Thursday, 23 July 2026

Thursday, 23 July 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:01): Next week, the House will consider further stages of the Employment Leave Bill and the Arms Bill. The hours of Tuesday will be extended into Wednesday morning for Government business, and at midday there will be a one-hour special debate on petitions.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I just wondered if she could confirm whether or not there will be urgency at all at any stage this sitting block.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:01): Speaking to that, there will be, obviously, extended hours, but there is no plan for urgency next week. But as we know, we’ve got lots of work to get through, so stay posted.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered seven papers.

CLERK (14:01):

Annual report of the Chief Archivist on the state of Government recordkeeping for 2024-25

Statement of intent for Te Māngai Pāho

Waka Kotahi

amended statement of intent

amended 2025-26 statement of performance expectations

2026-27 statement of performance expectations for:

Ferry Holdings Ltd

Kāinga Ora

Te Māngai Pāho

Waka Kotahi.

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

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Two select committee reports have been presented.

CLERK (14:02):

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the special report on the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing on the response to the inquiry into banking competition.

SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration.

Bills

Crimes (Offence of Failing to Report Child Harm) Amendment Bill

Building (Energy Efficient Office Buildings) Amendment Bill

Accident Compensation (Extended Cover for FENZ Personnel) Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of three bills.

CLERK (14:02):

Crimes (Offence of Failing to Report Child Harm) Amendment Bill, introduction

Building (Energy Efficient Office Buildings) Amendment Bill, introduction

Accident Compensation (Extended Cover for FENZ Personnel) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Pacific Peoples

Question No. 1

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:03) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon’s statement about Pasifika, “We’re gonna make sure we deliver for them”; if so, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Whānau Ora) (14:03) on behalf of the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. Pacific New Zealanders deserve a Government focused on and delivering better outcomes. The Government has focused on the issues that matter most to Pacific New Zealanders: a stronger economy, better educational achievement, safer communities, more housing, and a health system that delivers for people when they need it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the cost of living for Pasifika higher or lower than it was two years ago when the Prime Minister promised that “We want to be able to help the Pacific community actually navigate the cost of living.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The cost of living challenge is one that we’ve inhaled as a Government and we’re working very hard on delivering against some of those challenges therein. I can refer to other answers presented in the House over the week, but we are very proud of the achievements we’ve made to fix the basics of the economy and build a better future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the Government kept its promise to help Pacific communities actually navigate the cost of living when milk prices are up 26 percent, potatoes are up 32 percent, mince is up 28 percent, and white bread is up 67 percent in the last two years?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’ve kept our promise to the 5,600 Pasifika peoples who have now gone into employment in Auckland over the past year. We’ve kept our promise to those young children who are now going to school—in fact, an improvement of two-thirds of Pasifika tamariki that are going to school between term 2, 2022 and term 2, 2026 from 32.6 percent to 51.2 percent. We’ve kept our promise to Pasifika whānau and, actually, a lot of whānau throughout the country with the recalibration of Whānau Ora, which serves and supports whānau throughout the country. In fact, nearly 35 percent of all those enrolled in Whānau Ora are Pasifika families.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the Government kept its promise to help the Pacific communities actually navigate the cost of living when household energy prices are up 26 percent since he took office?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Absolutely, we have kept our promise to Pasifika families to ensure that a recent oil and gas ban does not affect us in the long-term future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he really think his Government has helped Pasifika with the cost of living when 54 percent of Pasifika say they couldn’t cover an unexpected bill of $500 and 59 percent say they’ve had to take on debt just to cover the rising cost of living?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of challenges that Pasifika and many other whānau across Aotearoa New Zealand are facing, and that’s why we are so geared to ensure that we fix the economy in a manner that endures.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Government’s failure to reduce the cost of living for Pacific communities why 72 percent of Pasifika say National doesn’t understand Pacific communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There’s no doubt that there are some severe and significant challenges that are facing many New Zealanders, and we can do better on a range of matters. But I do recall that many, many New Zealanders voted for candidates like Angee Nicholas at the most recent election, and if I were the member, I’d be looking over her shoulder. [Interruption]

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Only one person speaking. [Interruption] Only one person speaking.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why, when Pasifika unemployment has doubled since the March 2023 quarter, more young Pasifika are out of work, and more and more say they are borrowing just to cover the basics, should Pasifika peoples believe that this Government is delivering for them?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: When you reflect on the attendance rates of Pasifika children in term 2, 2022 being 32.6 percent, I think it’s a bit rich from that member to be describing how this Government has failed, when, in fact, we’ve improved and helped Pasifika families and their parents—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You’ve doubled their unemployment rate.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —improve Pasifika attendance at schools by over two-thirds.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thousands more unemployed.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is going to make a far more long-term impact—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Kids with parents not working because of you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —than talk, talk, talk.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. That’s not an interjection; that’s just a barrage.

Finance

Question No. 2

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:08) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:08): In the midst of a volatile global environment, I have seen encouraging reports showing the New Zealand economy is continuing to strengthen. GDP, for example, grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter, which was faster than growth occurring in Australia or the US in the same period. Business investment increased by 3.7 percent. Manufacturing activity recently recorded its strongest result in almost five years, and this week’s inflation figures showed that without the temporary increase in fuel prices caused by conflict in the Middle East, inflation would have been back within the Reserve Bank’s target range. Goods exports also rose 25 percent in June compared with a year earlier, reaching $8.1 billion. New Zealand is continuing to sell products that the world wants and will pay well for. These are, of course, encouraging signs, but there is so much more work to do. This Government remains focused on lifting productivity and making New Zealand a better place to invest, build, innovate, and do business.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What progress has the Government made through its Going For Growth programme?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government has now delivered more than 130 actions through the five pillars of Going For Growth, with further actions continuing. That includes concluding negotiations on a free-trade agreement with India; establishing Invest New Zealand to attract capital to create better-paying New Zealand jobs; reforming Government procurement to ensure more New Zealand businesses can win contracts that benefit our economy; improving competition through changes to the Commerce Act to deliver a better deal for New Zealand consumers; reforming vocational education to better meet the needs of students, employers, and the economy; and progressing reforms to attract more overseas investment. These are practical reforms designed to expand market access, attract investment, lift productivity, and create more opportunities for New Zealand businesses and the New Zealand workers who depend on them.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other action is the Government taking to unlock productivity and support long-term growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, lifting productivity is more than the buzzword that some members in this House like to reduce it to. Actually, what lifting productivity requires is sustained reform across the economy. That is why our Government introduced Investment Boost, a fundamental tax change to encourage capital investment—while other members of this House wish to tax capital. We made fast track operational to ensure that more major developments could get off the ground, rather than being tied up in court. We reformed vocational education to make sure the regions have a say in the skills their people need. We have strengthened the teaching of reading, writing, and maths because we recognise that education is the key tool for delivering equality of opportunity. We have invested in infrastructure and energy security. We are completely replacing the Resource Management Act. And this week, that step towards a planning system that will roughly halve the number of consents required in this economy has made a big difference. These reforms, to conclude—I could obviously keep going on—are fixing the basics and building the future.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Well, ask a supplementary, but we’ll have a concise answer.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What evidence is she seeing that New Zealand businesses are responding to the Government’s economic plan?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, there is encouraging evidence across indexes of investment, manufacturing, exports, and services. Interestingly, four in 10 businesses that have invested and were aware of Investment Boost say it has already increased their investment in the New Zealand economy. Manufacturing activity has reached its strongest level in almost five years; the sector employs more than 220,000 New Zealanders. Goods exports increased. The signs are encouraging. Businesses are investing, manufacturers are growing, and exporters are selling more to the world because this Government is creating the conditions for economic growth.

Climate Change

Question No. 3

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:12) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with this Government’s climate policies and actions?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (14:13): Yes I do, particularly the Fast-track Approvals Act that has approved six new renewable projects so far, with the capacity to power over half a million homes with renewable energy.

Francisco Hernandez: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that he is confident that the Government remains on track to meet our emissions reduction targets?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, our projections show that we are on track to meet our first two emissions budgets, and also a net zero by 2050.

Francisco Hernandez: Why is he confident that the Government remains on track when the independent Climate Change Commission has found almost every indicator in energy and transport and agriculture and many others has worsened under his leadership?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I’m confident because this is a Government that is focused on outcomes and action, and the track record of delivery in regards particularly to renewable energy generation is significant. We are seeing the most significant build of renewable electricity generation in a very long period of time, and while we know there’s more work to be done, that work that we already have underway is already delivering benefits. In 2024, we had the lowest gross emissions that we have seen since 1998.

Francisco Hernandez: Why does he remain confident that the Government remains on track when the Climate Change Commission’s report has found that the second emissions reduction plan is at “significant risk” due to actions like the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal, cancellation of the clean car discounts, and scrapping pricing for biogenic methane emissions?

Hon SIMON WATTS: If the Greens were serious about climate change, then they would back the Government’s—

SPEAKER: No, no; stop there. Start the answer again. Start the answer again from a Government perspective, not some other party’s perspective.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the points that the member has noted in regards to the opposition to some of the projects that this Government is proceeding with are interesting. However, I would conflict their view that the fact that they are not supporting fast track means, in a point, they are not supporting more renewable energy generation in this country.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the Government committed to meeting emissions budgets 2 and 3, and will it guarantee that they will be met?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, if the member had listened to my response to the question just before the last, I said that this Government is committed to our targets and we’re already taking a number of significant steps to ensure that that progress is met.

Francisco Hernandez: Is he aware that the modelling that the Minister is referring to has been referred to in the Climate Change Commission’s report as “the assumptions underlying the projections do not appear to be driven by a realistic assessment of current policy.”, and, if so, what updated policy will the Government introduce to actually meet the emissions budgets?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the Government will formally respond to the Climate Change Commission’s report in October, but in the interim, I can be very clear to that member is that this is a Government that is focused on delivery and that the fast-track process and the amount of new renewable generation projects is a fundamental shift in the landscape in this country that will power our economy and also ensure that we deliver clean energy, which achieves both outcomes of economic growth and emissions reduction.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 4

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:16) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the target of a 50,000 reduction in people receiving jobseeker support; if so, when does she expect to reach the target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:17): Yes. Our Government has an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker support by 50,000 by 2030. Jobseeker numbers will reduce as economic conditions improve, and that’s what we’re already seeing in Taranaki, Canterbury, and Southland. New figures released last week show more than 86,000 people exited a main benefit into work in the year ending June 2026. We are ambitious for all New Zealanders. That’s why we’ve created a more active welfare system to support more jobseekers into work.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are there now nearly 30,000 more people on Jobseeker compared to when she took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Comparisons are always really interesting, and while we have seen an increase since the time that we took office of 15.1 percent, actually, in the six years prior to that, there was a 54.3 percent increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, with record unemployment lows.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Do the Ministry of Social Development’s own forecasts show she will miss her target by 60,000 people by 2030?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are a number of targets that we have discussed in this House, including Treasury targets and jobseeker targets. I’m really focused on our target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, and, as I say, this Government is absolutely focused on growing the economy so there are a growing number of jobs available—Budget 2026, 220,000 new jobs—so I’m confident that we will continue to make progress on our jobseeker target.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are more people coming on to the jobseeker benefit than are coming off at a time when basic items like bread and milk are becoming more affordable and nearly 100,000 young people aren’t in education, employment, or training?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It would be really nice to stand here and wish that the economic conditions that we have are different; they are not. What we did know, right from day one, was that while economic conditions were challenging when we came into office, jobseeker numbers would increase before they came down. We absolutely knew they would increase. Unfortunately, we’ve had some global circumstances that have made it even more challenging. The other side might want to pretend that global conditions have no effect on a country like New Zealand. I think they’re living in la-la land.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When will she admit that she is closer to increasing Jobseeker recipients by 50,000 instead of reducing them by that much?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I completely refute that. As I’ve said, under the six years that Labour was in office, when unemployment was down in the 3 percents, there were 60,000 people that came onto the jobseeker benefit. Yes, the numbers under us have increased, under very different economic conditions. We’re working hard every day to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, and I’m really proud of some of the employers we have in New Zealand. One of the ones I met last week, in two years, two years—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh here we go with the pivot. Go back to the point of the question.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Doesn’t want to know—doesn’t want to know. One employer in Auckland took 161 people off the jobseeker benefit in the last two years alone. That’s the sort of work the Ministry of Social Development are doing, and I’m incredibly proud of them.

Housing

Question No. 5

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:21) to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports has he seen on housing in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:21): On Tuesday, Stats NZ released its Consumers Price Index data showing that annual rent increases in the year to June this year were 0.5 percent, the lowest for 25 years. This is great news for renters, students, young adults, other families, because housing costs take up a sizeable chunk of a household’s budget. This morning, I saw an article pointing to positives in Wellington’s rental market: 40 percent of students who were flatting are now paying between $200 and $250 a week each. Well over half say they’re happy with the quality of both their flat and their flatmates. Even the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association, a proud contributor to this institution, has welcomed the change, describing it as a “turnaround”. And they noted stories on their front pages a few years back saying that Wellington’s housing market is shifting towards one that is “friendlier for renters”. This is a Government that backs renters, and it’s working hard to create a well-functioning rental property market.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How have New Zealand rent prices tracked over time?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Since November 2023, rent prices have moderated significantly. Stats NZ measures this through the Rental Price Index, which has shown a general decline in both the stock and flow measures. Since November 2023, if you consider rents for new tenancies, these have remained flat and have actually fallen in some cities like Wellington. This is a vast improvement. There’s a demonstration [Holds up chart] in the 2017 to 2023 period, where rents went up by $180 per week.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other progress has the Government made on house affordability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government is committed to improving housing affordability, and the best way to do that is ensure it’s easy to build and there’s an abundance of developable urban land, boosting competition and giving people more choices. Since December 2023, every single one of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport’s housing affordability indicators has improved. Deposit affordability has improved by 11.4 percent, rental affordability has improved by 6.2 percent, and the mortgage serviceability index has improved 61.3 percent. That means that over the last three years it’s been easier for first-home buyers to save a deposit and pay their mortgage. It means people looking for a rental are seeing their wages go up faster than those rents, leaving more money for other costs. Housing affordability is improving under this Government, and that’s something I’m very proud of.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What recent data has he seen on first-home buyers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this is really interesting news. First-home buyers are dominating the market and making up a record share of home purchases. Fresh data from Cotality shows that first-home buyers are doing well. The market share for June was 28.4 percent, and for the quarter to June 2026 it was 28.3 percent. The few places where first-home buyers are making up an even larger share of sales, Upper Hutt, is over 40 percent. Hot on the heels is the great city of Lower Hutt at 39.1 percent. We used to be a property-owning democracy. In the 1990s, we had homeownership rates in the mid-70s. Now we’re in the mid-60s. This Government believes we should get back to that Kiwi Dream of owning your own home. It’s all part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future.

Education

Question No. 6

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:24) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that Australian company Learning First “started work on the benchmark” the curriculum rewrite; if so, is she confident that benchmarking the curriculum was the extent of Learning First’s involvement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:25): Yes, I stand by my full quote in which I said, “They started work on benchmarking with the Ministry of Education in August 2025.” As has been well-traversed, many times, as per the terms of their contract, advice provided by Learning First was for frameworks for defining quality assurance, the parameters for a knowledge-rich curriculum, and advice on good implementation. Tangible examples from around the world are what a knowledge-rich curriculum looks like in benchmarking work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did the general manager of the Ministry’s Curriculum Centre write, “Learning First has provided input [in]to all learning areas” and then refused the Official Information Act request on the grounds that “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individual communications between the Ministry and Learning First”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, in answer to the first part around the curriculum areas, as I’ve already traversed in my first answer, the Ministry contracted that company for tangible examples from around the world of what a knowledge-rich curriculum looks like, frameworks for defining quality assurance, and the parameters for a knowledge-rich curriculum across all learning areas.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If that is the case, why, then, did the Ministry report to the Minister in July 2025 that Learning First was involved to a point where they were reviewing the curriculum content and, in fact, advising the Ministry of Education not to consult with our education sector on the draft curriculum because it would be “disruptive”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven’t seen that, but what I know is that the company was contracted, as I’ve already said, to do those things, and part of that work was the parameters of a knowledge-rich curriculum, understanding what a knowledge-rich curriculum is, which is what the Ministry of Education needed advice with across multiple areas of the curriculum.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, does the New Zealand health curriculum refer to freestyle swimming as “front crawl”, and the music curriculum refers to Australian performance company Kaboom Percussion, if it really was designed by Kiwis for Kiwis?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The curriculum has been—as also well-traversed and included, in fact, in an article recently—written by hundreds of New Zealanders who were involved over a long period of time and then, in fact, went out for consultation over a six-month period. Those curriculum areas were in draft. They have been consulted on. We’ve had a huge amount of feedback, and when we are ready, in the very near future, they will be provided in final form.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she continue to hold her head up and state that Learning First did not write the school curriculum when reports signed out by her show they directly influenced it?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I think the answer to that question is clear in the member’s question: there’s a difference between writing and influence. I’ve already said, in my first question, the things that we asked for advice on, which influenced the development of the curriculum; writing of the curriculum is a very different thing.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 7

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (14:29) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she believe that having a job pulls people out of poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:29): Yes. Our Government believes having a job is the best pathway to lift Kiwis and their families out of hardship. Employment provides greater independence, choice, and opportunity for New Zealanders. That’s why the Government has created a more active welfare system to support more job seekers into work. Our economy is stronger when more people are working. More jobs and higher wages are what ultimately will help ease the cost of living, and that is what our Government is focused on.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile that out of the nearly 170,000 children living in material hardship in New Zealand, half of them belong to working families?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, that’s quite simple when cost of living challenges started from 2021 and continue today. What we do know is that we want to have a growing economy so more New Zealanders are in work with higher wages. That is absolutely how we pull people out of poverty.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner when she stated, in her open letter to all party leaders on Monday, that “poverty is preventable”; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Speaking as the Minister for Social Development and Employment, that is absolutely why we are focused on getting more New Zealanders into work, and that is why, in Budget 2026, we have invested over $90 million to support more sole parents into work—because we know that’s better for them and their children.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by her statement, “Reducing child material hardship is a particular focus of mine as Minister, and it is a priority in our Government’s child and youth strategy”; if so, how have her actions improved child material hardship?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’d invite that member to ask oral questions about child poverty reduction to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. I’m happy to talk about the connection between employment and reducing poverty, which is what the question asks, and I’ve answered.

Kahurangi Carter: What evidence would lead the Minister to change her approach to reducing child material hardship given that the number of children suffering material hardship has gone up by nearly 50,000 in the last three years, and the overall rates are sitting at a 10-year high?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, the member continues to ask questions of a different portfolio with different priorities, so I would ask for your guidance on this. I’m happy to answer questions that are directed to me as the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but questions of that nature should be directed to the appropriate Minister.

Kahurangi Carter: Has she been advised of any Government policies that risk increasing child material hardship; if so, which ones in her portfolio? I could reword the question.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not going to help. Just give some response so we can say it’s addressed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. We’ve supported 86,000 people who have left benefit into work. That’s exactly the sort of policies that our Government is focused on.

Education

Question No. 8

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:33) to the Minister of Education: What update can she provide on putting an end to open-plan classrooms?

SPEAKER: The Honourable—

Hon Erica Stanford: I thank that hard-working member—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, wait on—whoa!

Hon Erica Stanford: —for her question. Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The excitement of your opening line—

Hon Erica Stanford: Oh, it was so exciting!

SPEAKER: —was probably too much for you. The Hon Erica Stanford.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:33): Last year, the Government announced that we would be putting an end to the building of open-plan classrooms. I’m pleased to confirm that work is well under way to remedy existing open-plan classrooms who have expressed an interest in having walls put back in. We’ve completed projects at six schools, with 32 further projects to be completed by the end of the year. This is about closing the door on the failed experiment of open-plan classrooms that has occurred over many decades.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Your experiment.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re removing distractions and enabling students to learn in fit-for-purpose learning environments. I’d like to point out to that member, I learned in an open-plan classroom in 1985—many, many decades.

Katie Nimon: Why is the Government putting walls back in open-plan classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Principals, teachers, and parents consistently told us that open-plan classrooms were not meeting the needs of students, and we listened. They told us that open-plan classrooms were noisy, they create stress and distractions for students—particularly those with additional learning needs. There is no convincing evidence that large, open-plan classrooms support good learning outcomes, which is why so many schools have registered their interest in having our open-plan classrooms converted. Providing students with the consistency of teaching environments to help raise achievement and close the equity gap is what this Government is about.

Katie Nimon: Which schools and regions have benefited from the modifications so far?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re making great progress. Projects have already been completed at Beckenham School in Christchurch Central, Foxton Beach School and Levin East School in the mighty Rangitīkei, Horotiu School in the Taranaki-King Country, Karamea Area School in West Coast-Tasman, and Nelson College for Girls in Nelson, and there are still more to come. This is in addition to our relentless focus on delivering. We’re building more classrooms at a lower cost to the taxpayer and remediating classrooms which are not fit for purpose.

Katie Nimon: What has she heard from schools where the open-plan classrooms have been modified?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The feedback has been extremely positive. Beckenham School in Christchurch said that they were writing to extend their sincere thanks for the recent work completed at their school, involving the addition of walls and glass doors in two of their teaching blocks as part of the initiative: “These enhancements will provide even greater flexibility for our teachers to use these spaces in ways that maximise learning opportunities for our students.”, and feedback from Nelson College for Girls was that their students are more focused, teachers have greater flexibility in the classroom, and staff wellbeing has improved. We are a Government that identifies the issues, makes the important calls, allocates resources, and then delivers, as we fix the basics and build the future.

Transport

Question No. 9

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (14:36) to the Minister of Transport: How much of the $675 million approved in October 2025 for pre-implementation work on roads of national significance has now been spent, and on which projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:36): As at 30 April 2026, $323.8 million has been spent on pre-implementation work for the roads of national significance (RONS) projects that are yet to progress to procurement and construction. To be clear, the $675 million approved in October 2025 was only approved by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) board for a subset of the roads of national significance that are yet to progress to procurement and construction. As at 31 May 2026, $90 million has been spent from this on the six projects listed in my press release of 20 October 2025, and they are the Northland Corridor sections 2 and 3, the East-West Link, the Hamilton Southern Links, Petone to Granada, the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements, and the Hope Bypass. I realise from a review of the questions for written answer that led to this primary question today being asked, that that answer needs to be corrected and my office has done that this afternoon, and I apologise to the member for that. We are committed to the roads of national significance, which is why we’ve adopted a phased approach for their delivery.

Tangi Utikere: How many of the roads promised at the 2023 election now have a guaranteed construction start date for the road itself, not pre-construction works?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Four projects are under way right now, and two are about to start construction in the next few months: obviously, the Northland Corridor, and the Northland Expressway stage 1; and Warkworth to Te Hana, and the Cambridge to Piarere road, which we announced Budget funding for in Budget 2026. The procurement has actually started already, but construction will start, from memory, in quarter one next year. Roughly, between those two projects, there is $4 billion to $5 billion worth of construction funding starting for those projects, which are multi-year projects that will provide a big boost to those regions. Beyond that—as the member knows from my announcement three weeks or so ago—construction timelines are yet to be finalised.

Tangi Utikere: Does he stand by his view that the hundreds of millions spent planning roads with no construction date is “not a waste”, but “an investment in the future”, particularly given the RONS projects in phases 2 and 3 have, effectively, been cancelled by his Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are a couple of errors there. Firstly, to start with the last assertion, they have not been cancelled—they are Government priorities—and, secondly, they are not a waste. As I think the member maybe doesn’t but should appreciate, before you start building a road you actually need a designation, consents, a route design, property acquisition, and all the rest of it, and, actually, part of the problem in this country is that we have not laid down the designations and done the kind of corridor planning and the route protection so that as funding becomes available, those projects can start. One of the reasons why Warkworth to Te Hana—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —is able to be constructed and progressed now is because, quietly, in 2020, the NZTA went off and got a consent for Warkworth to Te Hana so that it has actually been able to be progressed in this term of Government. The NZTA is about to lodge a fast-track consent for the State Highway 1 in Wellington project, there is work happening on Petone to Granada, and there is a range of route protection mechanisms happening, which means that over time, over the next few years, as funding becomes available, those projects can start. That is actually how you build a sequenced pipeline of projects.

Hon Members: Supplementary question.

Tangi Utikere: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Tangi Utikere.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER: Just so people know—three is the rule.

Tangi Utikere: When he conceded that his Government’s 2023 roading promises were “very ambitious”, did he mean that his Government knew it couldn’t deliver them or that it didn’t bother to check?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not actually responsible for campaign policies of the National Party in 2023. If I am going to answer questions about them, I would put our record of delivery on roads and promises up against the announcement one month out from the 2023 election that, based on an indicative business case, the Government of the day was going to spend between $40 billion and $60 billion on a road and rail tunnel from the airport in Auckland to the North Shore—based on a four-page indicative business case. That is what that party campaigned on. We’re actually campaigning on delivery, and that’s what we’re doing.

Tangi Utikere: Why should motorists, who are already paying $50 more in registration fees and facing petrol tax hikes, believe that any of that money will buy them anything other than more consultancy reports, like the $323.8 million he has already spent?

SPEAKER: No, don’t take your time. Just get on with the answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Fuel tax has not risen since 2020, and in real terms, it has fallen by over 20 percent. I’ve been really up front about the scale of the funding challenge we have. Successive Governments have deferred increases in fuel tax—even in real terms—for not actually bad reasons, but we have had a cost of living challenge in this country for many years. Obviously, in the last few months, we’ve had the war in Iran and the consequent flow-on effects for fuel prices. It’s a challenge for the country; it’s not one, frankly, to trivialise. The reality is: we try and put the best use of fuel tax revenue to its highest-value use, and that is what we’ll continue to do.

Hon Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware of any members of Parliament advocating on the importance of an infrastructure pipeline, with a planned and sequenced array of infrastructure investments to be determined in the national interest, and would such a plan require roads to be consented, sequenced, and funded as the Minister has done?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. I’m aware of many views across the House that have been expressed over many years—that what New Zealand needs is to stop the stop-start approach to things, the oscillation of funding priorities, and get some sort of a clear plan off into the future. The reality is: building a road, or a public transport project for that matter, and building anything in this country is not quite as simple as turning up and putting a spade into the ground. It requires designations, consents, route protection—all of those different things. That is what we are getting on with. As I say, the failure to do that in the past has led to the high cost of projects that we’re now delivering and other problems in the system.

Katie Nimon: Can the Minister provide an update on the first road of national significance—the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—and how it was able to get under way so quickly?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed. The Hawke’s Bay Expressway was a road that did have designations in place and consents in place in the past, which had been put in place by a far-sighted Government back in the day so that this Government could advance money over the last couple of years to get on with that very important project. It was a great pleasure, may I say, to help turn the sod with the member who asked the question—and her young son—while she was on parental leave some many months ago, and start construction on that very important project for the Hawke’s Bay. Of course, that member is delivering where the former MP for Napier failed.

Hunting and Fishing

Question No. 10

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (14:44) to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing: What recent announcements has he made about supporting hunter-led conservation?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (14:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I had the great pleasure of travelling to Te Ānau to designate New Zealand’s first herd of special interest—the Fiordland wapiti herd. I also had the great pleasure of travelling north to Poronui in the central North Island plateau to designate the country’s second herd of special interest—being the sika herd in the Kaimanawa and Kāweka Forest Parks. These landmark designations put hunters at the heart of sensible herd management, while maintaining strong environmental safeguards. We should acknowledge and celebrate the hard work of the communities in both Te Ānau, Fiordland, and the central North Island through those foundations, who, after a decade, have finally had the promise of herds of significance come to reality.

Joseph Mooney: How do these designations support and enhance our conservation estate?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, these designations provide herd-management plans that will reduce browsing pressure, improve forest regeneration, and support healthier native vegetation and biodiversity. Our hunters are conservationists, and these designations will empower them to do even more.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has the Minister received from hunters?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The received feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Roy Sloan from the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation called the designation “monumental” and the “biggest thing for New Zealand hunting ever”, saying it showed well-managed deer can coexist with conservation. The Central North Island Sika Foundation described it as an exciting new chapter grounded in collaboration and community commitment, while the New Zealand Game Animal Council Chief Executive Officer Corina Jordan welcomed the practical, responsible, hunter-led management it enables.

Justice

Question No. 11

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:46) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions in relation to the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (14:46) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, I stand by the actions of the Government to clarify climate change laws to provide businesses with certainty around their obligations and to remove the possible development of a new regime by the court that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change.

Camilla Belich: Is he aware that Z Energy’s chief executive has stated that his company’s briefing note that preceded the Government’s introduction of this bill was hand-delivered, because the Prime Minister’s office asked for it to be hand-delivered?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not personally aware of those exact comments, but I am aware of media reports to that effect.

Camilla Belich: Does he consider that the Prime Minister’s office request was appropriate?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I don’t believe I’m in a position to answer questions on behalf of what other offices may or may not have done.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Official Information Act falls within this Minister’s responsibilities. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether instructing Z Energy to give a handwritten note, therefore it no longer being able to be picked up through the Official Information Act, is appropriate. For the Minister to respond that he doesn’t believe it’s within their responsibilities to respond to that is inaccurate.

SPEAKER: No, he didn’t say that. He said that he didn’t think, on behalf of the Minister, that he could respond on behalf of another department. That’s quite a different answer. But you can have a look at the Hansard, which will show that. I was listening very carefully to that answer. I also note that in your point of order, you suggested a course of action that may or may not have been taken had taken place.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir: it is, though, entirely within Speakers’ rulings to ask an opinion of the Minister, and given that this falls within the responsibilities of the Minister that Minister Meager is acting for, in this instance, it is entirely appropriate to ask whether the course of action that has been followed, in his opinion, is appropriate. My point is that him saying he isn’t in a position to answer on another department—that wasn’t the question.

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what he said. How he responded, effectively, was an opinion, which is not a—if you have a look at the Hansard, you’ll see what I’m talking about. Camilla Belich.

Camilla Belich: Does he accept that a Minister’s office asking for a document to be delivered by hand could circumvent the Official Information Act, for which he has responsibility as Minister of Justice?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I’m interpreting that question as requiring me to form a legal view on whether or not something is or isn’t compliant with the Official Information Act. I don’t believe I’m in a position, or obliged, to do that.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. All of these questions are clearly directed to the Minister as a Minister, and there was nothing in my question which requested a legal opinion. It was in respect to his duties as the Minister who is responsible for the administration of the Official Information Act, which is a ministerial role, not a legal role.

SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

Camilla Belich: Does he accept that a Minister’s office asking for a lobbying document to be delivered by hand could circumvent the Official Information Act, for which he has responsibility as Minister of Justice?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister of Justice and insofar as I can comment with knowledge, my understanding is that while the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the administration of the Act, in terms of individual actions under that Act, that is for, I think, the Ombudsman to inquire into and not the Minister of Justice.

Camilla Belich: How does it reflect on the processes and procedures employed by his Government when offices are asking private companies to deliver documents by hand, which are subsequently then not disclosed under the Official Information Act?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister of Justice and, again, insofar as I can provide information, my understanding is that those would be matters for the Ombudsman to inquire into and pass comment or judgment on, and then for the subsequent actions to take place after that.

Camilla Belich: Point of order. I was asking for the Minister’s reflection on that. That is not something that the Ombudsman is responsible for.

SPEAKER: Ask that question again too, but I think the answer was adequate—but ask the question again.

Camilla Belich: How does it reflect on the processes and procedures employed by his Government when offices are asking private companies to deliver documents by hand, which are subsequently not disclosed under the Official Information Act?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, insofar as the question asks me to provide an opinion or a reflection, I don’t think I can provide that on behalf of the Minister.

Environment

Question No. 12

SIMON COURT (ACT) (14:52) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent statements has he made about freshwater farm plans?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (14:52): On Monday, I welcomed the report back of the select committee on the Natural Environment Bill, part of the long-needed reform of New Zealand’s broken resource management system. One change that I particularly support is the removal of the requirement for non-certified freshwater farm plans to be routinely audited. This means only farms with higher identified risk to freshwater will need a certified and audited plan. Lower-risk farmers will still need to prepare a plan and declare it to council but won’t face the time and cost of certification and audit.

Simon Court: Why does the Government support changes to audit requirements?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Because, quite simply, the old approach treated every farm the same, regardless of actual risk to freshwater. The new system will recognise that farm plans are useful, because they are flexible enough to adapt to different farms and catchments and be scaled based on potential impact. They will deliver responsible environmental management and improved outcomes, because they target the on-farm activities that create risk. It’s smarter and a fairer system.

Simon Court: How will the freshwater farm plan system avoid duplication?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Most farmers are well aware of the idea of farm plans, because they often have to do several, whether that be for the companies they supply or their local council. That will stop under the new requirements, that recognise other farm plan types as equivalent. We’ve had this issue reinforced recently with the release of the Plan Change (PC) 1 changes, with widespread farm planning requirements in the Waikato. A few years ago, I saw a draft of one of their farm plans, which ran to more than 80 pages. That’s no use to anyone unless you need to block up a trailer to change a tyre on that trailer. The decisions around PC1 are currently being considered, but a nationally standardised system will address this type of pedantic local council overreach.

Simon Court: What are the Minister’s other objectives for farm plans?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As well as axing duplication, our goal is for freshwater farm plans to become the main mechanism by which farmers will manage their own risk to freshwater. They will get rid of the need for consents and prescriptive tick-box permitted activity rules, while focusing on what actually creates risk and solutions that make a real difference, not paperwork for paperwork’s sake. We are stripping back the last Government’s mountain of red tape and replacing it with a sensible system that does not punish low-impact farmers. That is what we need to do to unlock rural New Zealand’s potential.

Simon Court: What evidence supports exempting lower-risk farm plans from audits?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We just need to look at the space framework that the select committee looked at through their process. We see it around the country. One great example I know of is in the Moana lakes down the West Coast. Every farmer there engaged in a farm plan, and they saw a step change in reductions within that catchment, improving the water quality, and improving their farms.

Debates

Climate Change Commission—2026 Monitoring Report

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions, but can I just inform members that I have received a letter from Francisco Hernandez, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Climate Change Commission’s 2026 monitoring report. Discussion of an ongoing issue is not a particular case of recent occurrence, nor does it require the immediate attention of the House—Speakers’ ruling 221/2. The application is declined.

Bills

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4)

First Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:57): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 10 September 2026.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

SPEAKER (14:57): The bill stands referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Instruction to Committee

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:57): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be reported to the House by 10 September 2026.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Arms Bill, the Employment Leave Bill, and the English Language Bill.

Arms Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Licences and approvals (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): 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. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 67 to 181, “Licences and approvals”. Once again, the question is that Part 3 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:59): Madam Chair, thank you so much. I know that we’ve spent a fair bit of time on Part 3, so I’m going to keep my questions quite succinct to the last bits. I’m looking at clause 167, and I believe this might be subpart 7—let me just quickly find it. Yeah. This is page 112 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658—so clause 167.

I have noted that the Minister has made changes to some of the offences over here regarding expiry, surrender, suspension, and revocation. There is an increase in the term of imprisonment from “6 months” to “2 years”, and an increase in the fine from $10,000 to $20,000, as well as the inclusion of the term “or restricted ammunition”, which the Minister has elaborated on previously. I just wanted to check with the Minister on the rationale for the increase in penalties for the offences in these two parts, in clause 167(1) and (2).

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. The change here is to align with the comparable penalty for failing to surrender a licence, which is in clause 165, but while we are still on clause 167, I will just also point out a further amendment in Amendment Paper 658, where we are also adding a reference to restricted ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 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 88

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 67(1)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment deleting clause 130 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 146(1), replacing “the chief executive must”, 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 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 4 Endorsements and permits

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 182 to 207, “Endorsements and permits”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:06): I will start by asking quite a straightforward question regarding the overall premise of this section on endorsements. In clause 182(3), there are different specified arms items, which I’m assuming is when it comes to the application for endorsement itself. I note that in subclause (1)(a), you can apply for “1 or more specified items;” in a single instance, but can I also just check, I guess, for clarity for anyone who is interested in applying for this. If they decided to apply for one and a decision hasn’t been made yet, are they able to then add additional specified arms items to the same application—with that being my first question. The second part of that question is: if they apply for one and they have been accepted for that, would there be a stand-down period for them to make another endorsement application for a different specified arms item? My third question, then, is: if a person applies for one or more specified arms items in terms of endorsement and that’s been rejected, does it prevent them from applying for a different specified arms item and does it affect the reapplication process for their arms licence? Sorry, that’s four questions now.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:07): A person can apply for as many endorsements as they like. Once they apply for an endorsement and if they are not successful in that endorsement, they have every right to try to seek a remedy elsewhere; they may or may not be successful in that endorsement application.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take the Associate Minister of Justice to page 121 of her Amendment Paper 658. I want to ask whether this is a policy change, or whether it is a more minor change than that. I’m asking her about the change from requiring an arms officer, where they are in uniform, not to need to produce evidence of their arms endorsement—or the formulation, as it is now—which reads as the requirement that now an arms officer, when they’re exercising their powers, and whether or not they are in uniform, has to produce evidence—

Hon Nicole McKee: Which clause is this?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Clause 186.

Hon Nicole McKee: Clause 186—thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS: If that is a policy change, is the policy intention to reflect that now you can have different sorts of endorsements—is that the reason? Or is this to make it substantively different to other uniformed personnel whom this might otherwise have applied to?

I’m really asking whether this puts arms officers out of step with other uniformed personnel who would not be expected to produce their qualifications in the same way. You might expect, for instance, that in many circumstances the uniform itself was evidence of the officer being duly qualified and duly authorised to use their powers under a clause like clause 186 in another Act that gives them, say, search powers. I’m really asking whether that is a substantive change, and was this a decision which is also being given effect to by a Cabinet decision, or is this something that is merely tidying up the way that the powers are meant to be exercised by the authorised officers?.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:10): Just so we’re clear, everything in this Amendment Paper 658 in the bill has been cleared by Cabinet, so everything is a Cabinet decision. This is a request that I had specifically asked to go into the Arms Bill, and it is in various places. I’ve spoken to this before, but the member probably wasn’t in the room, because it was quite a lot earlier.

Effectively, what we have in the regime now is that if New Zealand Police turn up, they’re in a New Zealand police uniform, and they can make inquiries of you and they can ask specifics of you. They don’t generally identify themselves, because you can tell that they’re police because they’re in police uniform. It’s also an offence to impersonate a police officer. Once this moves over to arms officers or Firearms Safety and Education, I realise they may be wearing a uniform, but it is not an offence to impersonate one of those people, and anyone could turn up at somebody’s house and pretend to be a Firearms Safety and Education person and demand certain things of an individual. I have asked for ID for an arms officer to be verified at any time just so that we ensure that others will not impersonate those arms officers.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:11): Thank you very much. I’ve got a question in relation to the revocation of endorsement in respect of pistol and restricted weapons. As we know, the switching over to the new entity will mean that the chief executive may have this role. What I’m interested to understand from the Associate Minister of Justice is—an endorsement on a licence in respect of a pistol. There’s a provision under clause 191 that is kind of a carve-out, from what I can understand: “an endorsement on a licence … of a pistol may not be revoked under subsection”. I’m interested to understand why that carve-out exists. It specifies under clause 191(2)(a): “the firearms licence holder has owned that pistol since before 16 May 1969”—that’s even before me, so that’s a while ago—“and, immediately before that date, was registered under section 9 of the Arms Act 1958 as the owner of that pistol;”.

Under clause 191(2)(b), it states that “the pistol, although less than 762 millimetres in length, has not been reduced below that length since 15 May 1969 and is not designed or adapted to be held and fired with 1 hand.” I’m just interested to know: how do you police that? Obviously, we’ve got no police involved, so not policing, but how do you implement that? How do we understand when that is being enforced? How would we know that that’s not being enforced? I’m really interested to understand, because they’re quite clear specifics in relation to that.

I’m interested to know the level of detail of the carve-out for pistols and also to understand why those times have been laid down in terms of previous Arms Acts in ’69 and ’58. Maybe that’s reviewing the whole Act. I’m just interested to know why those dates are there and how you know—do they go around measuring pistols to figure out whether they’re more than 762 millimetres in length? I’m just interested to know that.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:13): Yes, so this is actually a carry-over of provisions from the previous Arms Act when it comes to the length. It’s been well determined that anything under 762 millimetres then becomes a pistol. Yes, the police do go about measuring it, and what they really are looking for are the cut-down rifles, so the rifles or the shotguns that have had the barrels cut down. Once they’re under the overall length of 762 millimetres, they’re then determined to be a pistol and then determined to be breaking the requirement to have an endorsement for it, so it means you can put more charges on an individual that has something under 762. I wasn’t prepared to change that, because it has worked. There’s been evidence to show that it’s worked, and I think it works very, very well. The dates do reflect previous Arms Acts and also align with the fact of where the 762 millimetres came in. I hope that answers the question.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Associate Minister of Justice for her answer on clause 186. I just wanted to follow up on, then, whether—I think that is more of the flavour of the policy change. Then I want to understand: did she consider or take advice on ensuring that there were adequate powers for if an officer is not able to immediately produce their verification or if, in the situation, their the verification perhaps is obscured? There are cases like this that apply to police where we still want them to be able to legally exercise those powers.

It’s important, I guess, that we then have the corresponding provisions that you’re not going to run afoul of your search powers because you were doing everything correctly but your badge had fallen off or became obscured. We also don’t want a situation where there is unnecessary delay at the doorstep because an aggressive person has opened the door and they’ve gotten their phone out and they’re saying, “Show me your badge, show me your identification.”

Obviously, you want corresponding rights for the members of the public who have opened the door to be able to ask the person, for exactly the reason she says—that they want to make sure that they’re not impersonating the officer—but on the same hand, you want adequate protections for the people who are going about their work and just doing their job discharging their duties, frankly, with someone who they think is in possession of a firearm and they’re not meant to be. That is a high-pressure scenario for them, and I want to ask her about whether the right sorts of protections are in place for them, given that it’s now a proactive duty to hand over the right kind of identification.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:16): I do expect that the Firearms Safety and Education officers, the arms officers, will have not obscured ID. I mean, that wouldn’t be an effective way to be a regulator. If they are going to somebody’s house, for example, you would expect them to be turning up with all of their ID. If they’re turning up to a house where they expect some concern—say, an agitated person with a firearm—one of the beauties of this piece of legislation is the hand-holding of New Zealand Police with Firearms Safety and Education. While we’re separating administration and enforcement, it’s still very important that these two organisations are having real-time information sharing with each other. Should we get into a situation where a Firearms Safety and Education arms officer is concerned or worried, they will have ability to have police with them, but turning up with obscured name badges would not be good practice for any regulator in any way, so I expect that would not happen.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a short question on clause 184(3). In Amendment Paper 658, the Minister has removed clause 184(3)(b), which is “a large-capacity pistol magazine:”. Can I just check that this is for consistency with some of the other sections—being my first question. My second question on this is: does the large-capacity pistol magazine, which the Minister has previously mentioned, now fall under a restricted magazine category? Is that where that is now being captured? That being my first question.

I’m now going to move on to Subpart 2, “Permits to import”, and I’m seeing that there have been quite a few sections relating to a standard firearm that is a permanently deactivated firearm that have been removed in various parts of the Minister’s amendment. To give an example, clauses 193(4)(c) and 193(6)(ba)—just two examples where that has been removed. Can I just check with the Minister on why have—oh, another one is clause 193(3)(c). Can I just check with the Minister on why those areas have been deleted?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:19): The reason why—and I think it was clause 181 that you were initially first talking to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Clause 184.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Clause 184, sorry. We had removed large-capacity pistol magazines because there is no requirement to have an endorsement specifically for your magazines, so it was an error for it being in there. You actually need to have a pistol endorsement—that allows you to have the magazine, as opposed to having a specific endorsement to have the magazines. Having the pistol endorsement will suffice.

For clause 193, as I mentioned earlier, you will see this removal of deactivated firearms throughout Amendment Paper 658—the reason being that submissions, as well as consultation that was held, expressed some concern around deactivated firearms possibly being reactivated and causing a public safety concern. Because of that, we thought that that might need more work to clarify, so we have removed it completely—hence you will see, through Amendment Paper 658, recordings to remove it throughout the rest of the bill

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (15:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have a question on clause 193 in Subpart 2—Permits to import. I have had a brief perusal of the clause to try to answer my own question, but I am interested in the advice that the Minister has received from officials on a definition of an exempt standard firearm—so we’re looking at clause 193(3)(b). These are permits that can be granted to “import any of the following items”, and it lists items, and I’m interested to know, what is an “exempt standard firearm” as opposed to just a standard firearm as listed in paragraph (a)?

Then, over the page, in paragraph (ba), we also see “an exempt pistol”. I’m interested to know what the definition is of an exempt pistol, obviously for the public but also for enforcement being able to understand what would cause a pistol to be granted an exemption. Also, what would be an “exempt standard firearm” as opposed to a standard firearm? I’m just interested if officials can provide the Minister with some definitions there to help guide the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:21): I invite the member to turn to page 23 of Amendment Paper 658; it will give her all the definitions she’s just been seeking.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:21): I also have a question about clause 193 amendment. I think it would be reasonable to read this either way—that, say, the permanently deactivated firearms change being in or out could either mean that it is regulated in another place or that you can now bring them in without a permit. It would be really helpful if the Minister could say, under the old formulation that was introduced to the House at the beginning, what did not require a permit, and now, under this new formulation, what does not require a permit. I think, for instance, that permanently deactivated firearms are in the net, not outside of the net.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:22): They’re in the net. Currently, if you have a deactivated firearm, it’s still a firearm, and you’re still required to have a firearms licence for it. What we were trying to do was say that you didn’t have to. That was in order for, you know, if Grandad passes away and leaves a firearm to a grandchild who doesn’t have a licence. The thought was that they could get it deactivated and keep it as a type of heirloom, and finding that could actually be an issue. By removing it, we go back to the status quo, which is the requirement to still have a firearms licence.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (15:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to the Minister’s helpful response, I checked page 23 of Amendment Paper 658, and both of those exemptions that I’ve mentioned—the exempt pistol and the exempt standard firearm—are going to be exempted by regulations. I’m interested in the Minister’s response and whether she can provide some examples of the types of exemptions that would be incorporated in regulations. Obviously, it’s not going to be listed in the main legislation. I think, for the purposes of the committee of the whole House getting some further clarity, understanding the types of criteria that could be included in regulations to deem a pistol an exempt pistol or an exempt standard firearm, would be helpful for the committee.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:24): An example of what was an exempt pistol, which we’re actually changing in this, would be blank-firing guns, which we are actually bringing in under the regime. They would be captured. If you look at different types of firearms, there are some—well, I’m not familiar with the regulations and exactly what has been exempt, so I’m just going with my messages that I’ve got here: flare guns, deer net guns, bolt guns. Not the bolt standard rifle gun—so you have a bolt gun that can be a standard rifle, but there’s obviously exempt bolt guns. I suspect those are the ones that farmers use to humanely dispatch an animal with a sharp knock to the head using a bolt gun. It’s those sorts of things that have been exempt.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on to another section, which is clause 195. Specifically, I’m looking at clause 195(2). Can I just check with the Minister, 195(1) talks about the requirement by the chief executive to examine and test the air pistol carbine conversion kit, etc. Subclause (2) specifies that when it comes to the air pistol carbine conversion kit, “The chief executive may grant an application for the issue of a permit to import an air pistol carbine conversion kit only if the chief executive is satisfied that the application is made by an applicant who intends to personally use the kit as a member of an airsoft or a paintball club”.

Does that mean despite subclause (1), or in addition to subclause (1)? Regardless of what happens in subclause (1), whoever supplies the sample must then also prove that they are using it for personal use? Would that be the correct reading of it? I just want to check that. My reading is that unless you are personally using it as a member of an airsoft or paintball club, there is no other way that the chief executive would then be able to approve an air pistol carbine conversion kit.

Hon Nicole McKee: I’ll get advice on that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK—thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:26): Oh, I’ve got advice. It’s been carried over from the Arms Act 1983, and subclauses (1) and (2) are quite separate from each other is the advice that I’ve been given.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:26): Just a follow-up clarification on that: if they are separate—because subclause (2) says “only if the chief executive is satisfied that the application is made by an applicant who intends to personally use”, doesn’t that then negate subclause (1)? That’s fine if that’s the advice that’s been sought—I just thought it was an interesting section, understanding that the Minister said that this is a carry-on from a previous section.

I’m now going to move on to a further clause, and potentially this might be relevant to clause 206, which is also around—oh, no, that’s “pistol carbine conversion kit”, not “air pistol carbine conversion kit”. Never mind. That’s all of my questions for now. Thank you.

Arena Williams: Madam Chair, just one more question.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:27): Thank you, Madam Chair—just a question about clause 203. I’ve just looked up that that is a carry-over, but given that this section was drafted in a period where it anticipated that the only actors for seizure would be constables of the New Zealand Police or customs officers, my question to the Minister is, did she anticipate also giving seizure powers to arms officers? That seems to be a gap where, if now the new arms officers need to seize illegally imported items in an operation that they are undertaking for some reason—even given that they are meant to be working in lockstep with the New Zealand Police—they would need to have customs or the police acting in their stead. Or is it just assumed that the seizure powers only sit with police and customs in the context of importation?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:28): Yes, the seizure power is at the place or time of import, which is usually either at an airport or on the docks. You won’t have firearms officers there, which are firearms safety and education; you’ll always have police and customs officers. All we’ve done there is just changed it to constable and ensured that the customs officers can still continue to do what they usually do, but the firearms safety and education officers are not intended to be sitting at ports.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 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 88

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Shooting clubs and shooting ranges

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 208 to 245, “Shooting clubs and shooting ranges”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a starting question which is on clause 209(2)—this is Subpart 1, “Pistol shooting clubs”. I was just curious. We’ve seen a lot of different offences and penalties up until now, but I’ve noticed that “if the person, without reasonable excuse, establishes or operates a pistol shooting club”, which I would say has a lot of requirements around it, only has “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000”—whereas, sometimes for individuals, I think, in some of the earlier sections, again, there are penalties for up to two years imprisonment and fines not exceeding $20,000. How come this particular one is lower than the others?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:32): We have gone about a comprehensive review of all penalties to make sure that they align with not only other penalties within this piece of legislation but those that are within the Sentencing Act and the Crimes Act as well—so it’s aligning them. I’ll also point out that this Part 5 wasn’t even looked at, because we had an agreement in the coalition that we had dealt with shooting clubs and ranges, Part 5, earlier on in the term, and therefore we’re not going to make any substantial amendments to Part 5. So you’ll see that the majority of Part 5 is a carry-over.

What I will say, though, is we have made some small changes within Part 5. One change is to ensure that a pistol shooting range can continue operating if it has applied for recertification before its certification expires but the regulator has not yet processed the application. That’s not in this section, but I’m standing on my feet, so I think I may as well just speak to it now. That is because all clubs under the rushed changes in 2020 and 2019 had to become certified. Of course, they all become certified at the same time. Just like the 10-year licensing regime that I mentioned, it means they all come up at the same time for recertification. This is ensuring that if an operator actually puts in their application to be recertified, they can continue operating if the regulator cannot get to them before the expiry, as long as they put that application in before the expiry.

The other change that we’ve made there removes the requirement for a shooting range to demonstrate compliance with the Resource Management Act (RMA) before it can be certified or enrolled. That is because—well, the first thing I’ll state is this does not change a range’s obligations under the RMA; instead, it ensures that the firearms regulator can focus on range safety while the responsibility for RMA compliance remains with local councils. We thought that it was actually an interference to bring it in when the regulator should be looking at the range safety as opposed to other pieces of legislation which deal with RMA compliance. Both changes in this respect and through this as done in the Amendment Paper were actually made on the select committee recommendation to do this. Those are the only changes that are being made in this part.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:35): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for just explaining that and why Part 5 hasn’t been touched as much. But, of course, when we have a comprehensive review like this, there is an opportunity to update or provide specificity in certain sections.

Just in terms of the definition of “shooting range”, I noted that it says that the primary purpose is carrying out shooting activities. I just wanted confirmation from the Minister that when I read that I sort of thought of clubrooms that might be attached to a shooting range and that that’s what it was making an allowance for. We’re not talking about other outdoor activities or other physical activities necessarily, or is that the case that there will be shooting ranges where there are other physical activities going on alongside those shooting activities?

The second question I had was on clause 210. This is the requirement that the shooting club must be an incorporated society. I just understand that there may not be a change in this provision, but I’m just trying to understand what the nature of the protections that that allows are—whether it is reporting or particular policy requirements, and what would preclude, for example, a charitable trust from being able to hold those activities as well.

Then on both clause 212 and 214: clause 212 is the ability of the chief executive to make further inquiries as they see fit, and clause 214 is the ability of the chief executive to impose conditions, both of which are drafted very broadly. I’m just wondering—I presume that, often, both the inquiries made and the conditions imposed would sit under fairly clear categories—whether there was an interest of the Minister to include categories to provide some direction for what is lawful information that is collected and what are reasonable conditions that are given to clubs who hold those licences.

Then, while I still have some time, I did want to ask about the ability to pause or suspend certificates of approval. As far as I can see at present, there is the ability to cancel those certificates or for the certificate to be surrendered by the club itself. But, for example, if you were to have a complaint issued against one of these clubs, would there be an ability to pause or suspend that certificate of approval, and if so, where can I find that within the body of the current drafting? Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:38): There’s a bit there, so feel free to stand up if I don’t cover it all. The first one was around incorporated societies. Previous legislation had required that all clubs become an incorporated society. That way, we could have a look at who the membership is, funding that comes in, and there’s also a requirement that any assets that might be sold also do not go back to individuals. That’s part of the incorporated society part.

The range itself—well, that depends. In some instances—for example, an indoor smallbore range might have the clubroom actually attached to the indoor range itself; in which case, all of the building may be considered to be a range. But the active part of the range is where the shooting actually takes place, and that’s where the certification for the range will be. They need to look at all sorts of things, like cone of fire. Cone of fire relates to where possibly a shot may go if it does not hit the target. This is all part of that range certification, not necessarily on the clubrooms but more importantly about the distance between where the firearms competitor or shooter is and where the target is and what is beyond the target as well. That’s what we call the “cone of fire”—being able to ensure that everything is captured there.

It becomes quite difficult to get into specifics, because what is an indoor .22 shooting at 25 yards is quite different to fullbore outdoor shooting at a thousand yards. Their cones of fire will be different; the way that they are assessed is different. If you add pistol clubs in there as well, you may need to have baffling, and, of course, you have different aspects there, because you have movement in the shooting. Getting into specifics on there would be complicated, because you have so many different disciplines of shooting within New Zealand.

Clauses 244 and 245 allow what we call temporary suspension so that improvements can be made. If a regulator came to inspect the range and found that a baffle had fallen down or they no longer approve a particular type of backstop, instead of just stopping that range or suspending that range, they currently now have the ability to issue either a temporary suspension notice or an improvement notice. The improvement notice means that they can go about fixing up the work—hopefully, within an approved time—and the regulator will come back and double-check that it is the way that it should be. So that would be clauses 244 and 245 that relate to temporary suspension and improvement notices.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:41): I have a question for the Minister on clause 217, which is the annual reports for pistol shooting clubs. The area I was specifically looking at is clause 217(2), which is an annual report must include the prescribed particulars. Can I just check with the Minister that prescribed particulars is in relation to the prescribed details in clause 211(2)(b) as a part of that application that is being made to the chief executive. I just wanted to check that in terms of the annual report, that they need to do that to provide consistency, because one of the things I’m looking for is that for pistol shooting clubs, in particular—I can’t see it in some of the other areas—is this requirement for annual reporting, probably, against some of the compliance requirements. I want to check that with the Minister, and I’m also checking again that this is specified for pistol shooting clubs, but I don’t see the same annual reporting requirement for non - pistol shooting clubs, pistol shooting ranges, and non - pistol shooting ranges. I was just curious as to why only pistol shooting clubs require that annual report.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason why this is for pistols only is because a pistol is an endorsed item, and, as I’ve mentioned earlier, you can actually only shoot them on the pistol range. You can’t go out hunting in New Zealand with a pistol. They can only be used on a pistol-shooting range; in fact, they can’t even be used on a range that has not been designated for pistols. So when we look at the prescribed conditions in clause 211(2)(b), including the prescribed details, that’s for an application for a certificate of approval in respect of having the club, and then, in respect of clause 217, “Annual reports”, that annual report must be included.

One thing I will say is that the prescribed information that is required—the prescribed particulars—they’re all detailed in the regulations as to what they are. But to give you an example of an annual report, it is a legal requirement for pistol-endorsed holders to shoot 12 competitions per annum in order to maintain their pistol endorsement. If they don’t, they could very much lose that pistol endorsement, and so, of course, there needs to be reporting to the regulator to say, “This is our membership, and these are how many shoots they’ve done.”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 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 88

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 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 5 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 6 Further offences and firearms prohibition orders

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 246 to 299, “Further offences and firearms prohibition orders”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start by speaking to my colleague Scott Willis’ amendment, and this amendment comes after clause 253, “Carrying or possessing standard firearm, pistol, restricted weapon, airgun, ammunition, or explosive in public place without lawful purpose”. I did note that in the Associate Minister of Justice’s amendment, very helpfully, that phrase “without lawful purpose” had been, I believe, added as an addition to what came back from the Justice Committee. I think that that actually does address one of the submitters’ concerns, and I want to draw special attention to the case of, I believe, Dally v New Zealand Police, where you could have something—for example, the hunting of deer—as a lawful purpose, or it could be interpreted as a lawful purpose, but it may be done unlawfully on someone’s private property.

The reason why I say that—and this relates to Scott Willis’ amendment timed at 9.30.02—is that there have been instances, as we know, of potentially poaching or shooting on private property without the owner of the property’s consent, and I think that this is the case that came out from submitters. I am going to repeat this verbatim because this is not my experience, but my colleague Scott Willis has said that this is something that he has experienced as part of, I think, a hunting blog, where he was shooting with the consent of someone on their property, but he also heard someone else shooting who did not have consent on that same property.

So I wanted to check with the Minister whether that is something that has been considered as a part of an offence, or whether the Minister would consider Scott Willis’ amendment to also specify that, when you are looking at instances of unlawfully carrying on private land without the express permission of the owner of that land. I’m happy to elaborate further on the case of Dally v New Zealand Police and some of the judgment in there—and this is dated back to 2005—but I wanted to check with the Minister if that’s something that has been considered.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:48): Madam Chair, thank you. If a person has a loaded firearm on someone else’s property in the situation where they are poaching, that’s it—they’re poaching, and that’s illegal. It’s not necessarily sections within the Arms Act, but within the Wildlife Act—I think it’s the Wildlife Act; yes, it’s in the Wildlife Act where poaching is an offence.

Speaking to the member’s colleague’s tabled amendment lodged at 9.30.02, he’s referring to carrying, possessing a standard firearm, airgun, or explosive on private land. As the member has pointed out, this is now covered in clause 250, which was previously section 45 of the old Arms Act, but carrying and possessing ammunition on private land was not covered in the previous Act and it was not covered under the existing bill. We are looking to amend that to make sure that we’ve put ammunition in there. The existing section 51 deals with carrying on public land, and this is now in clause 253 of the new bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:50): Sorry. It is about the same section and clause 248. The Associate Minister of Justice has just referred to her inclusion of ammunition. I understand why she’s included that. That is a good addition. I’m not questioning whether that should be in there, but I want to understand the practical implication of this because it creates what seems to be strict liability there for anyone who is the occupier or the owner of a property where ammunition is stored. It might be reasonable—100 percent reasonable—to expect that somebody like me would know, as an occupier, that there were guns on the property but I don’t know what ammunition looks like.

My question, Minister, is—there will obviously be a need for reasonable enforcement of this because you might end up in a situation where if it’s ammunition without any context of guns, that you do create an unreasonable expectation of knowledge, and there’s no requirement of knowledge. That is reasonable, too. It is reasonable that there is no requirement of knowledge or no requirement of consent, because what you’re trying to capture there is compliance with the law, and reasonable compliance, especially with things like producing identification, where there can be a reasonable expectation of the person asking for the identification that that will be produced without question. That’s fine. But how will it work in practice if someone turns up to the bach I’m staying in—and I don’t know what an ammunition locker looks like?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:51): That’s fair enough. This particular clause, 248, is a reverse onus clause. It means that that person has to show why and demonstrate whether or not—“I had no idea this was ammunition; I don’t even know what ammunition looks like.”

We have a couple of scenarios that I can give you where this is going to be a really important clause moving forward. Say you’re on farmland, you hop into the ute, you’ve done a bit of shooting, and you accidentally leave a couple of shotgun rounds in the ute, and then you go home and your daughter gets into the ute to go and milk the cows on another part of the farm, has a car accident, or something like that, police come along and say there’s ammunition in the car. You can reasonably say, dad might go “Oh, actually, that was mine and she just took the car.”, but there’s obviously no firearm in the car, there’s no illegal activity happening, and so the reverse onus would be met in that way, because, reasonably, you can say there was no ill intent there, nothing bad there.

As opposed to a situation where a gang member might be in the car and they might have ammunition—they’re unlicensed, for example—and it’s proof to us—“Why is the ammunition in the car?”, and the person goes, “Oh, look, I don’t know. I had no idea that there was ammunition in the car, and there happens to be a gun in the boot as well but I’ve got no licence for it.” Now, that will be up to the police at that stage—because they will be the ones pulling people over, not fire and safety and education—to then look at and make a decision on whether or not that would be an acceptable excuse or not.

So it’s been written in such a way that it allows the police, in the first instance, and the regulator, probably in the second instance, in that respect, to try and understand whether or not there could have been criminal intent or whether there was actually a legitimate reason for why a situation had occurred.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to three different offences and just, again, the cap on penalties. Looking at clause 252, this is about carrying or possessing a restricted firearm or restricted ammunition in a public place without lawful purpose. The term is “not exceeding 7 years” is the maximum penalty. The two other offences I compare it to in my head were clause 31, which is the pure possession clause, not in a public space—I would have thought that this offence for clause 252 would have been higher than clause 31—the other one I compare it to is clause 255, “Carrying restricted firearm with criminal intent”. Again, just given the intent to commit an offence, that seems like it’s considerably more serious on a scale of those offences. So just a brief question to the Associate Minister of Justice across those three offences: why the cap on the penalty remains the same regardless of the presence of the weapon in a public space or the criminal intent provision. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. We have made some amendments in this particular area—clauses 250 through to 253—really because clause 250 is about what occurs on private property; clauses 252 and 253 is what occurs in public domain. With clause 253, I believe we are amending the penalty—sorry, no we’re not; we’re amending the reference to include restricted weapons there, as well. In relation to the member’s specific question, I’m unable to answer exactly why we have different penalties, apart from we were looking at a regime—maybe I can answer: the framework in the bill is that all offences involving restricted firearms are the same, and it recognises the risk of these firearms in sentencing; a judge will have to take into account factors that have occurred in their sentence.

When it comes to the penalties, overall, they were all to align up and to increase all of them because they, basically, hadn’t been increased—some of them were really just a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. Across the board, they’ve all been increased in some way. I hope that explanation—thank you very much to my officials—suffices.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:56): Thank you very much; thank you, Minister; and also thank you so much, officials, for those helpful notes to the Associate Minister of Justice. If only we had officials every time we did an exam! Thank you so much for your response to my previous question, Minister. I think that’s really helpful knowing that a lot of those things that are in my colleague’s tabled amendment have already been captured. I do have a follow-up question on that.

I’m just double-checking and confirming because what has happened previously in this particular case is that the judge in that case says that hunting wild deer is a lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose for having a rifle, despite the fact that it was on someone else’s private land—but noting that this was back in 2005, so both the Wildlife Act and, potentially, I think there was another Act that was introduced in 2013, and what you said, Minister, may have already addressed some of the loopholes that were considered in the 2005 ruling. I am seeing a nod, so I think that is a huge reassurance. Thank you for that.

My next question is on clause 266—and this is on page 156 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658. In the Amendment Paper, you’ve added “Manufacturing or assembling” to the title. I’m assuming this is because in subclause (1)(a)(i), it says “manufactures or assembles”, but checking the definition “assembles” already features under the definition for “manufacture”. I want to check: does “assembling” have a different definition here in the purpose of this particular clause and offence, as opposed to what we see in the definition?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:58): Manufacture is to build something from scratch; to assemble it is to have, say, multiple parts, which, in itself, you can have the parts but you don’t have a firearm, because you only have a part of the firearm, but once you assemble them together, you could then create a firearm. The reason why we’ve gone about doing it this way is because you may not necessarily need all of the particular parts for that particular firearm to assemble it; you could have parts that fit another firearm that could help you assemble into another one. That’s why you’ve got manufacturing, as in “I’m going to manufacture a firearm. Therefore, manufacturing the parts and putting them together.”; and then the assembling is—yeah.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:59): Thank you. I want to take the Associate Minister of Justice to clause 256, page 152. My first question is: for the ones that she’s amended clause 250, 252, 253, with the inclusion of restricted ammunition—just generally, and a quick question on this—is it her intention that the Crown, when prosecuting these, will sort of stack the offences if someone is in possession of both a gun and ammunition, or is the inclusion of ammunition not to create sort of multiple charges for the Crown to pursue but more that you can also bring someone within the ambit of these offences, if they only have ammunition? Why I ask that is because if you have multiples and then you’ve got different avenues to prove, that will go to sentencing as well.

The other question I want to ask is just specifically on clause 256. This is also echoed in the old rule, but including ammunition brings it into focus. The word “carrying” is only in the title. The rule for interpretation of legislation is that the title is not part of the active wording of the law. The difference between “carrying” in the title at clause 256 and at subclause (1)(a) “has with them” is relevant here now that ammunition is in the mix, because having with you a firearm means that it’s on your person, it’s in your vehicle—in the example that she used, in the ute. But having with you ammunition could mean much broader association for a person there. It would just be helpful for me if she would clarify what sort of conduct is intended to be captured in clause 256 for ammunition.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:01): Thank you. One of the proposals that we have in the Amendment Paper is to add restricted ammunition. Restricted ammunition currently requires an endorsement to be in possession of it, as opposed to standard ammunition. Just ticking that off, because that’s in Amendment Paper 658, so speaking to that.

The advice that I’ve just been given, however, is that a decision on these, particularly what you would be charged for, is a decision for the Crown Law prosecutor. Under what offence that they would charge and how they would go about doing it, it’s not for a Minister to direct or to influence exactly when it would be used. I was hoping that the potential two examples I gave, where one was clearly looking like it was illegal activity—then whatever they would be charged with, well, that’s not up to a Minister. We’re just giving the tools within the Arms Bill. There could be several causes in here, depending on what they do and whether they’re licensed or unlicensed, as to what they could potentially be charged with.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m also looking at clause 256—a few questions about clauses one after the other. This one references committing an offence or to resist or prevent arrest. I’m just wondering whether resist or prevent arrest is redundant in that subclause, because it would be an offence to resist arrest. Just in terms of tidiness of drafting—whether the Minister had comment on that.

I thought clause 257(2) was interesting in terms of, again, setting the penalties all together, regardless of whether the firearm is loaded or not or capable at the time of the offence of discharging ammunition. Of course, that’s replicated in clause 258 with airguns and pistols and restricted weapons—whether there was consideration of separating out those two separate factual scenarios of a loaded, capable weapon versus not.

In Subpart 3, clause 259, I thought the language in clause 259(b) was interesting, again, and possibly unusual. Just the choice of using the word “annoy” as part of the framing—“endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.”—when someone discharges a firearm or a restricted firearm, etc., near a dwellinghouse or a public place. It’s not a term that I’ve seen in regards to other criminal liability, so just wondering whether there is something else that’s comparable in the criminal space that the Minister was drawing from in adopting that language?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:04): I need to clarify that for ensuring the behaviour is covered in resisting arrest—oh, yeah, no, sorry; OK, I knew that. Ha, ha! It’s been carried over from 2019—sorry, that’s clause 259. I’m going to go back to my notes. Hold up.

Resisting arrest and presenting an unlawful firearm at someone—with resisting arrest, I think that we do need to ensure that we still have that capability within there, especially when it comes to anyone potentially having firearms in their possession. I hope that answers that. Presenting an unlawful firearm at somebody—whether it’s loaded or unloaded doesn’t really matter. Actually, pointing a firearm at a person—they have no idea whether it’s loaded or unloaded. The fear that you give a person by presenting or pointing a firearm at them will be the same regardless, because they don’t know what state that firearm is in. That’s why we’re ensuring that that is not the right thing to do.

Again, I revert back to the seven basic laws of firearm safety: the first law that we have there is treat every firearm as being loaded. Every firearms owner gets this education. They’re told, whether loaded or unloaded, they must treat their firearms in that way. Another rule that we have is point your firearm in a safe direction. That means not at yourself or at anybody else. As part of getting your firearms licence, you must understand these seven basic rules of firearm safety, and therefore you have no excuse if you do break those rules and point a firearm as somebody, whether it’s loaded or whether it’s unloaded.

For clause 259, that is carrying over section 48 from the 2019 Act. There have been some queries in the past about “annoy”. What annoys somebody or frightens someone may not annoy or frighten someone else. But we’ve had success since 1983 and case law with the way that this has been interpreted as well. Certain examples might be a drive-by shooting, where somebody is just waving a firearm out the side of a car. Now, that’s quite different to somebody who’s shooting pests like rabbits on their lifestyle block and legally doing so. While that might frighten or annoy someone else, that may be a genuine risk, but it may not be an illegal activity; whereas driving past someone’s house waving a firearm outside the vehicle at a person or at a house would be frightening and annoying to others. The case law around that has been quite substantial over the last 40 years. I don’t think that there’s a need to change it, because we do have those precedents.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take the Minister to Subpart 4, clause 264—it’s page 155. The penalty has been increased to 10 years here. I wanted to ask the Minister whether that is an increase that reflects, in her view, the appropriate penalty for both of those. It’s unusual that both clause 264(1) and 264(2) carry exactly the same maximum penalty, given that one is an offence of someone who is appropriately licensed and is entering into an arrangement which requires them to know they are not selling it in a lawful way, then the other side of that is the offence which a person who’s not lawfully entitled to possess the item is entering into an arrangement with somebody who they know is not lawfully allowed to sell it to them. Those things seem different sort of qualities of moral character. You have one person who has gone through all of the licensing, knows the requirements on them, and is deliberately entering into an arrangement which is illegal, and they know that to be illegal; on the other side, somebody who might be in a position where they haven’t gone through that and they know the sort of deemed knowledge is not the same.

But perhaps you can clarify contextually what sort of behaviour on both sides of the coin is standard in New Zealand. You can also imagine a situation where you have stand-over tactics, as she has pointed to—examples with gangs precuring these firearms. If it is the case that they’re standing over licensed gun owners to be able to buy those things, then maybe it is something we really need to up the penalties to 10 years for that kind of practice. But in the situation where you might have two people with similar levels of knowledge but one person has gone through a licensing regime where they were fully cognisant of what they were doing, all things remaining equal, you might see the conduct of the person who’s captured by clause 264(1) as more clearly criminal than the person in the context of clause 264(2).

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:10): This clause here is specifically to combat straw buying, where a licensed firearm owner may purchase a firearm and give it to an unlicensed person. We have upped the penalty from seven years to 10 years, because that is a really serious offence. We want to stop that and have a really good penalty for it, but it also aligns with other trafficking offences that are within the bill, so we’ve upped it to give it that really serious consequence.

Under the current Act, licensed individuals can legally purchase firearms from dealers and privately on-sell them. They do have a traceable record, but they are enabling, potentially, straw buying as a result of that. This clause creates a serious criminal offence for specifically targeting that straw buying or straw purchasing in order to deter the behaviour.

I’ll also note that all the submitters that submitted on this particular clause were all in favour of us doing that. So, really, this entire clause is to combat that straw-buying situation that we’ve been seeing.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to just move a little bit further along, noting that others may have questions for earlier sections. I’m looking at clause 279. This is around infringement offences and infringement notices and how they may be served.

I guess, in some ways, I’m a little bit puzzled at clause 279(1)(b), which is “leaving it for the person at the person’s last known place of residence with another person who appears to be of or over the age of 14 years;”. Is this a carry-over from previous legislation? I feel like that potentially can be a bit of a risk if, understandably, someone opens the door, is not the person, maybe the person’s child, and you’re like, “Well, they look over the age of 14. I’ll give it to them. Please let your parents know or siblings know that they have an infringement notice.” I don’t normally see this sort of particular requirement in other legislation, so I want to check why is this retained in here.

My next question is in clause 283. This is around liability of principals and agents. I want to check that this sort of captures a situation—for example, we talked before about business licences and the fact that employees of businesses need to have individual firearm licence, etc., or, potentially, if A did something that didn’t have a firearm licence, B is the employer or the business owner and realises that person A doesn’t have that, is that the kind of situation that potentially would be captured by this 283 clause; if not, other than a business scenario, what are some of the other possibilities that this potentially would be captured? I guess coercion maybe in some ways. Yeah, so those are my questions for those two clauses.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:13): In relation to clause 279—the serving of infringements—it’s a standard requirement for serving infringements across all of the statute books. The difference here is that we’re introducing infringement notices for the very first time. We haven’t had infringement notices within the arms book; what we’ve had is go direct to revocation of firearms. One of the things might be that a person may forget to tell the regulator that they’ve changed address, and instead of revoking their licence, we will instead issue an infringement notice, and the way that we go about doing that is to keep consistency across all the other statue books with the way that they are delivered, in order to have continuity and consistency across those.

The liability in clause 283—“Liability of principals and agents”—“applies if an offence is committed against this Act or any regulation by a person (A) acting as the agent or employee of another person (B).” It means “B is liable for the offence as if B had personally committed it, if it is proved that B—(a) authorised [it] … or (b) knew the offence was [going to be] committed”. In other words, they can’t just say, in a situation of a business, “Oh, my employee did that. It’s not my fault; they did that.” Well, actually, you are the business owner, so you will be responsible for what your employee does, especially with other provisions where we’re now saying that your employee doesn’t need to have their own endorsement. The employee might need to be approved, depending on what they’re doing, by the regulator, but they don’t need their own endorsement to be able to operate this business; you as the employer may do so. So it doesn’t matter if the person on the till does something that’s wrong, the business owner will be the one that will also be responsible for that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to kind of continue on, I think that’s really interesting. Thank you for the clarification with clause 279. I guess this also applies, then, in the case of the museum licences—right?—because now the volunteers, for example, don’t need their own endorsement, so they will be captured under this clause now, as well. I think the key thing there, then, is just to check with the Associate Minister of Justice that now they need to be, I guess, communicated quite clearly with museum curators, etc., because now they are also on the line under this clause.

I want to just—I know that I’m moving on a little bit more and I know that others definitely have questions on this. I just have one question. This is clause 294, because it just piqued my interest there, and this is to do with firearm protection orders (FPOs). It’s a very short question, which is: in clause 294(3), can the FPO go longer than 10 years?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:16): My apologies; I was about to burp, then! When a firearm protection order (FPO) is set, the time that it is set is set by the courts. They will determine that it can be up to 10 years, or a period of 10 years, unless sooner revoked by the court. Now, if a person continues to behave badly and continues to access firearms, they’re actually committing other offences within the regime itself. They will be under a FPO for 10 years; a judge may, at some stage, decide to do another FPO on a person at that 10-year expiry; it all depends on the situation, the timing of clauses. But what will be actually determined is that if a person is still behaving badly under a FPO, they also will never be eligible for a firearms licence, because they are showing that they do not behave in a fit and proper way.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:17): One tiny clarification: so does that mean that a judge or a court can, maybe, add on to another firearm protection order after the expiry of 10 years, without having to have a new offence attached to it; the court can decide to add more time?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:18): I’m loathe to get into what a court may decide to do or not do. What I can confirm is that a firearm protection order (FPO) can be placed on a person by an application by New Zealand Police, no doubt with help from the firearm safety and education arms officers. An application is made to the court. The court will decide whether or not to add that FPO. The court will decide at some stage whether a new FPO needs to be done, or whether that person needs to be imprisoned. I mean, if someone is behaving badly and we have that 10-year period, what is the point in just adding to it, if we’re two years in, and we say, “We’re going to make it 20 now.”, when, in fact, they’re just not behaving within the first two years? So I’m loathe to get into what the courts will do; they will make those determinations based on applications made to them.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. Two questions, one just on the remainder of clause 263 and one on clause 271. On clause 263, it was really helpful for the Associate Minister of Justice to clarify it is mainly going to be used in the situation described in clause 264(1). That completely makes sense that you would up the term to 10 years, if not longer. But in subclause (2), this is described in the old way that you might have written this 30 years ago, fully to cast the net around a thought crime, where a 16-year-old might say to dad, who has a firearms licence, “Please get me a gun for a birthday.” You have captured that in clause 264(2). Obviously, you would say, “Yes, there’s going to be a bit of discretion.” It’s very unlikely for the 16-year-old to be captured by that, and, actually, the responsibility is on Dad; he has gone through the training. Clause 264(1) applies to him, and he should face a big penalty if he does enter into such an understanding in his head—because it is in his head—but, under subclause (2), no one would think that the 16-year-old should be captured by that for thinking that. That’s the problem with upping the 10 years. I’m interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.

Clause 271—the obstruction power there—I just want to clarify with the Minister the removal of “search, seizure, or detention” and the swap to “inspection”. There are shades of inspection in search, and there are shades of search in inspection. What is the intent here in removing that? Is that just because, under the old formulation, this was drafted with police officers in mind, using different sorts of search powers? As I understand it, the new officers have powers up until the search and then they need to be accompanied by police officers for the search. It would just be helpful there to know what is “obstructing an inspection”. It’s a well-developed lane of criminal law—what is obstructing search—but inspection is usually used for, say, a customs officer inspecting a container. In this sort of scenario, you do get a bit more sort of personalised, and obviously they don’t have powers to bodily search, but they do have powers to observe someone’s car or observe someone’s person. What is “obstructing an inspection” in that context?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:22): Speaking to the member Arena Williams’ question on clause 264(2), this is relating to unlicensed people. While we’re saying we’ve got straw buyers—those with licences legally buying firearms and then selling them to the unlicensed—subclause (2) actually refers to those unlicensed people making arrangements to purchase a firearm from a licensed person. We’re, basically, saying it’s unlawful for a licensed person to do this, but it’s also unlawful for an unlicensed person to go about making a contract or the ability to do that.

When it comes to clause 271, the member Arena Williams is quite right: police have the power to enter, search, and seize, but the firearms safety and education officers will not have the ability to enter search, search, seize, or detain under the bill itself. They do need powers of inspection, because they need to be able to enter into a licensed firearm owner’s home to check that their security is correct and, at the moment, also check that the firearms they have registered are the firearms that are in their possession. It allows them to be able to do the checklist to enable the continuation of licensing—say, in a renewal situation—but it does not give them the power to knock on the door and say, “We’re going to come in here. We’re going to detain”, do the stuff that police should be doing as part of the enforcement that we’re leaving them with.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. While we’re at clause 271, I actually just want to go to clause 270 and the issue of being able to evidence that offence. I think it was the Law Society who also spoke to this. This is the offence that relates to being in charge of a standard firearm, etc., while under influence of drink or drug.

Interestingly, at the moment, we have the LTA, but there are very restricted circumstances under which the police can conduct a breath-alcohol test on a non-driver of a vehicle; that’s when a passenger of a vehicle is suspected of committing an offence relating to the vehicle itself or in circumstances where there is an accident and it’s unclear who the driver is. Except for those two scenarios, there is no other way for police to conduct a breath test, as far as I know, in relation to the existing Arms Act regime or in relation to the new bill.

The Law Society suggested that the language within this clause of the bill could be more specific, and perhaps if we were to draw down the nature of the events, the offence, or the scope of the offence, it would then become more appropriate to have some sort of police power to be able to conduct a breath test. They suggested that the offence currently turning on the language “in charge of” was too vague, although it drew from the case Peck v Police. They suggested language like “direct control”. Then, again, that opens the door to potentially the option of breath testing. I’m just curious as to whether the Minister considered that as an option for clause 270.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:25): Thank you. Madam Chair. This particular clause is a carryover of section 47 of the Arms Act, and all we’ve done here is increase the penalty once again to a maximum imprisonment of three years or a fine not exceeding $15,000, which is a change from three months’ imprisonment or up to a $3,000 fine.

Police would need to demonstrate that a person did not have proper control of the firearm, rather than showing a specific level of alcohol. I agree with that, because some people can do very silly things on a very small amount of alcohol, and other people can drink a lot of alcohol and still be OK. We actually want the enforcer, which will be New Zealand Police, to be able to, on the situation in front of them, make a determination as to whether or not a person is able to be in that control. The moment we start putting a potential breathalyser on them, I think we actually go outside of police being able to use their discretion.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 658 deleting “in a public place” from new clause 253 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 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 88

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 253A 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 6 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 6 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 7 Administration

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 300 to 323, “Administration”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:30): I just have one question for the time being, noting that Part 7 is the part that has the most significant amendments in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658. So my first question is—I do have some questions on clause 300 and the new insertion of subclause (3), and the “reference in any legislation to the New Zealand Police”. The New Zealand Police get mentioned a lot in New Zealand legislation. In new clause 300(3)(b), it says that the “context of the legislation containing the reference requires a different interpretation.” I’m not sure what that means in the context of, let’s say, the Search and Surveillance Act. Does that mean that the arms regulator now has all of the powers of the Police under the Search and Surveillance Act, to give an example? So I think some elucidation on new subclause 300(3) would be great.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. No, as I mentioned earlier, the firearms safety officers will not have the same search powers as New Zealand Police. I’m sorry, I was talking a little bit, so I’m not sure if I’ve got your question quite right. They are able to go in and inspect firearms, but they won’t have those same search and surveillance aspects that police currently have. I’m just looking at clause 300. We have made some changes in subclause (3) to make it explicit that all legislation applying to police also applies to the regulator in the same way that all legislation applying to a department also applies to the department agency which is hosted by the department—but not search and surveillance because that comes under different aspects of the legislation.

This model’s provisions in the Public Service Act, about how legislation applies to departmental agencies, will apply to legislation not specified in the Arms Bill—that is, the Public Records Act, the Ombudsmen Act, and the Official Information Act. There are bespoke provisions within this bill in relation to other legislation, such as the Public Finance Act and the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act, where the roles of the Commissioner of Police and the chief executive really need to be specified in the context of the specific legislation to avoid any ambiguity between their roles. This, effectively, comes down to the Firearms Safety Authority being hosted by New Zealand Police. While the chief executive is the person who will be in charge of hiring staff, and the chief executive is appointed by the Ministry of Justice, those staff, because they’re hosted by New Zealand Police, are actually employees of New Zealand Police in that respect. However, they don’t come under the authority of the commissioner; they come under the authority of the chief executive instead. This means that if there is a complaint of a Firearms Safety and Education staff member, it will go to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. It’s, effectively, just tidying up who is in charge, who is responsible, and what the remedies are if something goes wrong in that area.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (16:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have questions on Part 7, which is, as my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan mentioned, the part that talks about the Arms Regulator. This is a section of the bill where there will be quite a bit of interest from members. I want to turn to new clause 305A on page 173 of the Associate Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 658. This is a section that’s been inserted through the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so, again, because we haven’t had the opportunity to scrutinise this particular insertion at the Justice Committee, I just want to run through this because I do have some questions.

Under new clause 305A(1), it says that this is looking at the delegation from the commissioner through to the chief executive of the Arms Regulator. It says, “The Commissioner may, either generally or particularly, delegate in writing”. I guess the concern that I just wish to raise is that the use of that word “generally” does imply quite broad delegation powers from the commissioner to the chief executive. I would be interested in the Minister’s view as to what some general delegations could include from the commissioner through to the chief executive.

Further to that, under new clause 305A(2), it essentially states that “The chief executive may perform any functions or duties … [that would be] delegated under subsection (1) in the same manner and with the same effect as if they had been conferred on the chief executive directly and not by delegation.” So that implies, to my reading, that, actually, it doesn’t require a specific delegation to have been made by the commissioner either in writing or verbally; that, essentially, it could be up to the chief executive to interpret what that appropriate delegation could be. So I’m just interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Further to that, if we look at new clause 305A(4), it says, “If the chief executive purports to act under a delegation … the chief executive is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, presumed to be acting in accordance with the terms of the delegation.” So, again, that places a lot of trust in the chief executive to be able to say, “Well, I’ve believed I was doing so. I thought I was doing so under the powers that I have.”; yet, if you go back to new clause 305A(1), it may actually be that the commissioner didn’t believe that that was an appropriate delegation to make under this particular clause.

If you look at new clause 305A(5), it then goes to say that no delegation prevents the commissioner from having any powers or affecting the responsibility of the commissioner. But I guess that seems a little bit inconsistent in that it seems to be rather broad powers that can be delegated if you look at new clause 305A(1). Therefore, there is a lot of, I guess, assumption and trust placed in that chief executive that they can make their own determination, under that section, as to what a delegation could be and then act upon it; yet, it also goes on to state that, ultimately, it is the commissioner. So it does seem a bit confused in the way that this particular clause is inserted, and it has been inserted through the Minister’s amendment. I would really value the Minister giving a detailed response as to how this will operate in practice.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just need to make a correction. I said that the chief executive would be appointed by the Ministry of Justice. I was incorrect. The chief executive actually gets appointed by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister, after the Ministry of Justice have gone through their process—so just clarifying that aspect.

In relation to clause 305 and the different provisions, when this bill went through the Justice Committee, it was actually the select committee who thought that the delegation powers regarding general instructions seemed to be a bit too broad and that the chief executive of the Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand would not need to give such general powers or allocation to their staff. The select committee asked for it to be amended, and so within this Amendment Paper 658, we’re providing that the delegation of employment powers by the commissioner is to the chief executive and does not apply in respect to Police employees who are constables, but, rather, applies only to the staff that work for the chief executive of Firearms Safety and Education.

All of this is in regard to making sure that the operations under the Public Finance Act are working. The way that it will be operationalised will be detailed in the host working agreement between the two entities. It’s not known just yet because they still need to work through exactly what they need to share, so what they actually do and how it will work—they will figure that out as they go through the process of what the host responsibility is and what Firearms Safety and Education (FSE) need to do and require. I understand that they’re well under way with this process because this will be the transfer from Firearms Safety Authority to the Firearms Safety and Education. This is due to take place in September, and before it takes place, this host working agreement will be in place.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to return to new subclause (3) in clause 300. This is a big change, because it brings into the scope of well over 150 Acts the role for the Arms Regulator.

My first question to the Minister is: did she receive advice on how many Acts mention the New Zealand Police and how many of them as a proportion are intended to mean the Arms Regulator and the New Zealand Police? The reason I ask that is because there will be some things which she thinks are clearly outside of the remit of the Arms Regulator, and you wouldn’t use clause 300(3)(a) to read in “Arms Regulator”. Perhaps you wouldn’t do that in the Immigration Act, which mentions the New Zealand Police 16 times; or the Customs and Excise Act; or the Biosecurity Act; or the Maritime Security Act; or the Aviation Crimes Act; or the Civil Aviation Act—those might be well outside. But there are Acts which are probably closer to the line where you would contextually read in the Arms Regulator, and those are the public law Acts—so the Public Finance Act, the Crown Entities Act, the Public Service Act, the Official Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Ombudsmen Act, the Public Audit Act, and the Public Records Act, for example.

The question about how many Acts there are relates to my next question, which is: what were the alternatives to this sort of provision? Presumably, she has made her amendments to clause 300 in the form that it has been formulated here because it would have taken a very long time review each of those, say, 200 Acts to determine whether or not each reference was intended to include the Arms Regulator or not.

It would be useful to get her comments on that assumption, because this isn’t usually the way that New Zealand legislation would be drafted, where one piece of legislation which is not constitutional in nature—we have no constitutional legislation but we do have some Acts which are closer to written constitutional arrangements, and this is not one—would have a provision in it which said that all other legislation is subservient to it or has deference to a particular clause within it.

The next question I want to ask is how clause 300(3) applies to this legislation, because it’s not clear to me, using the traditional rules of interpretation of legislation, how it applies to, say, the Crimes Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, the Criminal Records (Clean State) Act, the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, the Bail Act, the Victims of Crime Reform Act, the Victims’ Rights Act, the *Evidence Act, or the *Juries Act. But it is clear, in the traditional way that we are meant to read legislation, that it does apply to this Act.

So in all of the references to the New Zealand Police here, are we also meant to read in “Arms Regulator” alongside the words “New Zealand Police”, because that is how ordinary legislation would be interpreted? So is it right that any reference to the New Zealand Police which doesn’t have an immediately following reference about the Arms Regulator in the negative—does that mean that you should also read into the references the Arms Regulator and New Zealand Police? Or is new subclause 3(b) meant to apply because the context of this legislation containing the references is sort of automatically requiring a different interpretation because it sets up the Arms Regulator?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:44): The changes here in clause 300(3) are to be consistent with the Public Service Act 2020 and the treatment of departmental agencies. Some of the bills that the member mentioned, where there particularly needed to be changes, I guess, would be corporate Acts for OIAs, for example. The *Search and Surveillance Act references constables, not police, so it’s not relevant in that situation.

We believe and feel that we have caught every aspect where we need to ensure that not only do Firearms Safety and Education arms officers not behave like the Police, because we need that role specifically for Police—we reckon we’ve nailed it in exactly where it needed to be.

I’ll also take this opportunity to say that as the bill was introduced, 66 percent of submitters to the public consultation commented on the Arms Regulator clauses, and over 90 percent of those submitters supported the establishment of an independent firearms regulator that is separate from the New Zealand Police. The officials have done a fantastic job, especially the Parliamentary Counsel Office, of being able to go through and make sure that we have captured and changed the clauses and wording in the right places.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s helpful. Given the Minister’s answer, I think it’s right to read into this that it applies to the administrative Acts describing the role in Government rather than the family violence functions of Police or the roading policing functions of Police.

But can I ask: there’s a bit more of an overlap, where, say, there are special powers for police in their work around, say, children and young people. In the Oranga Tamariki Act, the *Children’s Act, and the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, there are powers for Police in those Acts which are also administrative and public in nature. They’re not the search and seizure powers, they’re not the arrest powers; they are also, let’s say, the administering and accessing of information powers.

The reason I ask this, is, as I understand it—and the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong—she is describing a structure which is a bit more similar to the Serious Fraud Office, where you have a department which is hosted by another department that has a separate function and they have powers that most New Zealanders would understand to be quite similar to those of the Police, but they have a specific function which sits them alongside Police and working really closely with them. The reason I ask this in the child protection context is just like firearms protection orders, which my colleague Dr Xu-Nan was prosecuting earlier, the child offending registries have their own case law and processes and procedures which have grown up over time, which is not—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So what is the question?

ARENA WILLIAMS: The question is: are you meant to read the policing powers for children to include the Arms Regulator? Does the arms office also have the powers of the New Zealand Police, which are not to search and they’re not to seize but they are administrative and public law - coloured?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:47): As I mentioned earlier, the host-sharing agreement will detail exactly how the two agencies are going to work with each other. What’s more important is that the Firearms Safety Authority, right now, are not constables in themselves—those people who work there. So this has already been in place and working, and I expect it to continue, where those who work within Firearms Safety and Education (FSE) will use the New Zealand Police for the enforcement of the bill and allow them to be able to continue with the administrative responsibilities.

The powers that will be delegated to them within this piece of legislation allow them to do those administrative roles and not the enforcement roles. You know, they’re not to be going into places and doing searches and seizures in there; that’s not their role—that’s the role for the New Zealand Police. So it’s very clear, within this piece of legislation, the administrative aspects that FSE will be picking up, and, of course, there is the expectation that the Police will continue to enforce.

Now, there may be areas within the legislation where there will be dual ability, but, really, when it comes to the powers of a constable, they are not transferred over to FSE staff; they will continue with the powers that they currently have, and the arrangements will continue under a host working agreement.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just continue on: the reason, for us in particular, that we are very interested in this particular part is because this is the one that we had the most concern over, in terms of the independent Arms Regulator and its interaction with the Police.

I guess, just checking again, broadly, in respect of the Arms Regulator: does the Minister expect the Arms Regulator to also be under the same scrutiny as the New Zealand Police? I know that the complaints section, for example, has seen the inclusion of IPCA—fantastic—but, for example, would the Arms Regulator be expected to appear in front of a select committee and have all of the expected transparency of other agencies, or new agencies that have been created, despite its being independent from the Police? That’s my first question.

I’m going to move to clause 302, which is around the appointment of the chief executive. I do have an amendment from my colleague Scott Willis because, like I said, we’re really interested in terms of the continual integration between the Arms Regulator and also the police in terms of some of this work. I wondered if the Associate Minister of Justice would be open to considering that under clause 302(4)—this is about the panel that will be established—to consider the vacancy of the chief executive. The panel is currently the Secretary of Justice and two or more persons appointed, so whether there needs to be explicit mention of the Commissioner of Police as a part of that panel is something that’s been considered, or if the Minister—even as a ministerial intent—already intended for two or more persons appointed that would naturally involve the police in some way, shape, or form; maybe a commissioner or a deputy commissioner.

In addition to that, I want to check clause 302(5) “The panel must,” for example, “(b) seek advice from other sources that the panel things relevant;”. Would, for example, the police be an obvious group of people to also consider in terms of the appointment of such a chief executive? I’ll stop there for now. Those are my questions for clause 302 on the appointment of chief executives.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:52): Thank you. Just to member Arena Williams’ query on clause 303(5): the Arms Regulator chief executive is responsible only for the Arms Regulator functions, not for the police functions as well.

In regard to the Green member’s question: yes, in respect to scrutiny over what occurs, audit, select committees, Independent Police Conduct Authority scrutiny will all need to be undertaken by the new chief executive as well because they will be an operationally different entity. They are merely just being hosted by New Zealand Police.

In speaking to the member’s reference to his colleague’s Amendment Paper 240, which references the appointment and the role of the chief executive referencing clause 302 and clause 302A: the Arms Bill will be administered by the Ministry of Justice, not New Zealand Police, so there is no need to have Police in there. Therefore, the Secretary of Justice is the public servant that is accountable for ensuring a politically neutral appointment process and recommending the preferred candidate to the Governor-General. My apologies, I’m correcting then what I said earlier, which was I thought it would come to me to then go to the Governor-General. It’s not. The appointment and reappointment of the chief executive aligns with practice across the Public Service and the Public Services Act 2020. It is normal practice that the chair of the interview panel selects the panel members.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:53): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Associate Minister of Justice for her responses thus far. I was listening closely to her engagement with Arena Williams. I do still have some concern that there’s a lack of clarity in terms of which pieces of legislation the Arms Regulator would have functions under, and Ginny Andersen has proposed an amendment to simply delete the words, “however worded”. I would suggest, on the basis of the Minister’s explanation, that that absolutely makes sense.

I wonder if it would bring clarity to have a schedule of statutes to which those powers applied so that we were clear, just because those search powers—those powers to investigate—do exist, and so if we do read in the regulator alongside the New Zealand Police in each of those statutes, there is potential in a public law framing for that to be viewed as the creation of a new power. That is essentially our concern. Whereas, if you had a schedule that was very clear about the restricted statutes to which it applied, I think that would make very clear the limitations of the regulator’s power as well. That was one.

I did want to speak to a few other tabled amendments from the Hon Ginny Andersen. There are a few which I’m sure the Minister will not be amenable to, which simply proposed the deletion of clause 301 and clause 302, so I won’t speak to those. But I do think my colleague has made some sound arguments in terms of other changes, one which echoes the change proposed by our Green Party colleagues in terms of adding the Minister of Police as another person who’s responsible as part of who the chief executive would appoint as well. So you have the Minister of Police alongside the Minister of Justice who are part of that team, and then those other two individuals as well.

She also submitted a tabled amendment at 9.45.13, which requires that the Commissioner of Police serves as the deputy chairperson—so not the chairperson, but the deputy—of the panel tasked with recommending a chief executive of the Arms Regulator along with those two persons. The first, that they be part of the board; the second, that they are the deputy chairperson of that panel. She then proposed an amendment that deletes clause 302A, which would prevent the chief executive of the Arms Regulator from being eligible for reappointment.

She also proposed an amendment requiring that the chief executive of the regulator provide the Minister of Police with information relating to the operations and performance of the Arms Regulator that the Minister of Police requests. The essence there is a set of proposed amendments which would allow the facilitation of dialogue and cooperation between the regulator and the police to enable the flow of information. Just interested to hear the Minister’s response to those proposed amendments.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (16:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. I reject all of the member Ginny Andersen’s proposed amendments. As I had earlier mentioned, 90 percent of submitters who submitted on this particular proposal are in favour of the separation of New Zealand Police from the firearms administrator or regulator, and every single one of those proposals that the member’s put forward means that there would be no separation, and that is not the intent of this particular part.

Speaking to the member’s tabled amendment 9.45.10 and wanting to remove the words, “however worded”. The reason why “however worded” has been put in there is because throughout other pieces of legislation the New Zealand Police are often referred to as “New Zealand Police”, “the New Zealand Police”, or “police”, and so these words mean that, however legislation is described, police will be covered.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move on to the next section that I have some questions on. This is clause 303 and clause 304. There are two quite significant sections that the Associate Minister of Justice added in Amendment Paper 658, which is clause 303(5A) and clause 304(2). Now, clause 303(5A), “The chief executive may operate outside the strategic and policy framework of the New Zealand Police.” I’m assuming that we will get on to the working arrangements, but I’m assuming, if the strategic and policy framework of New Zealand Police is to do with armed safety or regulations etc., that the chief executive would still be in alignment. It just means that they may not need to fulfil other aspects of the strategic and policy framework, but I’m not sure why that section has been included if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating.

Now, the next one is clause 304(2), which is where “the chief executive may not manage assets and liabilities.” Now, presumably this is to do with the fact that the Arms Regulator may not have any particular CAPEX in the budget or—what sort of assets and liabilities was originally intended and now has been explicitly removed from this? I think those two are quite important questions that just need a little clarification, considering these have been edited quite recently—post select committee. I do have a further question on—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Keep going, as long as the Minister is happy to—we’ll just make a list of them. That’s the easiest way.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. I’m also noting that we’ve been here for a while, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We have been here for a while; the Minister’s been very good.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The Minister has been fantastic—thank you, Minister. I will keep going. This is quite a niche question, I guess, and this is to do with the new clause 316 that has been included, which is around remuneration of members of the Firearms Licensing Review Committee. That is newly added, but what I’m interested in is if the Minister, if you remember, and humour me, when we did the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, one of the things that was adjusted was changing it from being an employee to being self-employed or being a contractor, because what it does affect is some of the fee structure, particularly around ACC.

I want to check in this context, what it doesn’t say. It says they’re not “to be treated as employed in the service of the Crown”, but are they still considered as an employee of the Crown, or are they considered self-employed? If you remember when we did the committee stage for that tribunals regulatory systems bill, it does affect ACC in that sense. I would be interested to know that answer.

I guess my final one for the time being is in clause 315, “Membership of Firearms Licensing Review Committee”. It does explicitly state a barrister and someone with knowledge of firearm safety and use and public safety. But it, again, doesn’t mention if anyone needs to be there from the police, but potentially I’m guessing that has the same remarks as the Minister had before around this being separate from the police. I will be interested to know if a sworn police officer would be considered under clause 315(2) when appointing members to the Firearms Licensing Review Committee.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:02): In speaking to the first points that the member brought up regarding clause 303 and the next one that he had after that, the provisions that are made are akin to what is required of a departmental agency, because that’s what we are establishing—of course, also what is required under the Public Service Act for them as well. These provisions clarify how the Public Finance Act will apply to them as an independent departmental agency.

Coming to clause 316, the members will be remunerated and reimbursed under the Cabinet freeze—Cabinet Fees Framework—I know, it has been a long day, hasn’t it? But it also states in there that those people are not Crown employees. It’s also to align with the Cabinet Fees Framework and Public Services Act across other statutes as well. I think I’ve got that all.

Hon Member: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to give Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan one more call because I think we’re getting to the end of this, but you’re very disciplined and organised in the way you go through your questions. So, last call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:03): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just moving on, because some of the other section has been added—and I’m particularly now focusing on that section between clause 315 and clause 319B, because, again, this is a section that has changed quite significantly from what came back from the select committee. For example, we have clauses 316A, 318A, 319A and B that are, essentially, new sections.

I just want to check with the Minister that, for example—like, again, how did all of these changes that are in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658 come about? I’m looking at, for example, in clause 319, “Immunity of members”. I’ve seen these sort of clauses in other sections; is this just simply because provisions that we see in other legislations weren’t exactly copied over, and this section is now being updated for the arms regulator to be consistent with what we’re seeing in other Public Service areas?

And in terms of clauses 319A and 319B, “Confidentiality of information” and also “Disclosure of certain matters to applicant not required”—again, is this being pulled out from an existing legislation in relevance to another agency? That’s why we’re seeing all of these changes currently—oh, sorry, ignore clause 319; I just saw that “Immunity of members” was an existing section, but I think the other ones are new. So just some elucidation would be helpful.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of these are actually completely new provisions because we’ve never had a Firearms Licensing Review Committee before. These are setting out how the Firearms Licensing Review Committee will actually operate, because we’ve never had one. They came about as we worked throughout the Firearms Licensing Review Committee process. Really, it’s just to make sure and clarify that they do align with other similar types of bodies. So it’s different but it’s not new, and we want to make sure that they are aligned with other pieces of legislation.

I’ll quickly go through some of the clauses that the member had mentioned, especially with the changes that might be in Amendment Paper 658. At clause 316A, I was proposing an amendment to move a new subclause (3) to new clause 316A. This is because all members of the review committee are now appointed by the responsible Minister. Now, originally, two of the members were going to be appointed by the responsible Minister, and the third one was going to be appointed by the chief executive, but the ability for an applicant to appeal the licensing review committee would mean that if there was an overturn, the chief executive could appeal that. Now, in that respect, if the chief executive was appointing a member, we then have a conflict of interest. Those amendments were made so that all three members would be appointed by the Minister that is responsible, to prevent a conflict of interest, and allow the chief executive to be able to appeal a Firearms Licensing Review Committee decision.

When we look at clause 317, that clause there in the Amendment Paper, I’m amending clause 317(2) to align with the amendment proposed for clause 315, and deleting clauses 317(3) and (4), leaving the appointment of members and conflicts of interests to operational procedures. Clause 318 also has an amendment to it, proposing that they change or amend clause 318 to say, “(1) the Review Committee made determine its own procedure.”, and “(2) subsection (1) is subject to—(a) any other provision of this Act; and (b) any regulations made under this Act.”. This is to ensure that it is clear, and the review committee will have consistent procedures across all of its panels rather than each panel setting its own procedures. We want important clarification here so they don’t go off and do their own thing; that they do understand what their procedures will be.

Clause 318A is the new provision and that’s ensuring that it’s clear that oral hearings involving multiple parties and legal representation is not the policy intent of the review committee. This provision would allow applicants to submit their application verbally if they choose, but deliberations of the review committee will occur on the papers.

Clause 319 is a new provision, which I think explains itself, but clause 319A also has an Amendment Paper provision within it proposing amendments to ensure that material that the review committee has is kept confidential. I spoke to this earlier on in an earlier part where with the red flag sharing agreement that we have between Government agencies, if something that is confidential—might be in the interests of national security—is raised with the regulator and they therefore decline a person’s application, and that person goes to the Firearms Licensing Review Committee and they are given that same information, we want to make sure that that confidential information and the ability to keep it confidential is also transferred over to the Firearms Licensing Review Committee. We don’t want them subject to an Official Information Act request and potentially having national security interest information having to be released as a result of that. So that’s covering that.

In new clause 319B—I’m proposing the insertion of 319B—and that wasn’t there in the original bill—specifying that the review committee is not able to disclose that information if an applicant is asking for it. I think I’ve explained about the sensitive information there. Really, that’s just capturing the way that the review committee will operate and the way that they handle private information.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 658 deleting “however worded” from clause 300(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 658 inserting paragraph (aa) into clause 302(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 658 replacing “a person, other than a constable” in clause 305(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 658 replacing subclause (1B) of clause 306 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment deleting clause 300(1) and (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 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 amendments to clause 301 relating to functions of New Zealand Police be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendments to clause 302 inserting “and the Minister of Police” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendments to clause 302 inserting paragraphs (c) and (d) into subclause (4) and inserting “deputy chairperson” after references to the chairperson be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment deleting paragraph (b) in clause 302A 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 “and the Minister of Police” into clause 303(1A) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting paragraph (c) into clause 310 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment deleting clause 313 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 tabled amendments to Part 7 seeking to allow the Minister of Police to appoint a deputy chairperson and up to four other members of the Arms Advisory Group be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 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 7 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 8 Miscellaneous provisions, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 8, which is the debate on clauses 324 to 380—“Miscellaneous provisions”—and Schedule 2. Before I put the question, I just want to note that it has been a very long day and I would like questions on this part specifically related to the Minister’s amendment, because I think many other things have been covered and covered.

The question is that Part 8 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m at clause 346A, which is the new section inserted by the Associate Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 658, page 196. The question I have is about—this is a temporary provision, it’s meant to expire itself, and once it expires itself, there will exist an arrangement between the commissioner and the arms regulator for access to information for the Police that the arms regulator holds; those arrangements will be about the sort of statutory functions, one assumes, of each body. I want to ask about the situation where, before that happens, the arms regulator is able to be required by the commissioner to go out and actively seek information.

Firstly, to the Minister, does that imply that the Police don’t have that power or shouldn’t be using that power? We’ve provided for the arms regulator to be asked by the commissioner to go and do the investigative work from a business selling arms, is it then the expectation that the Minister has that the Police won’t use the search powers to ask for production orders for those sorts of documents that the arms regulator will be asking for in this power? I think the answer is yes, but that’s not necessarily provided for in this. So it’ll be useful to get that on the record.

The other question I have about the way that this is meant to operate is the commissioner is only able to access that information or require the arms regulator to go out and proactively get it, if it’s in lawful connection with the functions of the Police—and that makes sense—but does that go a little bit further? Are we meant to assume that it’s only for the purposes of investigations? Because the way that a register of information about sales could work is that you could use it as, sort of, background information for people—that’s clearly from the Minister’s statements to media, not what this is about—but there’s daylight between background checking that would be always available to Police, not what this is, and then a higher bar where Police are only able to access that information in connection with investigations. So it would just be helpful to understand: what does it mean when she’s given the commissioner the power, but only when it’s reasonably necessary for a lawful purpose connected with the function? That “reasonably necessary” phrase, when Police already have the power to ask for a production order for these documents, suggests that there is a bit more than just getting a function order.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason why this clause has been added in the way that it is, and the member asked for a specific example—it’ll be in an area where, say, there is a dealer, firearms retailer, for example, every time a firearm is bought or sold by an approved dealer, the person with the dealer’s licence, they currently maintain a paper registry. Some of them have a computer registry and we don’t have a dealer’s registry set up just yet. At the moment, if Police feel that they absolutely know something has happened, yes, they can have a production order, and they can go and get that information, but quite often they’re trying to just piece together a bit of a jigsaw puzzle, and that’s, often, not enough for them to be able to get a search warrant or production order. So what this clause is enabling is the regulator to be able to get the information from the dealer because the regulator—that’s their job—is to make sure that they are keeping everything in a registry.

The Amendment Paper that we have, 658, is inserting clause 346A as well as repealing on the close of 24 June 2029—oh, sorry, this clause will be repealed on the close of 24 June 2029 because, by this date, all of the information should be in a digital registry and with the information-sharing agreement, Police will be able to have access directly, without having to go through the regulator. As the registry is a regulatory function, it comes under the Firearm Safety and Education New Zealand, not New Zealand Police, but we are allowing New Zealand Police to be able to still use them to help put the jigsaw together when they need it. This allows them to be able to do that.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:28): Is it intended that there will be a penalty associated with using that power in a way which is not reasonably necessary for lawful purpose? Not asking about the situation that once the registry is set up, that will have protocols, that will be an online system with its own inbuilt protocols, but before then; we will be operating on arrangements that are both written and understood by the organisation’s carrying this out, so will there be a penalty for using it where it’s not reasonably necessary? For example, one might argue that “If you simply came and asked me, I would have told you.”, would mean that it’s not reasonably necessary to use the more pushy State powers, or does it make it then not effective evidence to be produced if the Police rely upon it; or is it just another avenue for defence counsel to argue that evidence should be ruled out because it wasn’t procured in a way which was reasonably necessary for the lawful purpose.?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not so much a penalty but can be subject to an Independent Police Conduct Authority complaint if Police are not, or does something that is deemed to be not, reasonably necessary. The reason why we’re saying, “Don’t just go in there.”, is because this is quite often personal information that’s been captured, and it’s not just of one person; it’s an arms book.

Often it will have a list of people’s names, firearm licence numbers, and their home addresses, for example. We want that information being collected by one entity, not multiple entities and not knowing where it’s going to go. The security of that information is also relevant there.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your direction on this section as well. I want to start by looking at clause 336(7), which is a new insertion by Amendment Paper 658. This is the bottom of page190.

Looking at it from a consistency perspective, what I’m seeing is, “In this section, item means” those five things that have been removed from other sections. But the reason I’m drawing attention to this is that we also see that list of items—an arms item, an imitation firearm, any ammunition, any restricted ammunition, any explosive—being removed in clause 338 on page 191. But—sorry, there are a lot of “buts” in there—in subclause (7) of clause 336, it says “In this section”, but not in section 336 and 338. What that would mean is that the definition of item only applies to clause 336. Is that the correct interpretation? Otherwise, the removal of arms item, imitation firearm, ammunition, and explosives in clause 338 potentially doesn’t work, because now there are no definitions of what “item” is as relates to clause 338. I just want to get clarification for that one first.

The other one I want to check is, we also see sort of a similar list being introduced in clause 342—this is page 194 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658. Is there a reason why imitation firearms, for example, are not a part of that? It’s a list of four as opposed to a list of five that we’re seeing in clause 336.

If I can move a little bit further along—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, that’s fine.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yep—thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just quickly find the section I was looking at. Ah! The last section I want to address at this stage is in clause 364. This is on page 209 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 658. We’re seeing that clause 364AA “Declaring items to be high-energy airguns” has now been split out from clause 364. If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying why that has been split out, being my first question.

My second question is—what we also see in clause 364 is the addition that “the following items may not be declared”, specifically “an anti-personnel mine” and “cluster munition”. We saw that being removed in an earlier section, but why have those been specifically carved out as items that must not be declared to be restricted weapons under clause 364 now?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a few clauses in there, so I’m going to try and go through. The first part that the member mentioned, clauses 336 and 338, they’re not new clauses. They have been redrafted to avoid duplication, to make sure that we have a list in the right place.

On clause 342, imitation firearm is covered elsewhere. I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly where it is, but I remember that we spoke about it earlier, so it will be in another part. Again, it’s about avoiding duplication in the bill and making sure that we have consistency and clarity.

Clause 364AA is an editorial change. For plain English and ease of readability, the Parliamentary Counsel Office moved the subclauses related to anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions from clause 11 to clause 364, and split out clause 364AA regarding high-energy airguns. Again, it’s just making sure that the bill itself is set out correctly.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:34): Sorry, just another question around the anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions that has been now added in clause 364. I do have a few more parts. I’m now actually going to be going to clause, I believe, maybe 380, which is the relevant clause for—yeah, clause 380, which is Schedule 2. I’m moving on to Schedule 2.

I do want to check, first of all, there is an Amendment Paper 657 by the Hon Mark Mitchell for Schedule 2. If the Minister wouldn’t mind just explaining why that particular Amendment Paper came about, because I think we’re all quite curious about that one.

The last one I just want to mention for this call is, on page 235, under Privacy Act 2020, in that table, I could not find for the life of me what is the difference between the crossed-out section and the new section. Would the Minister just check and let us know what the difference is between the two parts? From what I can see, every word is the same.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. In 2019 when changes went through, it allowed the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) to be able to gather information—sorry, I don’t have it right in from of me, but those certain words that are now being crossed out in Amendment Paper 658 prevented them from being able to gather certain information. Now, at the time, an Amendment Paper was produced and was declared to be out of order and, therefore, was not able to proceed. That was back in 2019.

As we were preparing this Amendment Paper, the SIS came in and said, “Hey, can you please do this; we couldn’t get it through last time, but we would like to get it through this time”. I did have concern that it would be ruled out of order, and ruling that out of order could have potentially ruled the entire Amendment Paper, which is quite a large 240-page Amendment Paper, out of order.

Instead, the NZSIS through their Minister, Mark Mitchell, had lodged a separate Amendment Paper just in case it was going to be ruled out of order. It hasn’t been, and it’s all good to go, but we just didn’t want to take that risk. On this side of the House, we are also supporting Mark Mitchell’s amendment, because that allows the NZSIS to gather more information, which of course will eventually be able to be shared within the red flag system that we have there.

In regard to Amendment Paper 658 for Schedule 2, the proposed changes to permanently deactivated firearms has been removed from there so that, again, it was just another part of where it was. Amendments to the Extradition Act 1999 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 have been moved into new Part 3 as they are to come into force by Order in Council.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask the Associate Minister of Justice a question in regards to forfeitures and the Minister’s new language at clauses 340(4) and 340(4A), set out in Amendment Paper 658. The first question is: just what the effect of the changed language is from the deleted old subclause (4), which I note included imitation firearms, but the new drafting does not?

I also wonder whether the Minister considered a middle ground in terms of forfeiture? Right now, we have the forfeiture provisions, and then we have subclause (5), which also says that forfeiture doesn’t apply if the “court considers that, given the circumstances of the offending, it would cause undue hardship to make an order under those provisions.” There’s potentially a supervision piece in between those two options that could have been exercised. Part of the reason I say that is that forfeiture and ownership of tools is certainly an issue, but I suspect that the bigger one is access to tools that could be used to manufacture the weapons listed. I’m just curious about whether a third option was considered in that redrafting that the Minister has placed in the bill.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just note that within Amendment Paper 658, I’m proposing to amend clause 340 to also include a reference to restricted ammunition as well. But where a person is convicted of an offence relating to purchasing, acquiring, selling, or supplying any sort of arms item, imitation firearm, ammunition, or explosive to a person who’s not lawfully entitled to be in possession of that item, the sentencing court must order the arms to be forfeited to the Crown. Where the person is convicted of an offence relating to illegal manufacturing of arms items, the sentencing court must order the tools, equipment, and machinery capable of being used for manufacturing also to be forfeited. This is part of us looking at new technology that might occur into the future, including 3-D printers and 3-D printing components as an example of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): One quick question, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Very quick.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:40): Literally my last call. Sorry to ask, as I know that it’s been a long day, but just checking with the Minister on clause 364—anti-personnel mines and cluster munition—if the Minister has any response.

The last one is literally on the second to last page, page 241. In Schedule 2, a new Part 3 has been inserted around other amendments with the Extradition Act and also the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale for including those two additional ones and if they’re just simply being kind of noticed last minute and captured. Was there anything else that the Minister came across or has been alerted to that potentially should be captured in this schedule?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:41): Specifically for the cluster munitions, we have moved from clause 11 to clause 364. Again, it’s just a tidy-up. We haven’t got rid of those particular parts. We’re just making sure that they’re all tidied up.

In that respect, at the end of Schedule 2, we feel that we have got this Arms Bill in a place where it’s going to be much easier to read and much easier for judges and courts to be able to interpret what is the intent of Parliament and to be able to find the right clauses without duplication throughout the bill. While it may be confusing at this stage, because we have moved stuff and deleted things where it’s already been applied in other clauses, overall, the bill itself is going to be easier for licensed firearm owners to be able to comply with their rules and responsibilities, the police to be able to understand what clauses that they can prosecute people under, and the firearms regulator will have the tools that they need to be able to administrate the Act and be the regulatory body for this.

We believe that we have hit the nail on the head and have produced an Arms Act that is updated, that is fit for purpose. I implore the members of the Opposition who have actually supported the select committee process and Amendment Paper 658 to look at whether or not they will look to continue to support this Arms Bill, because this Arms Bill, as has already been said in the House, is much better than what we have currently.

I particularly ask our members to put the politics aside and actually look at whether or not we have some good lawmaking going on here, and if we do, look at this position and whether or not you want to support that or whether you would prefer to keep the status quo.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 351 inserting paragraphs (d) to (g) 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 amendments to Part 8 inserting “and the Minister of Police” into five clauses are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 8 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 8 as amended agreed to.

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

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Mark Mitchell’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 657 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. Now, I would ask respectfully—the Minister has been very genuine all day. I don’t think anyone’s in the mood for funny titles. Are there any quick questions relating to commencement?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:48): Thank you, Madam Chair. If you will so allow, I do want to discuss the title in a way that I want to sum up the committee stage for this bill as well.

I’ll start with the commencement date, and one of the things that we did ask earlier—and we do have some amendments to this—is mainly to do with the fact that we are in kind of mid-late July and there’s only two months left. Most of this bill will come into effect in two months. I just want to check with the Minister in terms of whether that is something that is feasible to do. For example, areas relating to the Arms Regulator, some of the changes we’re seeing to licences as well—all of those. How would the Minister inform current licence holders of some of those changes? I mean, when we’re looking at, for example, in Part 5, I believe, around shooting clubs and shooting ranges—because, Minister, you said that all of the changes have already been made—maybe they don’t need to have the same level of lead-up time.

I just want to check how that would be able to come into force in two months’ time.

In terms of the other two—I’m looking at clause 2, subclause (2), and subclause (3)—in both cases there is a much longer lead-up time. I’m going to focus mainly on subclause (3) regarding the 23 February 2028 date on things like “Duration of visitor licence” etc. For those, why has there been such a long lead-up time that is needed? We’re looking at, now, a year and a half into the future on some of those sections.

My final question with commencement date is, and, again, this is just mainly my curiosity: why the 23^rd in particular? I feel like normally we see it on the first of the month or the middle of the month; the 23^rd seems to be quite a specific one. Is there something that the Minister has in mind for that?

Just in terms of the title, we understand that this particular bill is looking at a complete refresh of the Arms Act 1983, I believe, and that we genuinely do believe that there’s a lot of good things in here. And I do want to acknowledge the Minister in particular for the engagement and transparency during the committee stage, as well as the fact that being really open-minded in terms of the amendment, both done by the Justice Committee, but also in terms of the Amendment Paper that the Minister has introduced here. I think that there is a lot of things, well-thought-out aspects, and the fact that as we were going through the committee stage we had a lot of initial concerns, but that has been improved during select committee, which is why we unanimously supported amendments in select committee, but also supported the Minister’s Amendment Paper here.

Now, we still, obviously, have concerns over the Arms Regulator in particular, and, at this stage—me not being the exact spokesperson for this—we’ll just have to be honest with the Minister that we won’t be able to support this bill even though we supported the Amendment Papers. However, we have seen those kind of genuine improvements that have been made through this process. And also, I just want to acknowledge the fact that even while we see this big Amendment Paper 658 released just yesterday, a lot of this part—

Hon Nicole McKee: Madam Chair.

Hon Members: Madam Chair!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —oh, sorry. Thank you, Minister.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. The commencement date of 23 September 2026 is doable. Both organisations, New Zealand Police and the Firearm Safety Authority, have been working towards that date. Do we think we can implement it by then? Absolutely, yes. That’s why we have selected that date as the go-to, as the target—if you excuse the pun—to try and get to.

When it comes to clause 2(2) and (3), especially subclause (3), as the member had alluded to, subclause (3) relates to—well, the reason why it’s so far down the track is because we need corresponding IT to be able to be developed and the sharing and access arrangements between the enforcer and the regulator to be in place. I don’t want to rush that. We need to make sure that it’s done properly. So that’s why we have it set out in this. Most of these changes will come into effect on 23 September 2026, the majority of them, but mainly the IT ones will take some period of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I feel obliged. We haven’t taken a question from you—

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:54): You haven’t, actually, no. I’ve been very quiet.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —in this section. We’ve taken plenty in the other sections.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, no. I haven’t spoken on the committee stage of this.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I know, that’s what I’m saying.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: OK. No—obviously.

Now, my question is very narrow and it’s actually—the Associate Minister of Justice noted in her previous response that she’s working on IT arrangements, and I’m particularly interested in, under Part 8, information sharing agreements because there’s a requirement for information sharing agreements for Police and for, I think, it’s Customs, foreign affairs and trade, and conservation. And these are privacy agreements about protocols around information sharing agreements, and in terms of commencement date, those things are real negotiations between Government departments, which aren’t known to be particularly quick. Can I ask: are those agreements in place yet? If not, have discussions commenced, or is this a piece of work we are expecting these, essentially, four Government departments and an agency to reach an agreement before 23 September 2026?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:55): Thank you. They have been working at pace on these agreements, specifically with the red flag arrangement, which has never been established before. Working at pace because agencies are excited to be able to share information that’s going to keep our public safe.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “(Weakening of Arms Regulations)” is out of order as not being in the objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 658 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing 23 July 2027 with 23 July 2028 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 Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing 23 September 2026 with 23 September 2027 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, everybody, and Minister. It’s been a big day.

House resumed.

Arms Bill

Employment Leave Bill

English Language Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Arms Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Leave Bill and reports that no progress has been made 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.

Reported adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Arms Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The remaining bills are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. next Tuesday.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.