about what your question was there on clause 65.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What’s the change?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The chief executive approval, including the type and quantity and, in some cases, justification before manufacturing specific classes of items with regulatory consequences for non-compliances. It means, basically, that the licensed business needs to obtain approval from the chief executive—this is the chief executive of the new monitoring agency—for the type and quantity of what it is that they want to manufacture, so they just don’t go off and do whatever they want, and make whatever they want without getting some of that approval first, especially under certain circumstances as defined from clauses 64 through to 66. It’s basically putting regulatory consequences in there for non-compliance, and making sure that they don’t just go on and start manufacturing.

While we are on clause 65, and it’s within the Amendment Paper so that I can bring it up, I’d just like to mention proposed amendment to clause 65 to fix a drafting error and clarify the clause also applies—no, because we took that out. Sorry, that’s out of the Amendment Paper. It’s all good.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a clarification?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Just to clarify.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thanks.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clause 60. Thank you, Minister. You actually answered my question, I think, which is the fact that the employees or the business conducting this activity will still be monitored and checked, which means that for anything else that comes with it, they will still get notifications saying, “Hey, you should renew your firearms licence.”, and all of that is still being tracked. It does answer my question that the agency or the new board or whatever is still continuously monitoring, so that’s helpful. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen—I am just going to say at this point that we’re sort of getting to the pointy end of this part, so short, sharp clarifications. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:41): Yes, sure. My question is relation to the museum workers who “possess, display and store arms items, ammunition and restricted ammunitions” in clause 63. I know that we made changes at select committee and I know there have been subsequent changes from the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658, but if she could clarify. There’s been quite a bit of work done in and around museum workers and also their not requiring endorsements or permits to possess a whole range of things like restricted firearms, restricted magazines, pistols. I’m just interested to understand, first of all, the rationale behind any particular reasons why there is an exemption for endorsements in those spaces. I’m assuming it’s because public safety is at a lower risk, but if she could just clarify for me. I’ve gone through the committee’s report back; I’ve gone through the primary legislation, and then I’ve gone to her amendment. I just wanted to understand exactly what the changes had been that have been recently made, specific to museum workers.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:42): This, again, is in line with some other modifications that we’ve made, but, effectively, generally, not all of museum workers are firearm enthusiasts; they’re just there to have a job. Because they are working in museums—I’ll think of Waiouru National Army Museum for example—you’ll have your curators who will have the proper endorsements, but the person that’s sitting on the front counter accepting people coming in might also be the person that’s asked to help to move displays from one place to another. Under the current regime, they would need an endorsement to be able to just touch one of these. They quite often don’t even shoot firearms; they’re just there for a job. So this carve-out for them was to ensure that the museum workers don’t have to go through the same sort of regime of having to get a firearms licence, therefore putting security in their home and being looked at all the time, when they don’t have any firearms at home and have no intention of having firearms at home. So for those particular individuals, it stops the museum having to pay out for endorsements every 12 months for them as well, and just allows them to go to work and do their job. But I assure the member that within the museum cohort, those curators will have the appropriate endorsements.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (11:44): Thank you very much. I just have one other question in relation to subpart 8. It pertains to clause 64 and clause 65, that certain business licence holders may manufacture restricted items. I know that there have been provisions somewhere in the bill around 3D firearms as a new development. I’m just interested to understand from the Minister whether those provisions around requirements for manufacture of certain arms does in fact include 3D, and if not, why not? I understand that “An individual who’s a licensed business, or the senior manager of a body corporate” are able to do. For those ones that are licensed and able to, does that include 3D or has that been completely prohibited and that sits outside?

I’m interested to understand if there are kind of future considerations as to the way things may evolve. So even while we know now that there’s a real concern with police with 3D printer manufactured firearms that can be downloaded on the internet and used, is there a situation in the future where legal firearms could be made by manufacturers, and do we need to have an understanding or a provision for the future development of technology and how that might be utilised?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:45): I’m hoping that I’m actually able to capture that future technology aspect within the Arms Bill. When it comes specifically to 3D printing or manufacturing, manufacturing includes any type of method at all, so that includes 3D printing. The carve-out that we’ve had is that we have some amazing businesses in New Zealand—world-leading businesses in New Zealand—who are manufacturing, by 3D printing, firearm components that are now being asked for by defence agencies all over the world. We want to be able to continue to be world leaders in that space and not prohibit them from being able to continue to manufacture in that respect. But we do need to put some guidelines around them, ensuring that, for the purpose of manufacturing, they do have the correct licence to be able to do that.

As I mentioned earlier about how there’s a policy that gunsmiths are not allowed to hold parts to be able to fix different types of firearms, we’re now seeing the use of 3D printing coming in to manufacture some parts in order for quick fixing of certain types of firearms. This is really essential because, to give an example, there’s a requirement as a pistol endorsement holder that the person who has that endorsement must do 12 competitions per year. If their pistol is broken and they can’t get a part for another six to nine months, then they aren’t fulfilling the other legislative aspect, so we have made an ability for 3D printing to occur in New Zealand for specific types of items. Some will need a manufacturing licence and some will just require having a normal standard firearms licence, but the ability to manufacture arms parts or firearms without a licence at all will be completely illegal.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (11:47): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 87

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting subclause (3A) into clause 29 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 49A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting “unless the defendant is a revoked or suspended licence holder” into Part 2 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

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 54

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

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Licences and approvals

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 67 to 181, “Licences and approvals”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

Hon Nicole McKee: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:52): Sorry, I wasn’t sure if the Minister was going to make a comment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s all right. I just wasn’t sure if the Minister was going to—

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to start with clause 67, and I do want to pull in a couple of threads for clause 67, and also, at this stage, clause 68. My first question is on clause 67(1)(a), which is that a person may apply if the person is over the age of 16, but it also has requirements on what some of the disqualifying factors are. In terms of firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), what I can see in clause 289 is that the FPO is only for age 18 and above. So I guess the question is: if something happens between the age of 16 and 18, what happens between that? It looks like you can hold a firearm licence from 16, but FPOs only apply if you’re over 18. That’s my first question.

My second question is on clause 68. I think we’ll have quite a few questions on clauses 67 and 68, but the one I want to focus on in clause 68 is (a)(iii), which is about certain offences under the Crimes Act. I’m really pleased to see that section 189A, around strangulation, is in there because we know that that is quite an important factor that has been added in. I want to check with the Minister: why, then, is section 232 on aggravated burglary and section 235 on aggravated robbery not included here as offences that would disqualify a person from holding a firearms licence? Those two are my two questions on clauses 67 and 68.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to clause 67—sorry, I’m just quickly reading my notes while I’m standing. OK, in regard to clause 67, the member asked the question about 16-year-olds, for example. A 16-year-old can apply for a firearms licence, and when they apply for a firearms licence, they have to be judged to be fit and proper. If you have someone aged between 16 and 18 and, say, they’ve done ram raids, for example, there’s no gap here, because they would never be judged to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of a firearm at the age of 16 if they have that type of history behind them. The same with the firearms prohibition orders. They just wouldn’t be fit and proper.

The offences that the member specified are actually covered in clause 68(a)(ii). What we have got here—I’ll just mention this comes from the select committee; it’s a change that select committee asked for—was to ensure that people convicted under the Arms Act 1983 will remain disqualified under the new Arms Act when it comes in. It’s not answering that member’s question, but I’m just pointing out a select committee change that will ensure that there is a carry-over of information of disqualifications from the old Arms Act to the new one.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (11:56): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please make sure, for the House, that you call when you want a call, because if I don’t hear anything and it’s quiet, we stop.

DAN ROSEWARNE: Thank you. Thanks for that clarification, Chair, and thanks to the Minister and the officials for providing the responses to the questions. They’ve been very fruitful to date, so thank you.

My question is around clause 69 on page 69, “Persons who may be found not fit and proper to hold firearms licence”. I don’t disagree with that clause overall, but it does not properly reflect the way risks present in 2026. The reality is that radicalisation, organisation, and the promotion of violence and extremism increasingly take place online. Warning signs are often visible in digital behaviour, the content that people share, and in what they post, like in Facebook comments and the causes that they hit the “like” button on. At the moment, clause 69(1)(n), on page 70 on the next page, captures this through general language, particularly around patterns of behaviour and extreme extremism, but it does so implicitly, not explicitly. The amendment that I’m proposing makes that explicit. It inserts a new provision confirming that relevant online activity, including promoting or engaging with content or extremist material, posting threatening comments, or participating in groups who support those views is directly relevant to whether someone is a fit and proper person.

Now, under clause 69(1)(o), for someone to be assessed as a risk to the national security of New Zealand or another State, the bar would be very high and the public would expect that one would not be a fit and proper person well before they meet that threshold. I believe that we need to address that. So my question to the Minister is, if someone is openly posting hateful or extremist views online, say on a MP’s Facebook page or an online chat group, that may raise concern for the average member of the public or, for that matter, for police, but not necessarily meet the threshold that would warrant intervention by our security agencies. Shouldn’t that be enough to raise serious concerns about whether they are fit to hold a forearms licence?

Also, Minister, given the pace of online radicalisation, why would we not make this provision explicit in the legislation rather than relying on a broad interpretation? Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (11:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is, in an effort, I think, trying to give me scenarios, perhaps, and it’s not our position as legislation or lawmakers to try and counter every scenario but to give a broad regime available to the regulator. We feel confident that the bill gives the regulator the discretion to consider a wide range of factors. That could be the factors such as the member has considered himself: what might happen online; what might happen on Facebook or on Twitter or on Instagram; and who says what. Some people may be offended by things that are said and others may not be, so that’s not a threshold for us to decide here, but it will be a threshold for the regulator to decide on. Also, the regulator may look at whether or not there’s a consistency in this, and whether, as the member has mentioned, there appears to be a type of radicalisation: it’s not happened on one social media forum, but it’s happened over a lot or it’s happened over a period of time. Again, that’s not for us to address here, but for the regulator to have the tools, which I’m hoping that this section gives them, to be able to ascertain whether a person is fit and proper to hold a firearms licence. And this includes extreme or concerning online behaviour. So they can and will be able to have a look at that behaviour and make determinations.

Clause 69(1)(n) allows the regulator to find a person not fit and proper if they have shown patterns—like I have just mentioned—of behaviour that demonstrate a “tendency to exhibit, encourage, or promote violence, hatred, or extremism;” We’re also going to be establishing, as you’ll know later on within the bill, a red flag agreement between other agencies, so that there is information sharing, because what we’ve found under the current regime is one organisation might know of some extreme behaviour but have not shared that with the police at this stage. We want them to be able to share that with police and with the regulator, and if the regulator finds anything concerning, be able to share that as well with these other Government agencies.

The red flag system will actually help identify more extremist behaviour quicker, into the future. I feel that we have really nailed it there. What I will do is thank the select committee for the changes that they had considered in clause 69. I do note that across the House there was agreement, unanimous agreement, with the amendments that have been done, so I’m a bit confused as to why the Opposition are actually opposing the amendments that you’ve agreed with in the Amendment Paper. That’s up to them, but it just seems a bit bizarre that we’ve gone about it that way. But I thank you, anyway, for the changes that have been made in clause 69 with the way that fit and proper is captured, the test is captured.

Also, there’s a change to clause 69(1)(h)(ii) in the Amendment Paper from “any regulations” to say, “any regulations made under this Act or” previous versions of this Act. Once again, just to ensure that those that were in or captured under the Arms Act 1983 will continue to be captured under the new Act.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:03): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to engage on these issues. I’m coming back to refer to the amendment of my colleague Dan Rosewarne, and I’m trying to understand the consistency, because as I read through clause 69 here, given that I’ve raised the issue of taking the precautionary approach, and maybe that’s not one that the Minister sees as necessary—that is, she doesn’t see it as necessary to go any further than we should. In clause 69, paragraph (h), (i), (j), (k)—(j), let’s take that—that a person may be deemed not fit and proper if they abuse alcohol—it says, “(j) abuses alcohol, or is dependent on alcohol, to an extent that detrimentally affects their judgement or behaviour;” That probably covers half the population. Unfortunately, as a nation, we do use alcohol; it’s used in a positive way a lot of the time. But there would be many, many, many people who have abused alcohol at different times. I’m not saying that this is necessarily wrong because I know the intent here, but it is quite wide-ranging.

So to have this provision in clause 69, but then not to support, and perhaps the Minister might support the amendment of my colleague Dan Rosewarne, where he says, “have shown patterns of behaviour”—so this is not just a one-off—“patterns of behaviour including through online activity or associations, demonstrating a tendency to exhibit or encourage violence or hatred”. I would have thought that his amendment is actually quite well focused in an area, and yet the one referencing alcohol was quite wide-ranging. It’s the consistency through this legislation that I seek some clarity from the Minister on. I’m not necessarily saying that the alcohol one is wrong, although I could probably fit into that myself. From time to time, I’ve abused alcohol. If you go back through my life at university or whatever, most of us would have.

Again, depending on the time and the incident that it may be used as a judgement, a lot of people could be eliminated, but I know that the amendment put up by my colleague Dan Rosewarne, that’s actually—I would say widely accepted as a fair judgement on actually deeming someone not to be fit and proper. I guess the question comes back to the Minister’s approach to that, and whether she can leave the door open to what I think will be quite a sensible amendment.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:06): For those that have firearm licences, they know that they have to learn the seven basic rules of firearm safety. The seventh rule is avoid alcohol and drugs while using firearms, and this particular paragraph (j), of clause 69, is talking about abusing, not just having a tinkle here and there, or a couple of drinks after the rugby game on a Saturday night, but it would demonstrate a show of abuse or dependency on alcohol, which of course impairs judgement, as those that have licences are taught when they go through that licensing regime. There’s a little bit of a difference there, because you are taught it. In fact, you’re tested on it at the time that you go about getting your licence. Abuse of alcohol or drugs, or being dependent upon them in such a way that it is detrimental to your behaviour or the way that you could handle firearms, is why that is in there.

When it comes to online behaviour, I think that needs to be a pattern, which the chief executive will be able to pick up, will be able to look at. But as I mentioned earlier to the member who has the amendment, there are some forms of communication online which some people feel offended by and others do not, and I don’t think that that is warranted within this regime as it currently is. I think that that is a determination, which should be able to be made upon the regulator. I come back again to the red flag sharing agreement, where if it is flagged with the regulator and the regulator goes out to other agencies, and the NZSIS might say, actually we’ve found some issues with this person, then you see a pattern of behaviour where the determination can be made as to whether they are fit and proper. But I will explain, or say, that the alcohol and drugs, that’s all part of your testing to get a firearms licence. That’s why it’s here in this respect.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:08): Thank you, and I appreciate the response from the Minister on that. Can I just, then, question around what is in clause 69, paragraph (j) and (k)—"affects their judgement or behaviour;” I’ll put forward a proposition that I think could be probably supported in science, that any level of drug or alcohol intake does affect your judgement. I’m sure that those using firearms for sporting purposes would not consume any, because of the effect on their performance. So I guess the question comes down to—again with reference to the online stuff—that the Minister’s prepared to say we need more specificity on that, on what someone deems to be perhaps risky online behaviour or views.

I would suggest that it’s probably easier to specify that, than it is to nail down the effect on someone’s judgement with the consumption of alcohol and drugs. Again, to come back to my point around clarity on this and whether interpretation by someone at some point in the system may end up being not what is intended here. I know the Minister is talking about extremes, but actually, any alcohol will affect anyone’s judgement when it comes to the use of firearms or vehicles. There is a threshold in the use of vehicles. I guess the question is: should there be a threshold for firearms—that is, one drink or two drinks? How do we make an assessment over a fit and proper person having consumed alcohol or drugs being insufficiently impaired to ensure that they are always making the right judgement?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. If we look at past history and the way that people have behaved, if you are drunk behind the wheel or drugged behind the wheel, so to speak, you’re committing offences. You’re not showing fit and proper behaviour. If you’re doing it multiple times, you’re showing a pattern of that and you’re not being responsible. I know, as a person who has represented New Zealand multiple times in shooting, you’re quite right that we don’t touch alcohol, especially while we’re preparing for international matches. I also don’t touch coffee, because coffee makes your heart rate go up, and that is extremely detrimental when you come to do these international shoots or competitions, I should say.

When it comes to drugs as well, you have to potentially think about prescription medication. Again, this comes back to what I’m excited about, the introduction of Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand. Through all of the firearms licensing regime, people are taught at the time that they get their licences how being impaired by drugs or alcohol could mean that you end up losing your licence as a result. I don’t think that we need to put a determination on it. People are taught and told that guns and alcohol do not mix, full stop, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t partake at all. If it gets to a point where somebody has, say, gone duck shooting and then left the maimai, stopped at the pub, had a few drinks and got drunk, as has happened in the past, leaving firearms unattended in their vehicles, there are other avenues to be able to combat that and that could also mean losing their licence.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I feel like this is a clarification. I know the Hon Ginny Andersen wants a call, but yeah.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (12:12): It is indeed a clarification; it might be an extrapolation. The Minister, in what she said before, would she be implying that there shouldn’t be any alcohol in the maimai? That might slow down some of the celebration of duck shooting day. I understand the point she was making, but it’s not well-understood by many shooters, I would suggest, around duck shooting, or certainly at the start of the season. The Opposition’s not advocating that we should be absolutely honest; what we’re saying is that we should be consistent with what we include in the legislation here. That will be interpreted sensibly, we hope, but reference to online harm should be in here also with the same sensible interpretation. But the absence of it actually does leave the door wide open, I would suggest.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (12:13): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to the fit and proper provision. I mean, this really goes to the heart of the whole basis of having firearms legislation. It is to determine who is, in fact, fit and proper to hold a firearms licence. I note that this is probably one of the biggest problems that Labour has with this legislation. It appears that police are completely removed from any observation on how a person is determined to be fit and proper to hold a firearms licence. From my understanding, the chief executive of the new entity that this legislation established is primarily responsible for determining who, in fact, would be fit and proper and all of the provisions that come in under that.

As discussed by my colleague Damien O’Connor, whether it’s alcohol or mental health or physical illness or mental illness, all those factors are there. But my concern is that I know that there is an ideological problem with having police involved with firearms licensing because, potentially, of the way that they went round firearms ranges and made a lot of recommendations that improve safety. That sort of didn’t sit well within the firearms community. There seems to be this kind of—

Hon Nicole McKee: Oh, rubbish.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —mistrust with police.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I ask—because before I was in the House and I was watching a previous part; the involvement of police was discussed then—if it’s something really specific, clause-wise, to this part. I don’t think we want to relitigate the whole issue of police being involved, because I have heard the Minister answer that question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: My question is, when the chief executive makes their determination that someone is, in fact, not fit and proper, what police information or intelligence is able to be utilised in making that determination? What provisions are made within this legislation to facilitate the free-flowing of intelligence from front-line New Zealand police to the decision-making process that enables a determination to be made under this provision?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:15): As I’ve mentioned before, there are information-sharing agreements that will be able to be worked out not just between police and the regulator but between the regulator and other Government agencies as well to get information sharing. Information sharing is already occurring right now. We have the Firearms Safety Authority who are going to become Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand, and there will be no lapse in any information sharing whatsoever. There was never any intention for that to occur. Things will carry on in that respect to ensure only fit and proper people have access to firearms.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just picking up on what the Minister said in terms of information sharing. I’m curious about clause 69(1)(a). It might be an existing practice that has carried over, but I do want to know how we get information from someone overseas regarding when we’re looking at determining if the person is fit and proper. Clause 69(1) says, “or overseas that is punishable by a term of imprisonment”, so I just want to check with the Minister, how do we get some of that information?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:17): The current requirement is that if a person has been overseas for a certain period of time—I think it might be six months; it could be three—they need to get a written letter from the authorities in the country that they’ve been in to say that they are clear, in other words, that they haven’t committed any major crimes over there. If they have committed crimes, those crimes need to be listed, and the regulator will then understand whether or not they fit within the New Zealand regime of fit and proper.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:17): Thank you. I think I might be confusing a later section. I was thinking about it from a perspective of someone from overseas coming here, but that will be considered as a visitor licence which we’ll discuss later, right? OK. That’s clear. Thank you.

I’m going to move on to clause 73. Inform—described in section 69(1). I wanted to check if this clause 73(1) covers—and I apologise if I missed it—the requirement for a firearms licence holder to declare when their firearms are stolen or missing. I assume it’s somewhere, but I can’t see it in this part.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:18): Yes. There is a legal requirement. If firearms are stolen or lost, this must be reported to the regulator. That’s ongoing and will definitely stay there. That’s very, very important that there is a requirement there. But as we are on—sorry, the one that you’re looking for has actually been moved to clause 134. That covers that one in particular.

But while we are on clause 73, I again just want to take the opportunity of thanking the Justice Committee for accepting the departmental report recommendation that cause 73(1)(c) be changed to refer to a constable or member of the arms regulator. The drafting reflects the terms “arms officer or a constable”. We’re just clearing up the language there. Including constables in this clause expressly authorises members of police to request a licence holder to produce on demand any arms item—so that’s arms items, firearms, and ammunition. This may be relevant when a police officer is trying to carry out a law enforcement duty. I thank the select committee for that.

I also have a proposed change in the Amendment Paper for clause 73 to require an arms officer to provide evidence that they are an arms officer. At the moment, if New Zealand police come and rock up, turn up at your door, knock on your door, you can tell because they’re wearing a uniform. When we move to arms officers under Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand, they won’t have police uniforms and so I want them to be able to show ID to confirm that they are exactly who they are.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (12:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am on clause 72. This is the disclosure of certain matters, or not, to the applicant and what’s required. This is the clause that, essentially, says that disclosure isn’t required under a set of circumstances. My question relates both to this clause but then also to the appeal rights, which are two pages along, where the chief executive can refer applications to the Firearms Licensing Review Committee if there is a complaint or ask for a reconsideration. Firstly, is there an obligation to inform the person who has had their application declined that information has been withheld, or is that information simply withheld? Is there an opportunity for that individual to seek information as to whether information was withheld or not and introduce that into the review process? I also can’t see anywhere in clause 81 that allows the review committee the same powers to withhold information, but should that information flow on to the review committee, we would potentially want them to also be able to withhold information too—so just making sure that’s covered.

Just one other thing—I note that on information sharing, we do have an amendment on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. Is there also provision for information sharing to the Government Communications Security Bureau or is that not required?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. At the moment, it’s with the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, but I expect that if it’s found that there are other agencies that need to start sharing information, that will occur as well. But we have identified that these are the areas where there should be information sharing.

On clause 71, about the grounds for withholding certain information and being informed of the right of refusal, effectively, if somebody is refused because of some confidential information, I think it will actually depend on what that information is and where it has come from as to whether or not the applicant will be told the details of that. But my expectation is that they will be told that they are refused and then also told that they have the ability to go to the licensing review committee.

We have proposed an amendment—I’ve just been told. I’m thinking on to it. We’re proposing an amendment to bring the information disclosure requirements in clause 318 in line with clause 72 to ensure that there are consistent information disclosure requirements between the regulator and the review committee. Then, again, at clause 81(2), the member quite rightly brought up, well, what about the licensing review committee? Within the Amendment Paper, we’re amending it to make sure that they come under the same regime as well—so, again, keeping private information or confidential information confidential only to them and not disclosing it automatically if it would be not in the interests of national security or a person’s welfare.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to signal to you as well, Madam Chair, these are my final questions—for me, anyway—for Subpart 1 before moving on to Subpart 2, noting that others may have additional questions. I do apologise—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just note that you’re the only person that stood up to take a call on this part on this now, so tell me what your final questions are.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. Cool. I do apologise, going back a little bit on clause 71. Can I just check with the Minister: if a person was denied the issuance of a firearm licence—I know they can have an appeal process, but if, let’s say, the appeal process was unsuccessful, is that permanent, or, let’s say, in five years’ time, they can choose to apply again and will be treated independently and separately, with a potentially different outcome, or is that just a one-off; if you’re being rejected and denied, that’s it? That’s my first question.

My second question is to do with clause—actually, just the removal in Amendment Paper 658. Can I check with the Minister: why has clause 77 been removed as a part of the Minister’s amendment, on “Extension of firearm licence for up to 3 years pending determination of application for new firearm licence”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:25): Within the Amendment Paper, we are looking to delete clause 77—that’s right—because it was initially intended to assist the regulator to flatten the demand curve. If you may indulge me just a little bit, back in the 1990s, after Aramoana, we moved from a lifetime licence to a 10-year licence, and every licensed firearm holder in New Zealand got moved into this 10-year licence over a short period of time, over a three-year period. That basically occurred in 1994, ’95, ’96. What that means is they all come up for renewal at the same time, in 10 years’ time. To give you an example, on average, we look at renewing around 14,000 licences per year, but at the moment, 2024, ’25, ’26, the regulator is trying to renew about 50,000 licences all in the one year.

The idea was to try and extend it a bit and allow the regulator some time and, of course, eventually flatten what we call the bell curve as well. But we had some adverse commentary that came back in submissions about that. Some people were concerned that they were paying for a 10-year licence and someone else might get a 13-year licence. We have got ideas on other ways of being able to fix that, because there’s still a problem. However, we’re just not going to bring that into here. I think I’ve covered that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:26): The other question was around if they got rejected for a licence issuance, whether that’s a one-off—they can’t reapply again—or they can. Yep.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, it depends on what it is that they’ve been rejected for and whether or not—for example, as you mentioned, the firearms prohibition order automatically stops them from being able to apply within the five-year period. I’m not sure if my officials can check if there is a period of time for if they are actually told no, that they can’t. OK, so it’s only five years. It’s a five-year stand down if a licence is revoked. If somebody, say, for the first time, applies for a licence and they don’t get it, it might be because they don’t have the security in place. We shouldn’t stop them for five years just because they might be living in a flat and can’t put a safe in, for example. We don’t want to stop them from having the opportunity to reapply again once they get everything in order. But if they’ve been revoked from having a firearms licence, they cannot reapply for five years.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen. I just want to make note we’re not going back to Subpart 1, because that’s where—

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (12:28): No, I’m on to Subpart 2, rest assured—moving forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Great. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Subpart 2, “Business licences”—I’ve just got a question in relation to the provision in clauses 82(2) and (3) in terms of applying for a business licence. There’s a specific provision in there, “An application for a business licence to carry on the business activity specified in section 6(1)(a)(iii)”, which would relate to the manufacture of any restricted items, and it specifies in clause 82(2) that they can only be made by a person who, before 12 April 2019, was in the business of manufacturing restricted parts and restricted magazines for the purposes of permitted supply and who continues, for those purposes, to manufacture restricted parts and magazines.

I’m just interested to know why it is that particular date. Essentially, you’re saying anyone who is manufacturing these prohibited or restricted items, magazines—that’s the line in the sand. I’m interested to know from the Minister why that date; whether it’s just a carry-over from previous legislation or whether that’s a new thing; what’s the rationale behind enabling those ones who were manufacturing those restricted or prohibited items before then; and why, after that date, there can be no new—I’m assuming that means that anyone applying for a business licence who has started up their business after 12 April 2019 can’t do that. Just interested to hear from the Minister in and around why that particular date has been marked out in legislation.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:30): I might ask the member why that date was put in there, because it was put in in the 2019 piece of legislation that was rushed through. But it won’t stop anyone else from being able to establish a new business under new controls by the regulator, and, of course, they will have a different name now as well. They won’t be under a dealer’s licence; they will come under a business licence, or they may come under a manufacturing licence. Really, this is about what was in place before this new piece of legislation comes in.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:30): Thank you. Looking at clause 82—there are multiple parts when you’re looking at a business, right? You have to go through the Companies Register and apply to set up a company. Can I just check, what is the process, either existing or new, for a business that wants to apply for a business licence? Are they given any advice that they should secure a business licence first for the selling of firearms before actually setting up a business and then having all of the costs incurred to set up a business? What is the order of setting up the business and also getting the licence that is needed to actually sell the product that the business is set up for? That’s my first question.

My next question is around—this is a business licence, but in clause 82(2) and (3), it also talks about manufacturing, so you’re also talking about an endorsement component to it. Would a business licence applicant be able to apply for a licence and relevant endorsement at the same time—this will probably cover a question later on when we’re talking about endorsement—or do they have to apply for the licence first and be able to show that they are able to conduct the business with their existing licence before applying for any sort of additional endorsements such as manufacturing, etc? That’s my second question for clause 82.

My last question for now is on clause 87, and that’s to do with gun shows. I do note over here that it says, “The chief executive may … for a period not exceeding 5 days”. Does that five days specifically refer to the number of days that are for the gun show—as in, that the gun show is open or active, I guess—or does the five days also include set-up and pack-down days?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 6 of the bill sets out what activities would require a person to apply for a business licence. Upon looking at those activities, an individual can then decide whether or not to apply for that business licence. It’s not the business that’s applying; it’s the individual that is applying. They will not necessarily need to have a business set up—you don’t sort of say, “Can I get a licence to go set the business up?” They can apply for both at the same time. I think someone applying for both a licence and the business licence for the first time at the same time might raise some red flags there for the regulator.

When it comes to the gun shows, I’ll again think explicitly about a show that I frequent every year and have done for a couple of decades now. It’s called the Sika Show, which used to be held in Taupō and is now held in Hamilton. It operates on a Saturday and a Sunday, and people come from all over the country, with quite extensive arrays of things. They usually are spending a day to travel, the Friday to set up, the Saturday and Sunday of the show, pack down on the Sunday, and get back to where they need to be on the Monday. It’s allowing time for all of those items to not be at the business but either be on the road or be at the excellent show that the Sika Show is.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (12:34): Thank you very much. I have a question in relation to the hiring out of firearms for the use by a bona fide theatre company. I know anyone listening will remember the tragic case that happened in the United States, where there was an instance where live rounds were placed in a firearm used on a movie set, where someone tragically lost their life. I appreciate this sets out clear areas for where standard firearms and restricted pistols—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think it’s clause 88. I’m just clarifying, is this clause 88?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Clause 88, yep—“Hiring out firearms for use by bona fide theatre company, etc.” I’m interested to know whether, while it specifies a theatre company, is that film as well, or is that under a separate provision? In New Zealand, we have an increasing number of international movies being made; we know that firearms are often used on sets in movies. I’m interested to understand whether clause 88 includes film situations where you’ve got a business licence being provided for that basis, and what protections are in place to reassure New Zealanders that there is consideration to how those weapons are used on a set and to make sure that there are blanks in a weapon and not live rounds?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:36): I think clause 88(1) answers the member’s question. It’s in regard to “for use by a bona fide theatre company or society, cinematic or television film production company, or video recording production company.” It’s all there. One of the good things I think that we’ve done here is introduce a new penalty—a maximum fine of $10,000 for contravening that particular clause.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (12:36): Thank you, Madam Chair—two very quick questions from me. The first is on clause 84; I’m just trying to look for whether there’s an appeal right for a negative decision on the granting of a business licence. Also, on clause 86, I was looking at subclauses (3) and (4), which essentially allow those activities to be carried out in places other than as specified. I would have thought that for subclause (4), the wording “must” would be more appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Clause 86, was that? Sorry, can you clarify?

VANUSHI WALTERS: Sorry, this is clause 86(4). It currently says, “a business licence may be issued with a condition described in that provision”— that’s the condition about it being a different location—“and other conditions necessary to provide for the safe use and secure storage of the firearms concerned.” I just would have thought that perhaps a “must” directive in that clause would have been more suitable, just given the fact that we’re now speaking about arms that might be used outside of even those places that from time to time are regularly used for theatrical productions and are maybe used to having to stand up additional monitoring—and in this case, we’re talking about completely different places.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:38): With the Firearms Licensing Review Committee, they will not be able to hear appeals about that particular refusal that the member mentioned. However, that person can still appeal to the District Court.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m actually going to move on to the next two Subparts; Subpart 3, “Museum licences” and Subpart 4, “Museum worker licences”. Can I just check—this might be an existing provision and system that’s already in place around museums—is there a threshold on what then constitutes a firearm?

For example, if you have—oh, I’m going to be anachronistic about this—like a 17^th century musket, etc., would that still fulfill the requirement, or is it something that is so old that it would no longer be under the requirement of what is considered a firearm or a restricted firearm? Is there such a thing or is it that anything that potentially is able to use ammunition at any point in time, regardless of how many hundred years old it is, would be considered a firearm that then requires a museum to have a licence or a museum worker licence. That’s my first question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, which clause was it in the Subpart?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Let’s say clause 99(2)(b)(iia) and (iib). I guess just a general understanding of what is the breadth of the time period we’re looking at when we’re looking at what could be held within a museum.

I’m curious to know in terms of Subpart 4, “Museum worker licences”—and, particularly, I’m looking at clause 113, which is around “Museum worker licence not [being] transferable”, noting that the definition of museum worker includes volunteers. Can I just check, does that mean that, with something like the Auckland War Memorial Museum, where you’re going to get a number of volunteers, each of those volunteers who could potentially be required to possess, display, or store an armed item—every single one of them, then, will be requiring a museum worker licence?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:40): In response to the member’s question about antique firearms and the definition of firearm, they are completely covered in the definition section at the very beginning, including the antique and what establishes an antique, and what establishes a firearm. It’s all clearly defined in those definitions.

In response to the volunteers at a museum and whether or not they would require a museum licence, if they are handling firearms, they currently require an endorsement—not only a firearms licence, but, if it’s a restricted firearm, an endorsement for that, as well. So, before, if they’re already doing this, they are under a regime that is very costly for them as volunteers and time-consuming, because those endorsements require renewal every 12 months at the moment. We’re actually relaxing it a bit for them to say, “Well, you’re not taking them home; all you’re doing is trying to help out there.” So they would have to apply for a museum licence instead of all the other licences.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:41): Just one quick clarification. I think that makes a lot of sense, Minister, because with the volunteers, like, say, in terms of Auckland War Memorial Museum, a volunteer may also only work a few hours a week, and—OK, cool, that’s really helpful. I do have questions, but I would then be moving on to the next part, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It would be really helpful—so they’re on the next part? There’s no more subpart questions?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, no, no—there is Subpart 5 on visitor licences—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, there are. I’d just be quite pleased if the member—we’ve been on this part for a period of time. If there are some other clarifications on the other subparts, now would be a good time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Are you happy for me to move on to Subpart 5?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I am.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK, cool. Just checking, because I know that other members may have questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know, but you were the only person, as I mentioned before, taking calls and I have taken a couple of additional calls, but when you called about the subparts—I’d like you to just get your other clarifications about the subparts.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll have you know, for me, I’m done with Subpart 3 and Subpart 4. I’m only going to be focusing on Subpart 5 now.

Subpart 5, clause 121—I think this is the kind of clarification that I was looking for previously, which the Minister did clarify. In terms of clauses 121 and 123, if a person is visiting from overseas jurisdictions, how would our Government be able to check if that particular visitor has any criminal history or any other circumstances that would determine if they are not a fit and proper person to hold a visitor licence? I can see the list of requirements in subclauses (1) to (3), but I just want to know—how would we know?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m glad that the member is liking these amendments, and I hope that he votes for them when it comes time to. However, what I will say is that within—I previously mentioned, actually, with the overseas characterisations, how you’d have to get letters. It’s the same sort of regime here. For example, somebody wants to come from overseas and they want to enter a shooting competition. As part of getting their application for a visitor licence, they’ll have to show that they are legally allowed to have firearms in the country that they are in. If they are returning to New Zealand after spending a couple of years overseas, even if they are Kiwis who have held a firearms licence here in New Zealand, if they’ve been overseas for a period of time, they actually have to get letters from overseas authorities to confirm that they have been fit and proper while they’ve been over there, even though they are New Zealanders, as well.

While we are on clause 123, I’ll point out that within Amendment Paper 658 I’m proposing a change to clause 123(1)(i)(ii) to say “any regulations made under this Act [or previous versions of this Act]”, to address the concern from the regulator that, as it was drafted, the clause could be interpreted as not being limited to only arms regulations.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (12:45): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a question in relation to Subpart 5. I did have a museum one, but I’ll let that go. The question I have—I know that in New Zealand, it’s a decent industry; we have people coming into New Zealand, whether it’s for helicopter hunting or inversions like that, and that there are grounds for not only a visitor licence as provided in clause 121 but there’s also persons who are found to be not fit and proper to hold a visitor licence.

I’m just really interested to know, from the Minister’s experience, when there’s international information that sometimes New Zealand might not have access to if they’re coming from, for example, the United States or another country where our authorities don’t have access to what may be available, what kind of reassurances can we hear from the regulators or the chief executive of the new regulator to be able to determine if someone’s not, in fact, fit and proper, particularly given that we live in an age of artificial intelligence, where official documents can easily be falsified? And so, I’m really interested to understand, if we have people who are not New Zealand citizens coming into our country specifically to undertake sporting activities with firearms, how can we be reassured that the documentation and evidence that they’re providing the regulator is, in fact, bona fide and there aren’t risks there?

I understand this is a good industry which brings money into New Zealand businesses and provides a good source of income. At the same time, if we’re letting people loose with a gun to go hunting, that could be risky. What checks and balances are in place to understand that the documentation that they’re providing is, in fact, verifying that they are a fit and proper person? That test is quite different when you’re a New Zealand citizen; you have access to all their criminal records, you have access to all of their previous—even health records, if you wanted to go that far. But we don’t have access to that same level of detail if they’re not a New Zealand citizen, so how can we be reassured that with clause 123, we can actually be able to determine that?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:47): There will be different areas that will have different ways of being able to look at this. To give various examples, if a person from Australia belongs to the local fullbore club and they’ve made the Australian rifle team and they’re coming to New Zealand to shoot in the Ballinger Belt, they will not only belong to a club; they’ll likely be online with a whole lot of activity that they have been undertaking as representatives of their country. They will have a licence, and they will fit the criteria, whatever that criteria may be, that the regulator sets, and it will be the regulator setting that criteria, not me.

If it’s a person that is coming to hunt as an individual and they have a licence from their country, depending on what that country is, the regulator will set the criteria for what they need to see from that individual, from that particular country. I’m not going to go through every single country in the world as to what that criteria may possibly be. That will be up for the regulator to determine. If a person comes from overseas and they want to do a hunting trip, for example, and they have no licence, they will not be issued a New Zealand firearms licence. Rather, they would be able to undertake their hunting activity under the immediate supervision of a New Zealand licence holder.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to move on a little bit further. I’m now on Subpart 7, clause 139. This is page 99 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658. My question for clause 139—I guess, just in general, in terms of the “Surrender of licence”, can I just check that when we are looking at the surrender of a licence, would the person then be able to reapply at a later date? Is that something that is allowed? And, in that case, is there any requirement for, potentially, a stand-down period there? I assume not, but I would be keen to hear from the Associate Minister of Justice. I do want to check that there was—I’m trying to find which section it was on. Sorry, this is now on clause 157, which is the effect of revocation of firearms licence, on page 107 of Amendment Paper 658. It does say that “a person whose firearm licence is revoked must immediately surrender their…licence”, but it doesn’t necessarily have a particular timeframe to it. I’m assuming, in this case, “immediately” is as soon as reasonably practicable, or is the police officer there on the spot and you’re handing it over?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to clause 139, if a person surrenders their firearms licence, they may be surrendering it for any reason whatsoever; they don’t even need to tell the regulator why. It could be that they’re moving overseas. It could be that they’re moving flats or they’ve got a new partner who doesn’t want firearms being stored there. There are all sorts of reasons, so a person who surrenders their licence will be able to apply for a licence at any other stage. The difference will be that when they apply for a licence again, it’s being treated as a brand-new licence. Instead of being issued a 10-year licence, they will come back to a five-year licence because it’s treated as a new licence regardless of the reason that they surrendered it.

I just note that in clause 157, immediate is immediate. It could be that the police or the regulators there, they’ve been revoked and are expected to hand over immediately. It could be that they don’t have their wallet on them, and so they can’t say, “Well, I can’t give it to you right now because my wallet’s not here.” They’ll be expected to immediately go get it and hand it back in. Well, this is really important because we don’t want someone who’s possibly been revoked to then go out and buy a whole lot of firearms straight away because they’ve got that licence, so immediate does mean immediate. I will point out that in clause 157 within the Amendment Paper, I’m also proposing to add a reference to restricted ammunition, including that in clause 157(2)(a) and (b), and also at 157(3).

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (12:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am actually just standing to commend the Associate Minister of Justice for the language in clause 123(1)(f), which is around someone inflicting or who has inflicted family violence against another person. I just think that’s quite a unique subclause because it doesn’t require a conviction, it requires grounds. The only suggestion that I would make is detaching it from only New Zealand legislation. I would have encouraged drafting around all comparable legislation overseas to ensure that we caught a situation where someone had not yet been convicted of a serious offence or any of those offences listed in clause 122, but where, if a family member made a serious allegation under comparable legislation in another country, that could be brought to the attention of decision makers as well. It may be too late for an amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the question?

VANUSHI WALTERS: I was just going to say it may be too late for an amendment on that, but if the Associate Minister of Justice was willing to broaden out the language, my suggestion would be language that included potential liability under comparable legislation overseas, something like that. What that would mean is just capturing the fact that serious sexual violence complaints could be made against people travelling to New Zealand by people who are outside New Zealand. At present, I don’t believe that that’s captured by the current wording, but, certainly, the sentiment of that particular subparagraph I think is fantastic and spot on, and my preference would be for it to be expanded, so just asking the Minister to consider that.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (12:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that it is covered, actually, at clause 123(1)(h), where it talks about overseas, and people who have been charged or committed with an offence equivalent to offences referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c). Turning the page there on the Amendment Paper there, clause 123(1)(h)(ii) says, “has had an order made against them equivalent to the orders referred to [above].” I thank the member for also just pointing out that this is a clause that I thought also needed to be there and be clarified that way. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress, but I will also say to anyone who is contemplating a closure motion at 12.55 p.m. when everyone’s got select committees to go to, we do not have time to go through a voting process now. Thank you.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Arms Bill

Employment Leave Bill

English Language Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Arms Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Employment Leave Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the English Language Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)