Wednesday, 5 August 2026

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): Te Atua Mana, te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata, te akamaara nei matou i te Ariki, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako, kia rave matou i ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Aotearoa. Amene.

Speaker's Rulings

Unparliamentary Language—Accusations of Lying

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve reviewed the Hansard-recorded exchange yesterday called to my attention by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in response to an interjection from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Earlier in the term of this Parliament, a contribution from the Hon Kieran McAnulty established that it is acceptable to say something referred to in a member’s speech was a lie, but unacceptable to say a member was a liar or that a Government policy position was as a result of lies. That is consistent with Speakers’ rulings 48/3 and 48/4. I’d encourage members to avoid using the term “lie”, as in Speaker’s ruling 48/2, which applies here.

Consideration of the exchange in question time yesterday leads to two conclusions: one, the statement and request from the Rt Hon Winston Peters was in order, but, two, the assertion, when considered alongside historical facts, can only lead to the conclusion that the interjection from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins was a debatable point uttered in the hurly-burly of the House’s proceedings. I considered this situation in light of Speakers’ rulings 238/1 and I rule accordingly.

This will satisfy no one. Short of having a full debate on what is now ancient history, I would suggest that members accept that interjections can be problematic, as was evidenced yesterday and last week. In the weeks leading to the end of parliaments, observers of multiple parliaments will have noticed a heightened tension in the House. That’s understandable, as the election stakes are high. However, I would encourage all members to reread Speakers’ rulings 64/2 right through to 66/2.

Debates

Unemployment Rate

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Ginny Andersen seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the unemployment rate. Speakers Harrison, Wall, and Mallard have ruled on similar applications previously, and I quote Speakers’ ruling 221/2: “A proposal to discuss a continuing problem such as increasing unemployment is not one contemplated by [Standing Order 399] in that it is not a particular case of recent occurrence nor does it require the immediate attention of the House.” The application is declined.

Presentation

Petitions

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

CLERK (14:03): Petition of Kate Fabian requesting that the House urge the Government to extend the time frame for the Head Start pathway to a minimum of 12 months to allow more time for councils to prepare amalgamation proposals.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been presented.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Four select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:04):

Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2026-27 Estimates for:

Vote Regulation

Vote Revenue

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2026-27 Estimates for:

Vote Māori Development

Vote Tari Whakatau.

SPEAKER: Those bills are published on the website of the House. No bills have been introduced.

Personal Explanations

Correction of Interjection

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a statement that I made in the House yesterday.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I said in the House that Helen Clark had dumped Winston Peters from Cabinet. That was incorrect: it was Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger who fired him from the Cabinet. Helen Clark allowed him to resign as a Minister outside of Cabinet after the Serious Fraud Office started investigating political donations to New Zealand First. I will be more precise in the future.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:05): Point of order. Mr Speaker, again—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Sorry, just a moment—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that member, on this occasion, with preparation, has misled the House. That is not what happened with respect to Jenny Shipley. I walked out of the Cabinet. I gave up my job. Everybody knows that, and so, sir—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just one moment—one moment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —he should not be allowed to tell falsities.

SPEAKER: One moment. Just a moment. Points of order are heard in silence regardless of what we might want to react to. They’re heard in silence. The member will offer his point of order again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What has been said by the leader of the Labour Party is, again, false. In this case, on the question of the Wellington Airport, I walked out of Cabinet on a matter of principle. Some of us actually believe in that in politics.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What about rewriting history, do you believe in that?

SPEAKER: No, I was there at the time, so I won’t be rewriting it when you say “you”. We’re going to move on now to question No. 1, in the name of Dan Bidois.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:06) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:06): Today, Stats NZ released the labour market statistics for the second quarter—that is, for April, May, and June of this year. That was a tough quarter for New Zealand businesses. Firms faced much higher fuel costs as a result of the Middle East conflict, and were reluctant to make investment and hiring decisions in an uncertain environment. That is reflected in the unemployment rate rising from 5.4 to 5.6 percent.

Dan Bidois: What else did the labour market data show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The release this morning showed that 13,000 more people were employed in the quarter compared to March. That is an increase of 0.5 percent, which is a positive sign. However, the labour force expanded at a slightly faster rate, which is why the unemployment rate rose. Wages also rose in the quarter, with the average hourly earnings increasing by 1.1 percent.

Dan Bidois: How are Kiwi businesses feeling about the future?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, businesses have been doing it tough, as I said. They do remain confident about the future. ANZ’s monthly Business Outlook was released last week and shows business confidence rose 19 points in July. In terms of their own activities, businesses indicated higher employment intentions over the next 12 months, as well as higher investment intentions. That bodes very well for job creation. Export intentions were also up from the previous quarter, with ANZ reporting that export intentions in the manufacturing sector were the highest in over 25 years. These are encouraging leading indicators because businesses that invest and employ more people and expand into overseas markets help lift productivity, incomes, and economic growth.

Dan Bidois: What is the Government doing to support Kiwi businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government has focused on improving regulations, business settings, infrastructure, and trade agreements that, in a sustainable way, create a better environment for New Zealand businesses to hire, invest, and grow. That includes, for example, essential Resource Management Act reform, fast-tracking consents for major developments that are job-rich, the Investment Boost tax policy to support investment and enduring job creation, a free trade agreement with India, changes to the overseas investment rules, State highway investments, restoring 90-day trials, repealing mandatory sector-wide employment deals, simplifying Government procurement requirements, and replacing the Holidays Act. These are economic settings that underpin business confidence and support businesses willingness to invest, create jobs, and grow.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:09) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:09): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does using the air force to attend a National Party fundraiser demonstrate responsible use of public resources?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of the question. What it was, was really a series of events in Fielding and in Whanganui, with Bill Birch’s funeral the next on Friday. It got moved over the top of an event that I had in Auckland, which would have enabled me to take a commercial flight, and in that instance, I used a military asset. I want to reassure the member that the actual cost to the taxpayer—it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything because those planes need to fly and the pilots need to ring up their hours.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did he choose to attend a National Party fund-raising event and then use the air force to fly back, rather than leave earlier so that he could attend Bill Birch’s funeral, using conventional transport available to everybody else?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as a Prime Minister, I like to be busy and I like to have full days, and therefore I like to—we don’t do “Labour 9 to 5” in this Government, and, as a result, I’m a very busy Prime Minister who wants to get around the country, see as many people as I possibly can, and, where possible, I use commercial flights, whether it be Air New Zealand or Jetstar. Where it doesn’t work we use military assets, as previous Prime Ministers have—probably yourself, Ardern, and also Prime Ministers Key and Clark.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name any other event in which any Prime Minister or Minister has used the air force in order to attend a party political fundraiser?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject that question. I’ve explained the situation; that is not what occurred.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he at a National Party fundraiser at a golf course immediately before using an air force plane to fly away?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There was a series of events throughout the day in Feilding and also in Whanganui, I explained. Because I couldn’t take, I think it was, the Air Chathams flight out in the morning, I needed to be there at 7 a.m., where my schedule had been moved to the morning after, and that’s why I took the military aircraft.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. I’m going to ask members to reflect on the commentary I made at the start of question time looking at how interjections might be acceptable or unacceptable, and then just quieten down a little bit. Similarly for Government members, the Prime Minister doesn’t need anybody chipping in behind him when he’s giving an answer to a question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very simple and straightforward question that relates to the Prime Minister’s accountability for the use of air force planes, something which only he or a select number of other Ministers can do, and whether he was—

SPEAKER: Yes, ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he attending a National Party fund-raising event immediately before using the air force to fly back?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I had a full schedule in Whanganui and also in Feilding through that day. The last event—yes—was a National Party event. The next day I had an early start, at 7 a.m. For that meeting I was planning to catch a commercial flight in the morning. I wasn’t able to in this case because Bill Birch’s funeral was over the time of that schedule. I moved that other meeting forward in Auckland to 7 a.m., and that’s why I had to use the military asset. I just want to reassure the member that when I use it, it’s sparingly, and I use it when there is no commercial flights available in order to make my schedule work. It doesn’t come as a cost to the taxpayer because the planes need to be flown and the pilots need to do their hours for training.

Hon David Seymour: Would it be a good use of any person’s time to make two separate return flights from Auckland to Palmerston North and back in order to have separate flights for separate purposes on the same day?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it is the reality of my job as Prime Minister. I want to get out and about and across the country as much as I possibly can. Where possible, I use commercial services, but where I need to use the military asset to get me back because of a schedule, it’s there. I’m just saying that it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. I use it sparingly, only when I need to, and also, as I’ve said, pilots need to get their hours up.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question. If he is using—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait. Some of your own people hadn’t quite wound themselves down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s only using the air force sparingly, why has he used the air force planes more than any other Prime Minister in New Zealand history?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because I’m probably harder-working than the last two Prime Ministers. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: A question is being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he choose to attend a National Party fund-raising event and have the air force, effectively, subsidising him doing so, rather than not attend that event and leave earlier?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject outright the characterisation of a subsidy. I’m Prime Minister of New Zealand, I have a very full schedule, and I use commercial flights as much as I possibly can. When there are times to make my schedule work, my team will reach out to see whether they can use a military asset. As I’ve said, it doesn’t cost anything to taxpayers because the planes and the hours need to be flown. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—sorry, Prime Minister. Excuse me. We’ve just got to calm it down a little bit. It’s almost impossible to hear the answer from someone so far away, and I know that a lot of the armchair—we’ll just say—constitutional lawyers out there who reflect constantly on my performance in this Chair would be surprised to hear that I can’t hear someone that far away, but I’m supposed to hear the back of the House. So we’ll have a bit of silence, please. Very rare interjections.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he attend the National Party fund-raising event as Prime Minister or as leader of the National Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I had a series of events through Whanganui and Feilding for the day. My schedule needs to work; my team reach out when I need to get from A to B. If there’s no commercial flight available, they might reach out to the military to see whether a military asset is available. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything—the hours need to be ran up, and the planes need to be flown. It’s as simple as that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very straightforward question. The leader of the National Party does not have access to air force planes; only the Prime Minister does. Asking him whether he was attending the event—immediately prior to using the air force plane—as Prime Minister or as leader of the National Party is a significant matter of public importance, because it’s whether or not it’s justified for him to use the air force. I think it’s very reasonable to expect that he would answer that.

SPEAKER: At all times, the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister. We’ve been through this exercise in the House where—it started with Speaker Wilson, who made it clear that members can ask the Prime Minister about matters relating to his role as Prime Minister, but not as a party leader. The point is it doesn’t matter what the Prime Minister does; he’s always Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Mr Speaker. In this case, the Prime Minister has been using an air force plane, which is only available to a very select number of people. The Prime Minister and a small group of Ministers, not even all Ministers, can use the air force plane. Therefore, the capacity in which he was attending an event is material to his responsibilities to this House as Prime Minister.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, you really should terminate this; Speaker’s ruling 207/2 clearly says if you ask a political question, don’t cry when you get a political response.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s not quite how I saw this one. The Prime Minister might like to make a response.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The event that I was attending at 7 a.m. the next morning in Auckland was as Prime Minister, as was the series of events that happened in Auckland the next morning. I had a series of events in those towns as Prime Minister, I ended up popping into a National Party event, and I then couldn’t make the 7 a.m. flight, because there was a 7 a.m. appointment I had the next day if I didn’t do that. That was in my capacity as Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the facts are, in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, that if you wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister, then question time is the appropriate time, but if you wish to ask a question of the leader of the National Party, that’s for the debating chamber and not question time, and that’s why he should have been ruled out.

SPEAKER: I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling, I think, 181/6—I’ll check that in a minute, but I think that’s the one that is relevant here.

RMA Reform

Question No. 3

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (14:17) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcement has he made about heritage in Wellington?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:17): Fantastic news: on Monday, I opened consultation on changing heritage planning rules, relating to five sites in Wellington, following an investigative report into whether they negatively impact growth, development, or employment. The investigation found some heritage provisions are having negative impacts on growth and employment and explores how these can be remedied. I’m now consulting on those findings. I encourage those with relevant information, evidence, or views to take part. Following that consultation, I will consider feedback from affected parties, including Wellington City Council’s response to the investigation, before deciding to recommend changes or not.

Tim Costley: What are the five sites that are subject to consultation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was asked by Mayor Andrew Little and the Deputy Mayor of Wellington to look at heritage provisions related to the Karori Tunnel, the Kelburn Viaduct, the former General Headquarters Building at the corner of Taranaki Street and Buckle Street, and the Miramar oil tank. They also asked me to look at the height restrictions in the Courtenay Place heritage area. The Miramar oil tank is of particular note. The land is owned by the WingNut Group, which has indicated an intention to utilise the site to support film production activities associated with its studios. The investigation found this business makes a significant contribution to economic activity, both within the regional and wider national economy, and the extent to which the tank occupies the site, combined with its unique geometry and heritage requirements, limits the ability to officially integrate new development alongside or around the structure.

Tim Costley: In that case, what are the impacts on economic growth that these heritage provisions have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The investigation calculated the economic impact of these restrictions. They estimate that modifying or removing irrelevant controls could enable around 770 additional apartments, generate approximately $280 million in construction activity, and support around 300 jobs through commercial development—including film studios and facilities. This is a reminder to everybody that things that look like harmless regulations almost always have a very real economic cost. We are confronting the trade-offs on this side of the House.

SPEAKER: Can I just say that the Speaker’s ruling I quoted before was 180/1, not 181, and also 174/1.

Regulation

Question No. 4

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (14:20) to the Minister for Regulation: How has the Government implemented the principles of good regulation in support of New Zealand businesses?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (14:20): Comprehensively. Business can’t reach its potential when it is held back by stupid rules, which often feel like they’ve been made on the assumption that the businesses themselves were stupid. Well, they are not, and the Ministry for Regulation has been assiduously working to remove and delete stupid rules that hold back New Zealanders in sectors as diverse as early childhood education; the import of agricultural, horticultural, and veterinary products; residential and small-to-medium solar; the hemp industry; hairdressing; and I’m very much looking forward to another “h”, along with the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: a comprehensive set of changes to make it easier for hospitality to do business in this country. It’s a long-suffering sector, held back by many stupid rules soon to be no more.

Cameron Luxton: In what other areas has the Government used the principles of good regulation to advance the interests of business?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Probably the most important area of deregulation by this Government is around resource management. The single biggest handbrake holding back the potential of this country is the endless need for resource consents, the uncertainty that they cause, and the lack of focus on real environmental protection. Chris Bishop and Simon Court, as members of this Government, have done sterling work, producing two new bills that went through second reading in this House just yesterday. They follow the principles of good regulation, of actually respecting people’s property rights, even compensating people when they lose those rights. Those two pieces of legislation are expected to create $13.3 billion in direct savings. It’s a very good example of the Government’s regulatory agenda making it easier to do business in this country.

Cameron Luxton: Where else has the Government focused on supporting businesses through regulatory reform?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As we heard just earlier from the Minister of Finance, there’s a number of areas. In fact, it’s been a theme of this Government to delete stupid rules that hold back the potential of Government. Anti - money-laundering (AML) regulations, the bane of so many people, from accountants to lawyers to real estate agents, are being fixed by Nicole McKee, the Associate Minister of Justice. Her reforms are getting rid of unnecessary rigmarole for those honest operators, while putting a sharper focus on those committing organised crime and fraud with dirty money. Those reforms are going to make anti - money-laundering proportionate to risk: for example, simplified identity verification and due diligence rules for low-risk entities like family trusts, and they’ve already made it easier, once again, for a child to open a bank account without going through the madness of AML.

Cameron Luxton: Is there a particular area of reform that all New Zealand employers were crying out for that this Government has delivered on?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, but I would make the point that the relationship between employers and employees is actually symbiotic. It’s a win-win. There are often people in politics that try and pit groups of New Zealanders against each other, but the truth is, if you make the laws better—[Interruption] You can see the pleas of guilt across the other side of the room right now. A play’s the thing to catch the conscience of a king, and Carmel Sepuloni is no king, but she was just caught out, none the less. The Employment Leave Bill, by Brooke van Velden, is something that both Labour and National Ministers had attempted to fix. Nobody had been able to find a fix. Brooke van Velden came in, had to rip up the work that had been done to date because it was unworkable, and just last week, through this Parliament, we saw a replacement for the Holidays Act that is usable. If you think about it, the Ministry of Health managed to underpay its workers by $2 billion. Imagine what a nightmare that’s been for small business. Well, again, this Government is getting regulation right. Brooke van Velden has fixed it where others failed.

Cameron Luxton: What other areas of reform delivered by this Government will have a significant positive impact on New Zealand businesses?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I almost sense a small hesitancy at hearing good news, but there’s lots more to come. The health and safety reforms and what, again, Brooke van Velden has done in this role, are so critical to business and removing stupid rules that allow them to reach their potential. She found that, often, WorkSafe was there to hammer people for breaking the rules but wasn’t there to help them be safe in the first place. As a result, people spent huge amounts of money on consultants, finding themselves worse off. What did she do? She went and listened to people—she went on a tour and listened to people in business—and what did she find? She said that we actually need more guidance to be safe. She has divided WorkSafe’s roles so they’re actually helping people be safe as well as keeping them accountable if they’re not, which is a massive improvement on what we had previously. [Interruption] The Labour Party are complaining my answers are too long. Well, actually, these details matter, and when you’ve done the work, you can speak in detail, and that is something that, perhaps, has put these people over here and those people over there.

Finance

Question No. 5

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

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

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that the Prime Minister’s comments that business owners are negative with a “parent-child mentality” should be understood in its context; if so, what was the context of saying that business owners are negative with a “parent-child mentality”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was the context for Christopher Luxon calling New Zealand businesses “soft”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments is on the record; it is clear that he was referring to businesses who look to Government for subsidies. It is the case that the last Government did have a rather patronising attitude towards business.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was the context for Christopher Luxon calling those doing it tough “bottom feeders”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Given the member is the one who came down to the House with that quote, she should probably know the context from which it came. I don’t have that quote with me today.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: In what context, therefore, is it acceptable for Christopher Luxon to call New Zealand “very negative, wet, whiny, inward looking”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When he’s talking about the Opposition—very appropriate comments. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No one else speaks.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was the real context that she, along with the Prime Minister, promised to fix the cost of living and grow the economy, and instead, unemployment is up, prices are up, GDP per capita is lower than when she took office, and New Zealanders are worse off?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The question for the Government and the task for the Government is not to describe the problems; it is to put forward policies to address them. On this side of the House, our efforts to boost tourism numbers, bring back international education, introduce tax reform to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, fast-track major developments, and make reductions in red tape are all policies to support growth, employment, and income creation. By contrast, other parties have no ideas and have opposed the activities that would support job creation. They voted against fast track; they’ve voted against the things that would support this economy to recover stronger.

SPEAKER: If the Leader of the House needs to converse with the other side, do it out in the aisles, not during a question answer.

Foreign Affairs

Question No. 6

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:29) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:29): Yes, and we thank the member for his question, which assists the order of the House. I stand by all of my statements as Minister of Foreign Affairs, including those made during two visits this term to China and my numerous engagements with my Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. For example, I said in November 2025, “The coalition Government is committed to maintaining and building our strong, mature, and mutually respectful relationship with China. We have been pleased with the number and quality of high-level visits between China and New Zealand over the past two years,” I stand by that statement. I also stand by our decision to approve the procurement of two state-of-the-art ferries from a Chinese shipyard. The New Zealand - Chinese relationship is one of the most longstanding and significant.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he stand by his statement, “Go back to your own country—that’s where they lie like a flatfish, but they don’t lie like that here, all right? This is called a democracy—this is called a democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I stand by all my comments as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also stand by my comments as the New Zealand First Party leader. However, if the member would like to question my statements made as the leader of the New Zealand First Party, he should understand that the correct place to do that is during the general debate, not in oral questions. Oral questions are for holding Ministers, not party leaders, to account. Check out the Standing Orders. Get some experience around this place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When a Minister is making a statement in a portfolio for which they are ministerially responsible, they cannot be doing that as a party leader when they are in this House, whether it’s in a general debate, whether it’s in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement or the Budget debate. The key point here is: is it portfolio related? In the case of Winston Peters, when he is making these statements, they directly relate to foreign affairs. Therefore, they are ministerial statements, so him saying, “I made that statement in the general debate as New Zealand First leader.” cannot be allowed to stand because it is his ministerial portfolio. He is speaking about matters related to his ministerial portfolio. When he is in this House, he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, can I just say this.

SPEAKER: We’ll hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Everyone remembers this was a Wednesday afternoon debate. I was speaking in it as the leader of New Zealand First, and it’s as clear as daylight. The Standing Orders make that very clear. After all this time, I’m astonished that the leader of the Labour Party doesn’t even understand that.

Hon David Seymour: Only five minutes ago, the leader of the Labour Party was busy telling us that the Prime Minister’s not the Prime Minister at a National Party event. Now he’s saying that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is always the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He can’t have it both ways, but he just contradicted himself in the same five minutes.

SPEAKER: That’s one of the difficulties that the House has wrestled with for a long time, way back to 2002. I don’t have them at hand, but there are some rulings from the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson which will deal with that at some point. The Minister has at the very least addressed the question, but I refer him, as I did earlier, to Speaker’s ruling 174/1.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why did he, via a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, agree with the comments made by Winston Peters during the general debate?

SPEAKER: Sorry, ask that question again. That wasn’t overly clear.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why did he, via a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, agree with the comments made by Winston Peters during the general debate from last week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I reject the—

Hon Member: Characterisation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —characterisation of the facts behind that question. He is utterly wrong.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What did he mean when he said, “that’s where they lie like a flatfish” when referring to China?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: under the Standing Orders, if that member wants to ask me a question as the leader of New Zealand First, in which role the speech was made, then he has to wait for the general debate. He cannot do it at question time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. That is a question related directly to a statement made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The statement on which he is being questioned relates to foreign affairs. He cannot say that he did not make that statement as Minister of Foreign Affairs unless he is no longer the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

SPEAKER: The question, in fact, referred to, as I understand it, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade person affirming something that the Minister had said. If that’s correct, then the Minister should answer.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. Just some clarity from you, Mr Speaker—we’re happy to table it, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did, in fact, confirm the statement by the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters. In terms of my question previously, I was referring to the quote he made last week when referring to China, which relates to the portfolio.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He answered his very question; he said, “by the New Zealand First leader”. In his explanation, he just said it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Look, I’d refer all members of the House—as I have earlier today; twice now, I’ve done so—to Speaker’s ruling 174, which makes it abundantly clear that speaking in a general debate can be as a Minister, or it can also be as a party leader. Try some other lines for the questioning.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Winston Peters has a long track record of inappropriate attention-seeking comments designed to get the media and other politicians to talk about him instead of the issues Kiwis are facing”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is, undoubtedly, no. But what I do think is racist is when a Labour MP said, “Chinese-sounding names are buying too many houses in Auckland—”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. I think I know where this is going. Mr Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —or when a Green MP said, “White cis men”—oh, sorry.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I think we know exactly what this point of order is about, and I’m sure you’ll be right.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaker’s ruling 205/4: you must not bring a party not involved in the question into the answer.

SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. Do you have another question, Lawrence Xu-Nan?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that his comments were “racist”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is no, but what I do think is racist is, for example, saying “White cis men cause all the violence in the world.”

SPEAKER: No, no. Wait on—wait on. Unless it’s about—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn’t give the quote—I didn’t say the person who said that.

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m just giving you a quote.

SPEAKER: Yeah. The problem is you’re going to read out the quote and then say who the person was, and then it will be—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I didn’t say that.

SPEAKER: I know that—just listen to what I’m saying. Perhaps it would be easier to make a decision about whether it stood or not if the person who the quote is attributed to was mentioned at the start. You cannot use Government questions or questions to Ministers to attack the Opposition.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that, by way of example, what would be racist is saying, “It’s mind-blowing to see Indians—”

SPEAKER: No, just hang on a minute. Sorry. No one else speaks.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. What would be an example is, “It’s mind-blowing to see Indians, Asians, blacks, and Pākehā helping campaign in a Māori seat.” That would be racist. Or when a National MP said, “Two Chinese would be more valuable than two Indians.”

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, they’re irrelevant—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See my point now?

SPEAKER: —they’re irrelevant to the answer.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time, if he wishes to raise that in a debate, that’s the appropriate time, but he can’t raise it during question time.

SPEAKER: No, no, no, he can—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, he can’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, he can. I’m sorry. If you read the read the Order Paper, it’s question No. 6 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It’s not unreasonable to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what he thinks about another country, particularly in the circumstances. It’s a reasonable question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I made the very distinction at the start that when I was speaking as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that was one matter. When I was speaking as the leader of New Zealand First in a debate for the party called New Zealand First, that’s a different matter, and the Standing Orders apply to that time in the debate, which is the event he’s raising. That’s my simple response to that.

SPEAKER: If Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, without losing a question, asked the question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs about what he thought about another person’s statement, that might get around the issue.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the comment made during general debate that—

SPEAKER: No, no—who by.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: By the leader of New Zealand First.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: —by the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that “Chinese people lie like a flat fish”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time—now, look, if you drop me a line, I’ll give you some help on how Standing Orders operate. You cannot ask that question, right—you can do it in a debate, but you can’t ask it in question time, because this is not responding as the Foreign Affairs Minister, and question time is for the response of Ministers and the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, but almost every week we have a question to a Minister in here asking if they agree with something that they’ve said themselves in the past. That’s not unusual. So a question that asks the foreign Minister if he agrees with the statement by a party leader is not out of order, but it’s up to the Minister to be able to answer that or decide how to answer that. But saying it’s simply not answerable is not enough.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Ask again.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that “Chinese people lie like a flat fish”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. I didn’t say that. That very statement is false.

SPEAKER: OK—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look at the Hansard. That statement is demonstrably false, but then what’s new here?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Right, I will try it again. Supplementary—

SPEAKER: You’re back on your allocation now.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The part I do agree with is that somebody who has been in this Parliament five minutes, has wasted so much of Parliament’s time. When we first came here, we were told to breathe through our nose for the first three years and learn the system. That, clearly, is what they weren’t told over there.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. That answer doesn’t help the order of the House. I think the answer, in my head at least, would be relatively simple, but it doesn’t need to be an insult to someone duly elected to the Parliament. So we’ll do it—for the last time—Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Supplementary. Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That statement is demonstrably, on the Hansard, false.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. “Should the House like a copy, we can go to the Hansard”—that is the quote from Hansard.

SPEAKER: Look—no, it’s available to everybody.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Speaker, you were in the Chamber at the time, and I know that we can write to you afterwards and seek clarity and get him to correct what he just said, but you well know that that’s exactly the statements that were made, and I just cannot see how it is conducive to the order of the House or for the confidence of us being able to interrogate the Minister—

SPEAKER: I do well know what the statement was. I know it very well. I spent quite a bit of time on it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: That was the quote and it refers to Chinese people—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not accurately given. Words matter, if I can quote a former member of this House, and so everyone needs to think about that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. In previous occasions, when members of this House have questioned the legitimacy of other members and their right to participate fully in the workings of this House, you have made rulings very clear. On the back of your statement just then that words matter, it might be important, therefore, that I read clearly a statement that you made to the House on 19 February 2026: “Members who engage in such comments can expect to be ejected from the House. Free speech does not enable gratuitous comment about other members. Such comments are not only disrespectful to the member concerned but also to this House and also disrespectful to the electors and the electoral process that allows members to sit in this House.”

Now, sir, that statement was referred to last week when the comments in question were brought to your attention. At the time, you said that you did not hear them or—sorry, sir, I got mixed up; that was the time prior. In this instance, you said that you chose not to intervene in fear of interrupting. You thought it was a tit for tat, but on reflection, if a member raised concern, then you would have been required to address those concerns. Therefore, the concerns were raised too late.

SPEAKER: And, might I say, at that point, had those concerns been raised at that time, and had there been a response that was a withdrawal and any form of apology, that would have been the end of the matter for the House. Can I say that, with regard to today, I didn’t think it appropriate to, effectively, deny the member Lawrence Xu-Nan the opportunity to ask questions. In fact, I gave him licence to ask more questions, and so I think anybody can draw their own conclusions about what is happening here. I didn’t think it appropriate to say that the member being questioned should remove himself from the House when there were legitimate questions and the person who has got oral question on notice No. 6 has a right to supplementary questions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, sir—which is precisely why I waited until the end of the exchange to raise this point of order—there are two areas concerned that are directly linked to your response today and your statement that you made to the House on 19 February: (1) the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stood by his comments not only as Minister but as leader of the New Zealand First Party—that was the answer to the first question—and (2) he has repeated word for word a statement that questions the legitimacy of members elected to this House. If it is true that you are firm of the view that members are equally elected to this Chamber—and previously you have made it clear to the House that if members questioned that, they can expect to be ejected—at the very least, this House would expect that you would ask that comment be withdrawn and apologised for.

SPEAKER: What I’m going to do is have a look at the Hansard, as I did overnight last night, and come back to the House. My recollection is that Mr Peters spoke about the member being in the House for only five minutes—that’s fine—and then spoke about his own experience. It might seem hard to believe that he spent three years breathing through his nose before he said too much here. That’s where I’d like to leave it. I think the points you raise are quite valid, and I certainly don’t resile from my view that all members of this House, regardless of how long they’ve been here, are elected equally.

Energy

Question No. 7

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (14:47) to the Minister for Energy: What announcement has the Government made about supporting New Zealand businesses facing higher gas prices and uncertainty about future gas supply?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (14:47): On Friday, I announced, alongside Ministers Willis and Jones, that the Government’s Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme is officially open for business. The scheme will help businesses invest in reducing their reliance on gas, improving energy efficiency, and securing their future competitiveness. The Government’s scheme will guarantee up to 80 percent of the default risk on eligible loans. The Government expects to unlock up to $1.2 billion in lending through this programme. This is a practical example of our Government’s approach to fixing the basics and building the future, helping businesses manage today’s challenges while investing in tomorrow’s growth. Strong businesses create jobs, drive exports, and grow wages. That’s why we’re introducing this scheme.

Catherine Wedd: Why has the Government introduced this scheme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We understand that businesses need certainty and confidence to invest, and after years of declining gas supply following the decision to ban oil and gas exploration, many businesses are facing higher costs and greater uncertainty. Rather than leaving businesses to face these challenges alone, this Government is stepping up with practical support. We want New Zealand to export more goods, create more jobs, and grow the economy, not see investment in jobs move offshore due to the current situation with gas supply. That’s why we’re backing businesses to adapt, remain competitive, and continue growing.

Catherine Wedd: How can businesses apply for the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This scheme is designed to help businesses get on with what they do best: growing, investing, creating jobs, and driving our economy forward. Since 31 July, businesses have able to register their interest through participating banks—ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Kiwibank, and Westpac—for loans of up to $50 million in scheme loans for each business. Whether it is a manufacturer in South Auckland, a food processor in the Waikato, or a horticulture business in Hawke’s Bay, this scheme gives businesses practical support to invest with confidence and remain competitive. That is what backing business looks like.

Catherine Wedd: What additional support is available to give confidence to businesses facing a dwindling supply of gas?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alongside the loan guarantee scheme, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has launched a suite of practical support services to help businesses understand their energy options. Some businesses may need help understanding how they use their gas and how they could use it more efficiently, while others may require more detailed technical or fuel-switching analysis. We’re focused on removing barriers to investment, improving energy security, and giving businesses the confidence to grow. That is what this Government is doing through this programme: fixing the basics, building the future, and backing New Zealand businesses every step of the way.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:50) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:50): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs given his statement in the House today that saying people from China “lie like flatfish” isn’t, in his view, racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We canvassed this yesterday. As I said, he was speaking in a general debate as New Zealand First’s leader, and, as a result, the Speaker made a ruling that those remarks were unacceptable. He’s had previous spats with the Chinese Ambassador when he was a Minister of Foreign Affairs under Labour, and I can reassure the member that the relationship with China is in very good heart and is in very good shape.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I was actually asking the Prime Minister about his confidence in the Minister given the answers the Minister gave in the House today. Those were statements that he made in the House today as a Minister, where he said that those statements weren’t racist. I’m asking the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in him in light of that statement.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think that’s a clear question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think it helps New Zealand’s international reputation in countries such as China that we are making headlines such as, “New Zealand Foreign Minister demands Chinese-descent MP ‘Go back to his own country’.”, in light of the fact that China is our largest trading partner and second largest source of inbound tourists?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reassure the member that the relationship between New Zealand and China is in good shape, but I’m also very proud of this Government’s efforts to build relationships with many countries around the world. Look at what we’ve done within the Europe and the UK free-trade agreements (FTAs); look at what’s happening with respect to the progress we’re making with the US administration as well as the Indian FTA; and the upgrade of our comprehensive strategic partnerships in North-east Asia and South-east Asia have been very important for New Zealand.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I would ask that you please pay particular attention to these questions, which are clearly an attempt to get the Prime Minister to talk about the leader of another party, which, under Speaker’s ruling 181, is completely not allowed. Speaker’s ruling.

SPEAKER: The difficulty you’ve got with putting that forward is that it’s not 181; it’s 180/1, and the point that remains is that the Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers at all times. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a party leader or not. If the Minister is in the executive, the Prime Minister can answer questions about that Minister’s portfolio.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Surely we’ve established, over the period of time the House has traversed this issue, that the remarks that the member refers to were remarks made by the leader of a party in the general debate, yet you’re allowing him to continue to pretend that they were made in a different context.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaker’s ruling 180/1 does not allow that.

SPEAKER: That would be true if the question was constructed in a way that led to that particular conclusion, but it hasn’t been. I’ve been listening very carefully. He’s asking about the Prime Minister’s views on reports where, in fact, the statements that were made have been reported. You’re not going to get me to back away from the fact that this is a House where Ministers are asked questions and should answer them. The Prime Minister is asked questions about one of his Ministers; he should answer them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister spoken to any representatives of the Chinese Government since Winston Peters’s contribution in the House last week, and, if not, how can he claim that the relationship is in good heart?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I haven’t, but we’ve had many high-level engagements with the Chinese senior leadership, both in China and in New Zealand, and in other forums—the Foreign Minister and myself—and I think we have managed this relationship very well and improved it further over the last 2½ years as a new Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen these comments by the Chinese Ambassador: “We have absolutely no interest in being dragged into the domestic politics of other countries.”; or the ministry of foreign affairs of China saying, “Parliamentary debates in New Zealand are New Zealand’s internal affairs. China will not comment on that.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes I have, and I just want to reassure the House that the relationship is in very good shape. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, and no one else—no one else.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Rt Hon Winston Peters replied to those comments that he just mentioned, referring to the Chinese ambassador as a “communist shill”; if so, why did he not feel it appropriate to pick up the phone and speak to the Chinese ambassador to clarify that that is not the position of the New Zealand Government, given the Rt Hon Winston Peters is this Government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just want to reassure the member that, actually, this Government, with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the trade Minister, the defence Minister, have good relationships with the Chinese administration, as we do with many other countries, and we have step-changed and lifted the intensity of our relationships with the world, including China and other countries, and we’re very, very proud of that. That is serving New Zealand very well with respect to record levels of exports, higher-level quality engagements around matters of defence and security, people-to-people links, and also economic growth.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand Government, in any capacity, conveyed any form of apology to the Chinese Government for the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ recent comments that he as Prime Minister described as racist; if so, what form did that apology take?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We don’t need to. No, we haven’t. The relationship is in good heart, as I’ve just said.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Cambridge Dictionary defines a “shill” as “someone who helps another person to persuade people to buy something”, and, by definition, all diplomats are shills for their own country—and you’re looking at New Zealand’s biggest and most experienced shill, which would give those members over there a thrill?

SPEAKER: I’m sure the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I wasn’t aware of the full definition, but I appreciate it, having had it now.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good, that’s fine. Yeah, excellent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand Government received any formal complaints from the Chinese Government regarding Winston Peters’ recent racist statements; if so, who will formally respond to those complaints and when?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware of, but I want to reassure the member that the Foreign Minister has outstanding relationships with his counterparts in China and around the world.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 9

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:57) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand exports?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:57): Statistics New Zealand have recently reported that the value of New Zealand’s goods exports have jumped almost 25 percent, or $1.6 billion to $8.1 billion, for the month of June 2026, compared to June last year. Stand-out performances include the red meat sector exports, at $1.37 billion, 50 percent higher than June last year. This is a record for that month. Sheep meat exports were up 40 percent by volume and $458 million by value. Beef exports up 25 percent by volume and $679 million additional. Overall, red meat exports grew by 21 percent, to $13.134 billion—a new record for the year ending June 2026, driven by the increased demand for outstanding New Zealand red meat. I want to thank every farmer for their contribution.

Suze Redmayne: What reports has he seen on overall growth in primary sector export earnings?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, there’ve been many recent reports of very good news that the primary sector exports overall are showing great and strong results, with broad-based growth across many sectors. As an example, annually, kiwifruit is up 12 percent, or $510 million, and will export $4.6 billion this year; wool, up 29 percent or $128 million, and will export $575 million—great news for our wool farmers; aluminium up 38 percent; and dairy up 6.2 percent to $1.81 billion extra. The Government’s relentless focus on our trade agenda is working. New Zealand’s goods exports have increased from $72.5 billion to $83.4 billion, or 15 percent more over the three years. When we came to Government, we set the goal of doubling exports by value over 10 years, and these numbers show the country is on track.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Government supporting the growth in exports?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, 71 percent of all of New Zealand’s exports are covered by 17 high-quality free trade agreements, and they’re delivering tangible results for our exporters. As an example, our trade agenda is focused on supporting New Zealand exporters to be more competitive offshore, and it’s delivering. We’ve completed the India free trade agreement (FTA), which will eliminate or reduce tariffs on 95 percent of New Zealand’s exports; we brought the New Zealand - European Union (EU) FTA into force ahead of schedule, and as a result there’s been an extra $3 billion worth of exports from New Zealand to the EU over the last two years; we completed New Zealand’s first FTA in the Middle East with the United Arab Emirates, which is in force and eliminates tariffs on 98.5 percent of our exports; we completed negotiations for the Gulf Cooperation Council, an economic bloc worth $4 trillion in GDP, which eliminates duties on 99 percent of our exports over 10 years. We’ve also undertaken 23 trade missions to 18 countries and eliminated non-tariff barriers worth over $700 million.

Suze Redmayne: How will the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement support export growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, it can support it significantly. Although the agreement is not yet in force, our exports to India over the last three years have grown by $1.18 billion—an increase of 130 percent already. New Zealand’s exports, when the agreement is in force, will have 95 percent either full or partial tariff reduction. I want to give an example of the services sector. Services exporters or companies in New Zealand will have liberalised access in 100 sectors or areas in the Indian market. An example: architects and engineers will have a right to provide services there, an industry where $21 billion is spent on infrastructure every year. Another example is our lamb and wool exports. Lamb will fall from a 33 percent tariff to zero on day one; wool will also go to zero, which will allow significant exports on behalf of New Zealand exporters. I would like to recognise the hard work of many members across this House, not only in voting for the legislation at first reading but also in travelling to India to promote wool.

Prime Minister

Question No. 10

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:02) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:02): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is a Minister of Foreign Affairs who just now agreed with the comments made by the New Zealand First leader during the general debate last week fit to serve in his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not sure I—I reject the characterisation of the question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Shall I ask it again?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Have the comments of his Minister of Foreign Affairs had a harmful impact on Chinese and migrant communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Personally, I’ve talked about this; the remarks were offensive, they did hurt our Chinese-Kiwi community, and I stand with them.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he credibly stand by a Minister of Foreign Affairs, then, who he just said has caused harm to Chinese and migrant communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done an exceptionally good job over two and a half years of advancing New Zealand’s national interests with a range of countries, expanding trade opportunities, and deepening diplomatic ties, deepening security and defence ties as well. We are very, very proud of the state of our relationships with many countries around the world, including China.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When it comes to racist comments, what do you think of white cis men—

SPEAKER: No, no—no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —causing all the violence in the world, which she said? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The member’s making it very difficult to maintain order in the House. It might be better if he had an early afternoon.

Economic Growth

Question No. 11

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:04) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “Economic growth means more jobs, higher wages and better opportunities for all New Zealanders”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (15:04): Yes. I’m surprised the member has to ask. Of course, growing the economy remains the best way to create more jobs, lift wages, and improve opportunities for New Zealanders. That is exactly why this Government is progressing policies that build business confidence and create jobs. For example, fast-tracking major projects, giving businesses a real incentive to invest through Investment Boost, progressing free-trade agreements, and adjusting procurement guidelines so that when the Government invests, it can look at the impact those investments will have on New Zealand. It’s also why we must not introduce policies that would wreck business confidence, such as, for example, a broad capital-gains tax. Growing the economy is the best way to create jobs, and our Government is progressing policies to achieve that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can today’s unemployment rate, which is higher than Treasury had forecast, be a sign of economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The question is whether the policies that the Government is progressing will support more job creation in the future. What we have seen from the ANZ Business Outlook more recently, following what was undoubtedly a very difficult quarter, is that businesses have said that their hiring intentions have increased, their confidence has increased, and that their investments will increase. That bodes well for future job-creation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim there’s to be more opportunities when there are 8,000 more people experiencing long-term unemployment in the June 2026 quarter than in the same quarter of 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, one of the very clear reasons why I can claim there will be more opportunities is that this Government’s fast-track legislation means that 27 major projects have received a fast-track consent, and those projects collectively will support thousands of jobs. I note that Labour sought to remove a project expected to support around 7,000 jobs: the Rangitoopuni housing development. They sought to remove a project expected to support around 4,420 construction jobs: the Homestead Bay housing development. They sought to remove a project expected to support 100,000 jobs with the Kings Quarry expansion. I could go on.

SPEAKER: That’s fine—talk about the Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she continue to claim there are more opportunities when there are 48,000 more people out of work compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have fully acknowledged that the levels of unemployment that we are seeing are much higher than we would like. What we take responsibility for, as a Government, is progressing policies that will give businesses the confidence to expand, hire, and create more job opportunities. That is why we are on the side of fast-tracking major projects, providing lower tax burden to businesses through the Investment Boost tax policy. It’s why we are expanding tourism, why we are expanding international education, backing our farmers and the education sector, supporting more free-trade agreements. That member has to do more than cry crocodile tears. Come up with a single idea of your own.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If economic growth means higher wages, how does she explain New Zealand having the worst wage growth in the developed world under her watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That member should be very careful with statistics, because I think that the report that she is referring to is one that largely refers to the wage growth that happened under the last Government. I would note, however, that there are a range of economists who have pointed out that the underlying data used is not the appropriate measure to use to look at comparative wage data.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she still stand—

SPEAKER: No, that’s the whole lot used up.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:08) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:08): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How does he respond to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Tinihanga o Ngā Mātāpono: The Urgent Report on the Treaty Principles Reform, that the Government’s strategy reform programme has breached Treaty principles and caused significant prejudice to Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve discussed before, there’s been all sorts of generic Treaty principle clauses in different bits of legislation. We want to create certainty, and we also want to make sure that everyone’s very clear about their obligations under that legislation.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister accept the tribunal’s findings that his Government has acted inconsistently with Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, which specific findings does he reject?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the point of the Treaty clauses review is to make sure that we don’t create uncertainty or legal risk after everybody. We want to be very specific. We want descriptive Treaty clauses that spell out everyone’s obligations to each other, to provide maximum clarity and consistency.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Debbie Ngarewa—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question—

SPEAKER: Look, sorry, don’t start talking until you’re properly called. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Apologies. Thank you. My point of order is that the Prime Minister failed to address the actual question. The actual question was: which finding did he reject?

SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t the actual question; it was the second part of it.

Rawiri Waititi: Can the Prime Minister identify a single Treaty reform introduced by his Government that the Waitangi Tribunal has found strengthens rather than undermines the Crown’s Treaty obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I actually think there’s lots that we’re very proud about in ensuring we’ve got stronger Māori outcomes, which would be part of the reason between iwi and Crown about how we work towards upholding the obligations of the Treaty. You know, making sure we improve regular attendance from 51 percent to 55 percent in the last year is really great. Making sure there’s 4,000 fewer victims of Māori violent crime is really important. Making sure we honour the Treaty by ensuring there’s less Māori youth offending—down 28 percent. I could go on. This Government’s done a lot to improve outcomes for Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: Why hasn’t the Prime Minister dismissed the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his racist statements against the Chinese community, and is the Prime Minister avoiding dismissing the Minister of Foreign Affairs because he fears it could trigger the collapse of his coalition and an early election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that political parties that enjoy the confidence of the House and form a Government, sworn in by the Governor-General, have the ability and the mandate to implement their policies rather than ducks quacking in front of a body full of quacks themselves?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just think we’re being very proud about upholding our Treaty obligations, and the way you do that is you improve outcomes for Māori. That’s what this Government’s been focused on.

Rawiri Waititi: Who is leading this Government, Christopher Luxon or Winston Peters, and in the words of Eminem, would the real Prime Minister “please stand up”?

SPEAKER: No, that’s—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m standing and that would be me.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go to other business to do so quickly, quietly, and without conversation on the way.

Debates

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In 94 days, New Zealanders get to choose our future, and the choice is getting clearer by the day: a new Government that’s focused on the issues that matter to everybody—tackling the cost of living, making sure we get Kiwis back to work in good, well-paid jobs, making sure Kiwis can get the healthcare they need when they need it, and making sure that everybody has a place to call home—or a re-election of another variant of this coalition of chaos that is simply focused on blame, excuses, division, and simply their own personal interests. A change of Government to a Government that is focused on bringing everyone together to tackle the challenges that the country faces, or a Government that can’t even bring themselves together to tackle the challenges that this country faces. A Government that focuses on moving the country forward, or a Government focused on fighting amongst itself. A Government focused on backing Kiwi businesses or a Government that talks down to New Zealand businesses, saying they are “wet, whiny, inward-looking”, that they’ve gone “soft”, that they’re “C-listers”, or that they have a “parent-child” relationship with the Government—all of the above are statements made by this Prime Minister when it comes to New Zealand businesses, and they deserve better than that.

But it doesn’t end there. We have a Prime Minister whose standards are so low that statements that he regards himself as racist are OK for his Ministers to make. It’s OK for his Minister of Foreign Affairs to attack diplomats from other countries in New Zealand. It’s OK for his Minister of Foreign Affairs to say that people from China, “lie like … flatfish”. It’s OK for a Minister in his Government to liken migration from India to a “butter chicken tsunami”. All of those things are OK under Christopher Luxon’s leadership. He has done nothing about any of those statements by Ministers in his Government.

Make no bones about it: there is real-world harm caused by those sorts of statements.

When we get reports from the Indian community in New Zealand, raising concerns that a primary school that has a high concentration of Indian students in it, had spray painted on the fence across the road from it “Kill all the Indians”—when they raise those concerns and the Prime Minister of this country will do nothing to call out that behaviour, it says everything about how weak this Government is and how wrong their priorities are. When our Chinese community report that they are subject to increased discrimination and increased attacks and this Prime Minister will say that those attacks have been racist but do nothing about it, it shows this Government is more interested in their own careers, in their own jobs, than they are in the lives and livelihoods of every other New Zealander.

On the day that records come out that show that we have an 11-year record for unemployment in New Zealand, what do we get from this Government? Once again, more blame and excuses. They call low-income New Zealanders “bottom feeders”, without accepting any responsibility for the conditions that have put low-income New Zealanders in the very position that they are. When Christopher Luxon said that New Zealanders were “wet, whiny, inward-looking”, he got the last part of that completely wrong; young New Zealanders who can’t find work in New Zealand are not inward-looking; they’re very outward-looking. They are looking to Australia—they are going to Australia to find jobs they should be able to find here in New Zealand. Take those working in building and construction—20,000 jobs gone, under this Government’s leadership, from the building and construction sector, and this Government thinks that’s something to celebrate.

As for emerging New Zealand businesses who deserve the backing of this Government, what do they get? They get called “C-listers” by the Prime Minister. Well, my message to the Government is very clear, and it’s this: if you want more A-list businesses, you’ve got to back the emerging businesses, not talk down to them, not say they’re inward-looking, and not say they’re asking for a handout. Get behind them and support them to grow. That’s not what this Government’s doing; this Government’s too busy talking down to New Zealand businesses—and, actually, they’re not just talking down to New Zealand businesses; the Prime Minister’s not got much to say nice about any of the people sitting over there too. When he’s talking down to New Zealand businesses, he’s also complaining about his own MPs and saying how useless they are—every boardroom in the country will tell you, “Christopher Luxon hasn’t got anything nice to say about anybody.” That is why, come 7 November, he’ll be looking for a new job.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:18:23): It snowed for the first time in three decades in Wellington this week, and at 4 a.m. yesterday morning on Cuba Street in Wellington, a man in his early 40s passed away, having been found unresponsive, curled up in a storefront, and unable to revived. We cannot speculate on the cause of this man’s premature death, but I remember on Monday night being woken up by the heavy rain and southerly winds that night—and MetService said that it felt like minus 5 degrees outside.

It reminded me of a submission that my office collected from people rough sleeping in Wellington on the move-on orders, and one woman said, “I move on if I’m asked, I won’t block doorways, I take my rubbish with me, and I respect people. I don’t drink or do drugs, I am with Work and Income, looking for work. My last three appointments have been cancelled. Sometimes I have to beg to make ends meet.” I think about our Pastor Joe—a beloved figure in our community—who is often on the streets with Pasifika Patrol and the Salvation Army. Pastor Joe told me that he was donated 10 sleeping bags on Monday, and by Tuesday, all of their sleeping bags and blankets were gone, with even more coming in the next day, asking for more. It’s not just about people sleeping rough; it’s about people who have accommodation but can’t afford to buy blankets or anything else to keep them warm. As Pastor Joe said, this is the kind of weather that can kill someone.

Tania George from the Wellington City Mission said, “I spent two years on the streets. It’s getting much colder. I work at the city mission now and I have homeless people coming in and crying, crying because it is cold, literally shedding tears—big solid guys crying and breaking down because it’s so cold. I just think a bit of comfort and humility and compassion can go a long way, as well. You know, I just gave him a big hug and he said, ‘I haven’t got a place to stay, but just the fact that you cared makes it a little bit better.’ ”

Pastor Joe said that he’s also observed that more women are ending up on our streets. It is a point that has been echoed by Te Whare Nukunoa - Wellington Homeless Women’s Trust, who said, “We deal with the wāhine that nobody else wants. These wāhine are continuously battling with their trauma, and each and every day they are still on the streets—another day, with trauma upon trauma, so when we finally can get them into our whare, we have to try and unpack the added trauma that has been inflicted on them, especially given this cold snap. Not only are they dealing with mental health addictions; now, they are facing the elements of the weather that, over the years, we have seen get worse each season.”

We know too from the Community Housing Aotearoa group that half of the people who are homeless are under the age of 24. Evolve, our local youth one-stop shop, have told me that some of the young people that they’re supporting are spending nights in the emergency room because they have got nowhere warm and safe to go, and that’s why I want to use this time during general debate to put the partisan politics aside and to remind people—as we all know when we walk outside—that it is freezing cold out there.

I want to appeal to people who are in a position to give to consider giving a donation to the front-line organisations who are providing warm clothing, blankets, sleeping bags, and hot kai to those who are rough sleeping, currently. One of our local organisations, DCM Wellington, will soon be launching an appeal for crisis accommodation this winter because human beings are freezing on the streets, and those people too often have been denied emergency support and are told that they have caused their own homelessness.

It is hard and it is uncomfortable to ask people to give. At a time when people don’t have a lot of money, when unemployment is at the highest that it has ever been, when people are struggling to live week to week, it is hard to ask them to give to front-line organisations, because isn’t this what a Government is supposed to be for? In New Zealand, we used to believe in having a social safety net, where anybody who fell through the cracks because of predicaments outside of their control would be caught, but now we have such cruelty when, instead, the number of people who are told that it is their own fault that they are homeless is increasing, and they are denied same-day emergency accommodation and told to come back next week.

Human beings should not have to rely on ordinary citizens’ charity, goodwill, and good faith to have their basic human rights met—the basic human right to adequate shelter and the basic human right to food. It’s disgusting that so many people these days have to rely on charity rather than on their Government helping them out.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We just heard from the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago, and, of course, what a whiny speech it was from the Leader of the Opposition, who had plenty to complain about, but not a single solution. It’s only 94 days until the election—94 days from the election—and he has no solutions for the future of this country. Not only does he have no solutions for the future of this country but he also has an $18.2 billion hidden bill that he wants to impose upon New Zealanders—$18.2 billion of unfunded promises that he wants to impose upon New Zealanders.

Of course, the Labour Party are experts when it comes to spending other people’s money—they’re experts when it comes to spending other people’s money. They have already announced $21 billion of promises, and the only thing they’ve promised in order to pay for it is one single tax. It is a brand new tax, a capital gains tax, which will bring in $2.8 billion of revenue. That leaves an $18.2 billion hidden bill that New Zealanders are being asked to pay for if those members get into Government later this year.

Of course, when you’ve got an $18.2 billion hidden bill, there’s only two ways that you can fill that gap. You can either increase taxes or you can borrow more money. That is the recipe, the same old Labour Party recipe: promise to spend money, increase taxes, and then borrow more money and pass it on to future generations.

Well, the truth is that in the next 94 days, New Zealanders will be looking at that bill and going, “We know who’s actually going to be paying for Labour’s unfunded hidden bill of $18.2 billion.”

Hon Louise Upston: Hard-working New Zealanders.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As Minister Louise Upston says, it will be hard-working Kiwis who will ultimately pay for that.

But, of course, while Labour says, “Oh no, we’ve only got the capital gains tax. We’re not doing anything more.”, they know that they’re going to need some friends to help them get across the line, and have their friends got new taxes—have their friends got new taxes. Chlöe Swarbrick, who wants to be the next Minister of Finance, has got a wealth tax, she’s got a death tax, she’s got an inheritance tax, and she’s even got a higher income tax—taxing people a marginal tax rate of 45c in the dollar for every dollar earned over $160,000.

Steve Abel: And 96 percent of people get a tax cut.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The member says that not many people will pay for it. Do you know that nurse practitioners earn over $160,000? Are they the type of people that the Green Party and the Labour Party think will be paying a 45c in the dollar marginal tax rate? That’s exactly what they have.

You then look at Te Pāti Māori, and they’ve got about two paragraphs about their tax policy on their website. It just says, “More wealthy people pay more tax.” Well, I guess that’s just that anybody they don’t like will pay more tax, and, of course, there’s these new people that the Opposition are looking at—new friends that have come along—and they now want to start charging a tax on every single square inch of land up and down the country. These are the people that Labour know they need in order to pay for their $18.2 billion of unfunded promises going into the next election.

But, of course, they could also go and put taxes up on small businesses, couldn’t they, and we’ve seen every Labour MP over the last week try and cry a river of tears on their Facebook pages, but, actually, what speaks louder than words is action. This Government has put action behind our words with Investment Boost, which is helping businesses up and down our country to be able to invest in the kit, the equipment, and the machinery to grow a more productive business, which grows jobs and wages and productivity in our country. The question for the Labour Party is will they keep it or will they cancel it, because that is the answer that small businesses up and down our country want.

Small businesses know that Labour doesn’t know how to manage money. They left the country in the ditch and they don’t have a plan to get out of it. They’ve now got $18 billion of unfunded promises, and the Labour Party will come after small businesses to help pay for their hidden bill. They will cancel the Investment Boost. They will reduce the productivity of our small businesses, our manufacturers, and our industries up and down the country. The way that New Zealanders need to keep the country moving in the right direction is to party vote National to fix the basics and build the future.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In ACT, we’re interested in unlocking New Zealand’s potential, but it’s very hard to unlock your potential if you’re sick or ill and don’t have access to the latest medicines. So, today, I’m going to talk about something which I’ve talked about many times in this House: New Zealand’s need to close our medicines access gap. New Zealanders shouldn’t be relying on the charity of others or having to leave the country to, say, travel to Australia when they come down with an illness that can actually be treated by a modern medicine, but one that we, unfortunately, do not fund in this country.

Currently, we spend about the OECD average on healthcare as a Government, and we have made many strides as a Government over this term to improve medicines access, but the amount we spend as a percentage of our Budget on medicines compared to the OECD average is quite small. New Zealand spends around 4.9 percent on medicines, whereas the OECD average is 13.3 percent, and, in fact, Australia spends 12.2 percent.

Now, what’s the outcome of that? Well, in Australia they have access to 142—that’s 142—more medicines than we do here in New Zealand. What that means is that if you get a cancer or some other serious illness, you may not be able to have a treatment that’s funded here in New Zealand for you. We keep hearing stories of Kiwis either having to ask their friends, do a “give-me” page, or actually travel to Australia—move their entire family to Australia—to actually receive the treatment they need.

Look, we’re very pleased with the reforms we’ve made to Pharmac, but Pharmac has some 162 medicines and indications on what is called its options for investment list. Now, the options for investment list is a list of treatments that’ve already been through a rigorous Pharmac process and that the agency wants to fund, but it can only fund them when it has available budget.

What ACT has proposed, and what we’re going to be asking every party in this Parliament to consider, is a pathway to closing that medicines gap with Australia. We’ve come up with a very simple way of doing that. We know that our health spending has been increasing, and so we are saying that whenever there is going to be an increase to the health budget—and over the last six years we’ve spent around 8 percent more on health, but whenever there’s going to be an increase to the health spend going forward, 1 percent of that be allocated to Pharmac so, over time, that will adjust the amount of funding Pharmac receives. We’ve done all the numbers, and in around seven years, we would be able to close the gap with Australia; we’d roughly triple the budget that Pharmac has today.

I can tell you that that would actually clear off the options for investment list. All of those treatments—that Pharmac has already said are value for money—that we need in New Zealand would be covered, and, hopefully, there would be some room for some new treatments that haven’t even come through yet.

Just over a week ago, David Seymour and I wrote to every political party leader. We’ve heard back from the Rt Hon Winston Peters about this policy—because we said this isn’t political. Every party in this Parliament should be able to sign on to ACT’s policy. If they want to increase the amount that they’re willing to pledge to the Pharmac budget, go ahead, but they should at least sign on to our policy as a baseline and actually set this trajectory to close the gap. We’re still in discussions with New Zealand First about supporting our policy, and I want to thank them for replying.

I note that, earlier in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition said we needed to do something to stop people from going to Australia, so I ask the Leader of the Opposition, the the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, to sign up to our policy—I don’t see how he couldn’t. I also asked the Greens and National and Te Pāti Māori to all consider this policy. It’s all costed. ACT is known for being fiscally conservative, so we’ve done all the costings. Our policy is responsible and will close the gap from Australia, but, more importantly, it will deliver lifesaving medicines for Kiwis who need them today. Let’s put our politics aside: sign up, and let’s get this done.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Minister for Land Information) (15:33): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve got a capital gains tax, an asset tax, a death tax, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a higher tax rate, and a tax on renters. Eight new taxes—eight new taxes. That’s what New Zealanders are facing coming at them from those opposite here. If success was defined by how much you spend, the Labour Party would still be in Government. They spent 84 percent more while they managed to triple our debt, and at the same time, education got worse, health got worse, crime got worse, and they tanked the economy. That’s the spoonful of medicine that’s been dished up to New Zealanders, and they’ve learnt nothing: now they want to tax more and spend more again. Doing better is not about spending more money; it’s about outcomes. Outcomes matter.

No country has ever taxed their way to success. Tax grabs have just been failed experiments at the expense of hard-working people, and it’s time for those opposite to get real. You can only slice a pie so many times before you just end up eating crumbs. Those taxes will simply destroy the farming and business sectors overnight.

A National-led Government has aspirations to grow that pie by backing our farmers and backing our growers and backing our small businesses to unlock their ambitions and reach their potential. We’ve reformed the RMA—the Resource Management Act. That’s fixing a system that’s dished up road block after road block and added costs to every single New Zealander. We’ve moved the dial to unlock access to world markets. That’s how you grow the pie. One in four jobs in New Zealand are involved in trade. One in six people that get out of bed in the morning—one in six, one in seven—work in the food and fibre sector. We’ve delivered the fast-track process—a process, I might add, that Labour, Te Pāti Māori, and the Greens did not support. That fast-track process has delivered more housing, more energy, access to minerals, and water projects. That’s how you grow the pie. We’ve delivered Investment Boost so that businesses can get more efficient and produce more. That’s how you grow the pie.

Let’s rattle through some of those proposed taxes by those on the other side that seek the Government benches: a capital gains tax, an asset tax, or higher tax brackets. Those are the very things that will destroy the rural family farm. They will rip apart our rural communities and the towns that support them. That will be absolutely devastating to the men and women that work on our farms, that work so hard, that take on so much risk, and that contribute to their communities, to the local economy and to our export success as a trading nation. A land tax that is simply a tax on ambition, on inspiration. It’s a tax on taking risk and backing yourself, it’s a tax on success, and, more than that, it’s a tax on hard work. Those taxes would rip the heart and soul out of this country and be the biggest self-inflicted own goal we could ever score.

We need to be thanking our farmers, our growers, and our business owners. We need to be encouraging them to grow more, make more, sell more, and grow jobs and opportunities for the next generation, not punishing them with a fruit salad of taxes for doing the hard yards to get ahead and have a go.

Then we have a death tax and an inheritance tax. As a parent—and I’m sure most parents would feel exactly the same—we all want to provide the best opportunities we can for our kids, to help them if we can. That is why we work hard, take those risks, and have a crack, so our kids can have a better life than what we had. Even after we can no longer be here, we want our hard-earned and saved money to help our families, and, now, the Opposition is wanting to take our money even after we’re dead.

To sum up, we don’t need more taxes. We need to unlock ambition to reward hard work and to celebrate success, not tax it to oblivion. We’re not proposing to tax more Kiwis. We’re addressing the basics, fixing the foundational and structural barriers to success so we can unleash our economy to grow the jobs, wages, and opportunities. Do all that, and there’s no reason the 2030s couldn’t be our decade.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, this is a general debate. Members shouldn’t be reading their speeches, even if they do put their eyes up from their paper every so often. This is a time for ideas, so let’s have some.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (15:39): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to ask this House a question. The question I want to ask this House is: do you think the current Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology believes in science?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, who is it?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: That’s very good question, too; I’ll get to that. You might think that no Minister holding the portfolio as the Minister of science would have any answer other than “Absolutely.”, but recently I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of science at a scrutiny week hearing whether she believed in science, and her answer was, “I hope so.”—I hope so. Let that sit for a moment. The Minister of science, when being asked directly whether she believes in science, says that she hopes she does. That’s not a slip of the tongue; it’s a candid window into this Government and that Minister’s approach to the very crucial and vital science sector in New Zealand.

This is the third Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology in as many years. This is also on top of an investment slowdown, and what we’re seeing here—and I’m going to read this, because it’s important I get the detail right—is that even though the Government is trying to paint a rosy picture by pointing to private sector research and development investment, data from Stats New Zealand’s latest survey shows that business spending on R & D has flat-lined, and employment in R & D has dropped by 5 to 10 percent in a single year. On top of that, we’re talking about job losses now numbering more than 700 in our science sector. This is not just numbers; these are people doing important work for the future of New Zealand, and those people have families and communities and contributions that they can no longer make in New Zealand. I’m starting to see that there is actually a lack of hope from that Minister for this sector.

Nobody is arguing against the need for our science sector to have positive commercial outcomes. In fact, I think that’s probably one point that every party in this House would agree on. But what this Government has done is narrow the scope and walk away from key parts of the vital ecosystem that are required to have commercial outputs from our science sector.

Professor Nicola Gaston from the MacDiarmid Institute puts it very well. She said that it’s a little like “pulling an apple tree up by the roots to harvest its fruit”. Now, that’s an absurd proposition, but it is very much a clear analogy for exactly what is happening to our science sector—the narrowing of the scope, the picking of the apples, but the tree is well and truly gone. Dr Victoria Hatton, the chief executive of FoodHQ, puts it even more clearly. She said that “we quietly cut $56 million, … from the primary industries and bioeconomy research that invents the tools we were busy celebrating. We are paying to help farmers adopt the science while defunding the science that comes next.”

I can’t tell whether that is a failure of understanding or a complete failure to care. Whichever it is, or if it is both, it is definitely a failure for our science sector.

Furthermore, just yesterday, scientists at our PHF Science institute started their day standing on a picket line for the first time ever—the first time that they have had to take industrial action—because of this Government, and what do these scientists do? These are people who work on infectious diseases, people who work on forensic science, people who work on climate change, health, and wellbeing, people who work on data science and AI, and people who work on reducing drug harm. They’re people who work in our science sector to develop and progress New Zealand’s future, standing on a picket line so that they don’t have to go backwards in what they’re paid for that important work.

Fleur Fitzsimmons, the national secretary of the Public Service Association sums it up very well. She said, “In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, these workers are being asked to go backwards while doing essential work for the entire nation.”

These cuts across our science sector are impacting real people—people doing vital work. All New Zealanders will miss out as a result and there is not much hope in that message, and not much hope in our Minister.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is no version of a New Zealand that is thriving that is not predicated on a basic sense of cohesion and unity at a social level. Already, we are dealing with members of this Government who have for a long time maintained a sense of race-baiting nationalism. To put it in the words of Oscar Wilde, it is “the last refuge of the scoundrel”, and they do not decry and oppose those statements, but, just today, our Prime Minister said that the Māori-Crown relationship was healthy. Well, I beg that he read the latest report from the Waitangi Tribunal on this Government’s intention to weaken the status of the Treaty principles in a swathe of pieces of legislation.

The cohesion that we seek as a nation can only be achieved if we uphold that founding agreement on which the relationship between the Crown and Māori is based. That relationship is based on a consent for my ancestors to settle, based on an agreement that we would uphold hapū tino rangatiratanga. There can be no healthy relationship without honouring that bargain. Weakening the status of the agreement in law systematically downgrades the bargain and is contrary to a healthy relationship.

I would invite the Prime Minister to read the responses of iwi Māori in the hearings on the question of weakening the status of the Treaty. Professor Margaret Mutu of Te Pou Tikanga said that “Minister Goldsmith would like to see the doctrine of discovery fully entrenched in this country and the preservation and the continuation of the normalisation of racism against Māori in this country”—she used the term “racism”, Mr Speaker. Mr Tuku Morgan of Waikato-Tainui said that because of his iwi’s sheer concern and huge disappointment about the constant change of this Government, they find the Crown is “completely untrustworthy”. Ngāti Torehina Ki Matakā said that these proposals are seen as “underhanded manipulation of ordinary kiwi sensibilities” which “sow[s] seeds of discontent, fear and division against the vision of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, which is, in the words of the great Mr Jackson—Moana Jackson—

Ryan Hamilton: Not Willie?

STEVE ABEL: —a profound and visionary basis upon which to build a country. He was a good relative of Willie Jackson.

This Government has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to harm that relationship, and I would put it to this House that in the 50 years of the modern Treaty relationship since the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975, this Government has been the worst for its harm caused to the Crown-Māori relationship, and there are multiple examples of pieces of legislation that have done that. It even goes so far as to meddle where there is no perceived problem, as in the case of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, where its small-mindedness and meanness and pettiness in regard to those relationships is inherently vindictive, frankly.

Were the Government actually concerned about the economy, the fastest-growing parts of the economy when they came to power were in the Māori economy, and they would be investing in it and supporting it and backing it. Instead, they have sent our country on a course of three years of division and of undermining the Treaty and undermining Māori and attacking them, and that is the recompense that Māori get for the generosity that they have shown us, as a nation, over 200 years of history. They get the meanness of the Luxon Government: a distrust, a patrimonial sense of managing Māori, and a gnawing sense of settler anxiety manifest in basic racism—in the words of Margaret Mutu.

It is not for the good of this country. No good can come from it. Our good comes from cohesion in the principle of a shared and inclusive humanity in Aotearoa New Zealand, where all peoples of all races and creeds and genders are welcome to thrive here, in a constant expression of our unity as a nation. That begins with upholding that founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—a profound and visionary basis upon which to build a country. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NANCY LU (National) (15:49): I want to begin with a story. Imagine a young couple living in Auckland. They work hard, they save very carefully, they take on the risk, and, eventually, after years of sacrifice, they finally have just enough to open their own small business because they have a dream. They have a dream of building a business that will provide a better future for their family and their young children.

They don’t become wealthy overnight, though, just because they have saved and opened that business. They work the long hours, they mortgage their home, they miss family dinners, and every dollar goes back into reinvesting into that business because they want to build something good for their family. They want to invest into New Zealand and they want to have something to pass on to the next generation.

This story isn’t unusual. This is a story that reflects thousands and thousands of families and New Zealanders who believe in building the future. This is a story that resonates with farmers who want to expand the farm that they have had for generations. It also resonates with the builder who started with just one ute and one toolbox, and, eventually, is now building construction and building their future and employing 20 people. It also resonates with the cafe owners who have finally had a really good success-run in one store and now want to open it in another city. It also resonates with many, many of the migrant families that I represent, that I listen to, that I talk to, who have very little or, like my family, who borrowed money to come to New Zealand because we believe in investing into the future of our families and our country.

This is exactly why I am extremely disappointed at the capital gains tax and other taxes of our opposition, the Labour Party, together with their coalition parties right now—the Green Party and maybe a future party like The Opportunities Party (TOP), if they ever get in: seven new taxes. The capital gains tax is something that tells people that we should disincentivise everybody from investing into the future, because adding a new tax reduces the incentive and motivation for people to invest into their businesses or to grow their businesses.

A capital gains tax is not the only thing that the Opposition are coming around with. At the moment, the Labour Party has a very big spending bill. They have a spending promise of $21 billion, and the capital gains tax only provides about $2.8 billion of that—so in my simple maths calculation: $18.2 billion of a financial hole, and how is the Labour Party proposing to fill up that hole? Well, actually, working with the coalition partners—the Green Party and maybe the future TOP party—tax everybody that has an investment; tax everybody who, actually, I’m sorry, has died; tax everybody who has the heart to give; tax everybody who actually owns some land, called the land value tax.

This, in my words, and also when I go around the country, is something that is demoralising because people who want to invest in the future and also invest into the future of this country want certainty. They want certainty, from the Government and from our tax system, that we are backing them with incentives to allow them to grow. Think about the Investment Boost that this Government has introduced, passed into law, and the amount of businesses that have been invested in to grow the additional production line. Then, in contrast, think about the capital gains tax. Before you see the products or the productivity or the profit that comes from your investment, we will tax you. We tax you every single dollar.

We don’t have to look very far. Just look across the Tasman. Just look at the election this year with the Australian Labor Government. They have upped the capital gains tax when they promised they wouldn’t and look at the impact from Australia. Look at the headline. Just read the news: “Capital is fleeing Australia.” New Zealand was our number one search about a better place to invest. Our Minister of Finance has been on radio and interviews and said, “Welcome to New Zealand.” That is our competitive advantage.

I strongly, strongly encourage the Opposition to stop complaining and actually have a plan in solving the problem of this country. Stop complaining and stop adding tax burdens for New Zealanders who actually just want to grow.

The National Party that I represent, that I work hard for, because we came from very humble backgrounds—just look at my family who borrowed money to come to New Zealand and who have now finally, finally found some future.

Grant McCallum: They’re laughing at you for that.

NANCY LU: Well, yeah, thanks for laughing at that, but I strongly support my Government into building the future for all New Zealanders.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (15:54): There’s only one thing worse than a cost of living crisis, and that’s a cost of living crisis when you can’t access your own money. That’s what’s happening to some of our seniors at the moment, and that’s what’s happening on a day when Age Concern in Canterbury has said that some of our seniors are having to choose between heating and eating. They are dying of cold and starving in their own homes.

We have a similar situation in retirement villages, because people might think retirement village people have lots of money, but their money is tied up. When they need to access it, it’s not for discretionary spending, it’s actually for really important things like deteriorating health where they need to move to a higher level of care or where they need to move to another retirement village. Those are real-life scenarios that they are facing, and they need to be able to access their capital. They should not have to go and get a bank loan. They should not have to apply to a village operator holding on to their money for hardship. They should not have to delay the important care they need. And yet that is what is happening currently because the law allows it, and because retirement village operators can hang on to their money until they sell the licence to occupy. That is really hard for our seniors.

What’s worse is that the Government has a choice in this matter. The Government has chosen to say, “12 months and you’ll get your money back.”—12 months. The Government’s own officials have said, “Very few residents would get the financial benefits of a 12-month mandatory time frame.” Very few residents would get the benefit, so why did the Government choose to ignore the recommendation from its own officials to make the mandated time frame nine months? Why did the Government model six months, nine months, and 12 months, and not model on normal consumer law, which would include three months? Every month that the Government has chosen when it could have chosen nine months—it’s chosen 12 to hang on to that money and let the operators have it—is a choice of choosing between the operators and the residents who need that money for higher levels of care or for their families for funeral expenses when they exit the village, or for other things that they need during a cost of living crisis.

The Government has made a choice and the advice that they relied on had cut-and-paste errors. There was a cut-and-paste error from officials that they had to correct, which overstated the upper cost estimate for the nine-month option by $42 million—$42 million. Question: where was that advice cut and paste from? Who provided the advice? Who’s modelling was it? How could there be an error of that magnitude? How could officials then say, “Oh, but it’s not going to make any difference to the advice we’ve given you.”? A very revealing Official Information Act request indeed, and it shows that the modelling and the assumptions that this Government started with came from one side of the argument, and that would be the operators. They did not look at the starting point of consumer law; they looked at the modelling that the operators wanted them to look for and what the operators had been advocating for.

Now, Labour’s approach is very different. Our starting point is a three-month repayment, and that would be applied fairly to both existing and future residents. It’s very interesting that the official documents, when we look at applying it fairly to all residents, the one line on the analysis that I asked for was a comment that the officials wrote down from the Associate Minister of Housing, which said, “I thought we weren’t going to need to do that.” I’ll quote the exact line. He thought we were “not going to require this.” That is the one line on the modelling.

Our modelling would be three months. It would apply sensibly to existing and future residents. Of course, there would be carve-outs for those retirement villages that would need them for cash-flow purposes that might have a different non-commercial purpose. But what this debate comes down to is that when Ministers were asked to choose between retirement village operators and seniors who need to be able to access their own money, who did they choose? Well, they didn’t choose the seniors.

Seniors deserve better from this Government. Seniors deserve a Government that will listen to them, that will respect them, and that will not make them go through the undignified exercise of applying for hardship or for bank loans when someone else is hanging on to their money. That is what Labour will do, and Labour will make sure that they can access their money when they need it in a cost of living crisis. That’s what Labour will do.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (15:59): New Zealanders deserve a Government that is honest about the books and careful with their money. They deserve a Government that will live within its means and target support to those who need it most. They need a Government that is focused on growing the economy so that we can get ahead in this country with strong and serviceable public services for those who need it most. This is the approach that the National Party takes.

Labour takes a completely different path. They want New Zealanders to believe they can spend big and tax little. Well, the numbers tell a very different story. Labour has already racked up a tax bill of $21 billion of spending, but the only policy they’ve got on the table to help pay for it is a capital gains tax, at $2.8 billion. That leaves a gaping hole of $18.2 billion. That is Labour’s hidden bill—$18.2 billion is the Labour Party’s hidden bill. When they were asked if the capital gains tax falls short, what did their own Labour finance spokesperson have to say? “We’ll cross that bridge later.” “We’ll cross that bridge later.”—that’s not a plan. That’s not a plan; that’s a blank cheque written on the backs of working New Zealanders.

How will they fill the gap of $18.2 billion? Will they abandon the path back to surplus and load more debt on to everyday New Zealanders? We already spend $9 billion a year alone servicing the interest on the debt that they racked up when they were last in Government. They delivered nothing—absolutely nothing—with that extra Government spending, and yet they want to increase it and increase that $9 billion of interest repayments.

Will they reverse the tax relief that our Government delivered? For the first time in 14 years, that was delivering hard-earned money back to average and everyday New Zealanders: $102 into their back pockets. Will Labour cancel that money, or will they expand their capital gains tax? Could it include the family home, the farm, shares, and other business assets that Kiwis have worked hard to earn?

Will they scrap Investment Boost—the policy that is giving businesses a real incentive to invest in their equipment and machinery and to lift productivity in this country—or will it simply be a combination of all of the above? Labour won’t say. They want the credit for the spending promises today and the silence about the tax bill tomorrow. They want the applause now and the pain later. Let’s be clear who pays for it when they take on more debt: it won’t be the politicians sitting on that side; it’ll be my generation and the next generation to follow who are left to repay it for years to come.

Right now, we spend that $9 billion servicing that interest. That could be building new roads, new hospitals, and new schools in our country. It could be funding the infrastructure that our growing regions like Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty so desperately need, but Labour’s approach is to have more spending and more borrowing, and that will only make that bill bigger.

There’s a clear difference between them and us: their answer is spending, more tax, and more debt. They stretch every dollar of new tax revenue until it snaps, and then they come looking for the next target. That approach delivered higher inflation, a higher cost of living, and a serious increase in interest rates, and they’re lining up to do it again.

We believe, on this side, that we should live within our means. We target support to those who need it most, we back Kiwis to keep more of what they earn, and we focus on growing the economy so that New Zealanders can get ahead and we can have the public services that our country relies on.

There’s no magic money tree. There’s only higher taxes, higher debt, or both, with that side of the House. The choice this year is clear: vote for Labour for a hidden bill and more of the same, or for a Government that is honest about the books and careful with other people’s money. I know which one I will be choosing.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (16:04): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I was fortunate enough to be at the National Iwi Chairs hui last week that was held in Tāhuna—in Queenstown—and hosted by my home iwi of Ngāi Tahu. The premise or the framework for the hui was the title “Hīkina te Kō”, which, quite simply, just translates to “lift up the shovel”. A kō is an implement used in cultivation and for sowing gardens and crops and the like, and, in the Ngāi Tahu tradition, our ancestor Rākaihautū travelled the breadth of Te Waipounamu with this kō and carved out the valleys, the lakes, the rivers, and created the settings for generations to come. That was the responsibility of leadership.

“Hīkina te Kō” was a call for us to all throw our hand in and pick up the shovel to do the work, and what’s the work? The work is about building a nation that we can all thrive in, that all communities can live in well, and that all communities can be respected in. So “Hīkina te Kō” is the theoretical framework that the hui was set in.

I also note that our chairman, Justin Tipa, invited all political parties to this hui to present their ideas and to give their points of view, and that call was also made there for political parties to not get captured in political polarisation, but to reach further and do the harder yards, where you have to come into the middle and sit and listen for a while, and you have to consider other perspectives. His point was that we shouldn’t be captured by polarisation and spend too much time swinging extremely to the right or extremely to the left.

He said that not every kaupapa Māori initiative should be treated as an act of segregation, but, rather, it should be viewed as an opportunity to raise up parts of the community that need raising up—that will ultimately bring us to raising up all communities—and, in the same vein, not to consider every interrogation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as an attack on it, but, rather, an opportunity for us to invite the conversation and to step into the dialogue and deepen the understanding for us, in particular, as decision makers in this country. That’s the space where nation-building is created, that’s the space where understanding is deepened, and the outcome of that greater understanding is better decision-making for everybody in the country.

That framework set out a map for us, and I was truly inspired by it. Every political party in this House took their opportunity to sit down and present their ideas, speak with the iwi leaders, engage in the dialogue, deepen the understanding, and advance that work of meeting in the middle and doing the mahi that really counts for everybody. As I reflect on all of that and where we are as a Parliament heading into an election—the state of race relations, we might say—the iwi leaders were very clear that there has been some quite regressive work done in this term of Parliament, but they’re not cutting it off, OK? There’s a conversation to be had, and as those conversations are had, the understanding deepens. That’s what we need as a country.

I reflect on my time here, and I think about this. Just across the road is a place, Archives, where the three founding documents of this country are held, and all of the information that comes with them are held there. The great thing about that exhibit—it’s called He Tohu—is that young New Zealanders of every persuasion, from every country around the world, go through that exhibition, week in, week out, and are learning. They’re deepening their understanding, and yet when it comes to us, there’s no real prerequisite for any MP or any person in Parliament to have an understanding that would match those young people’s.

So, for the sake of the future of our country, we need to lean in to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; lean in to our constitutional foundations. Don’t get captured by the political polarisation that Justin Tipa was talking about, but commit to coming, working our way towards the middle, to do the harder yards. Yes, they are harder yards, but in the long run they’re the yards that are worth doing.

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

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

That was the call from Ngāi Tahu to raise up the shovel and do the work. Nō reira, tēnā tatou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Before I call the next speaker, I’ll mention that that was a very good general debate speech. I don’t think your eyes went down to your paper once, and it was full of ideas—without commenting on the content.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (16:09): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Statistics New Zealand unemployment figures released today show unemployment is up across the country, at an 11-year high of 5.6 percent above the prediction that came from Treasury. That’s bad enough, but for those that live in Hamilton Kirikiriroa, I’m very sorry to say that unemployment has risen to 7 percent. Hamilton is the country’s fastest growing city, yet we have more unemployed than any other place in New Zealand, at 7 percent unemployment.

The Ministry of Social Development benefit statistics show that the number of people living in Hamilton on the jobseeker benefit has reached 10,455. That’s the highest proportion of people on the jobseeker benefit from across Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. In addition, compared to Wellington, who have 7,000 people on the jobseeker benefit, Hamilton’s got 10,000. But that doesn’t quite add up, does it, because Wellington is a bigger city to Hamilton, yet Hamilton has more unemployment. Hamilton has 17,000 fewer residents.

The problem is that the Government has well and truly left Hamilton behind. Unemployment in our fastest growing city should not be that high. I speak to people every day in Hamilton, struggling to get ahead under this Government. They are putting in the hard mahi. They are applying for jobs. They are willing to work, but they just can’t find a job. All while the cost of living continues to rise. Christopher Luxon promised to fix the cost of living; instead, he has made it worse. Every day, more and more people flee our shores for sunny Australia, because they know that they can find work in Australia and they can find well-paid work in Australia, but we want people to feel like they can get ahead in New Zealand. Unfortunately, under this Government, that is simply not happening.

Joanne Turner, who is the chief executive of Te Whare Korowai Taangata o Kirikiriroa—the Hamilton Christian Nightshelter Trust—described those who were not employed in Hamilton as “getting crushed”. I couldn’t agree more. Behind every single one of those unemployment statistics, there is a person who wants to work, there is a family worried about paying their bills, and there is a community feeling the impact. That’s the real cost of National’s economic choices. Too many Kiwis are not getting their chance.

National cannot claim that their choices have not deliberately made things worse. National have cut thousands of public sector jobs. That impacts every region in New Zealand, as workers pull back on spending at their local cafes, their theatres, and local businesses. National have cancelled major infrastructure projects and scrapped investment that supports business and innovation.

The National Party cannot cut their way to growth. They have forgotten about the hard-working New Zealanders who are trying to get ahead. How are Hamiltonians meant to build a future for themselves in a city when the Government’s answer to skyrocketing unemployment and a massive cost of living crisis is to close their eyes and just pretend that Hamilton does not exist. We have people in Hamilton choosing between putting gas in the car and buying meat at the supermarket—people desperate to buy their own home but just can’t keep up with household bills to pull together a deposit.

New Zealanders have had enough of the empty promises from this Government. Labour is focused on real ways to grow our economy and get more Kiwis back into work. On 7 November, we have a choice—New Zealanders have a choice—to change the Government for a more affordable New Zealand.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (16:15): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the committee stage of the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, and the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:15): I move, That the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a second time.

It’s been my very great honour to bring this bill to the House. The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is an organisation that has done a huge amount of good work in Christchurch. It homes over 20,000 people in affordable and social housing. It is a community housing provider that is seeking to expand. Now, the reason we’re here is one that is often told in this House when private bills are brought. It’s trust deeds that are very specific that can only be amended by statute.

Now, I would like to put out there that the ŌCHT—the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust—tried every effort they could to change their trust deed before resorting to legislative change; before coming here. But their reason for needing their trust deed change is very simple: their ability to provide social and affordable housing is geographically limited to Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula. ŌCHT is one of our more established community housing providers in New Zealand. They want the ability to expand beyond the confines of Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula. They can look just outside of their boundary, and they can see that there is a need for community and social housing within the districts of Kaiapoi, which lies within the Waimakariri District Council zone, and they simply cannot operate out there. They can look to Ashburton, but then they can look further afield, across the South Island, and indeed across the country. So that geographical limitation is the change that is being sought through this legislation.

I would like to put on record my acknowledgment of the work of the trust, led by Kate and her team in Christchurch that do a phenomenal job, and thank them very much for that work. I’d also like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee that examined this bill. I think there were nine submissions on this bill, so it wasn’t one that attracted an avalanche of attention and submissions. I think seven of the nine submissions were in favour of it.

One of the things that I would like to acknowledge the work that the committee put in was around the winding up clause. What would happen in terms of the assets if the trust does wind up? Given that it is not just going to be within the confines of Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula, where would those assets belong? So, for example, if 10 houses were built in Ashburton and the trust was wound up, who would ultimately have ownership of them? Would they revert back to Christchurch City and to the city council, who is ultimately the owner of the trust? Or would there be a need for there to be another provision for how those assets could be retained in Ashburton for the intent that they were put there? The committee did put quite a lot of thought into this and has suggested some changes to the bill as it’s reported back to the House, in this, its second reading. I think they are sensible changes. They certainly are changes that reflect the intent of what the trust wanted, and that was to ensure that any assets, should the trust have to be wound up, would lie with the community in which they were intended to lie. I think anyone can see that that is a very sensible and pragmatic way of going through this.

No other changes were made to the bill, and I think that reflects the fact that this is a very sensible request from ŌCHT, the ability for them to operate beyond their boundaries because they are doing such a good job. One of the things I think it is important to note that is Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, established when Christchurch city needed to transfer its assets into a housing trust, was first in the business of providing social housing. This was housing that attracted the income-related rent subsidy and were let out to tenants in that way. It still does that job, and it still does that job very well. But the trust is looking to innovate. Projects that were started when we were in Government—they’ve done some very mixed developments where you’ll have the housing that attracts the income-related rent subsidy but also offers shared equity ways into housing for people.

I think the ability of them to expand themselves, beyond the confines of a very small geographical space of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, is something we should celebrate. I am very proud to have sponsored this change by the trust, and I look forward to watching what they can do in other parts of New Zealand that they’ve achieved for the people of Christchurch. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (16:21): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee, and member of Parliament, to speak on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill, a private bill which was referred to the committee that I chair. We heard from advisors and submitters, and we are pleased now to report back for the second reading. It was referred on 18 February, and we invited the member in charge, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, to provide an oral submission on the bill, which she did. I wish to commend her for bringing this bill to the House on behalf of her community and on behalf of the trust. Advice on the bill was provided from the Ministry of Justice, and we also consulted closely with the promoter of the bill, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust themselves. The Office of the Clerk also provided advice on the bill’s legislative quality, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with the drafting of it.

For those listening and watching who would wonder why it is necessary for the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to come to Parliament, it’s required in a case where they have got advice that it can’t be changed by going to the High Court. We took advice as a committee to interrogate that and ensure that was the case. We were satisfied as the committee that it did need to come to Parliament, because the changes were substantial and substantive enough to require a legislative change, which is why we are recommending it to be passed into law and to have the changes.

In terms of the context of the background of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, it was established in 2016 to lease the Christchurch City Council’s social housing portfolio. It now provides homes to more than 2,700 people, in properties that they either own, lease, or have built in the communities across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. It is the largest community and affordable housing provider in Christchurch and the South Island. They have identified that they can actually assist more communities in the region, in Canterbury, and potentially other areas. They wish to be able to do so, and it’s necessary to have this legislative change in order to enable them to do so, because they were restricted geographically under the founding legislation.

I just want to speak to these housing trusts, because though this is the biggest and largest community housing provider in the South Island, it’s obviously not the only one in the South Island, and there are others around the country. They do a phenomenal job. Certainly, one I’m personally familiar with is the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust, which was established around the same time and has also built a reasonably substantial body of community housing in the Queenstown Lakes region. That’s primarily in Queenstown, Wānaka, and surrounding areas. They do a phenomenal job of providing houses to people on incomes who would otherwise struggle to get into housing, in what is one of the most expensive places in New Zealand. They’re a progressive home ownership provider; they help people buy their way into a home over time. I note that Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is doing exactly the same thing, although they have a broad portfolio—they also lease homes and provide maintenance services. These community housing trusts are providing a really important space in the market to ensure that people can have a home over their head, particularly people on incomes who are at the lower income part of the spectrum and would otherwise struggle to get a home.

On that, I note that Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has an aim to build 100 new homes a year, which is quite a significant pipeline of work. They’ve already built around 400 homes since they came into existence in 2016 as a community housing provider. It’s certainly something that this Government is willing to support, and importantly, provide access to a cost of capital that is closer to say, Kāinga Ora, which has access to the Crown’s balance sheet. We want these community housing providers to also have access to cost of capital, which means that they can accelerate their work programme and provide these, because they are able to move in a nimble way that certainly I’ve been very impressed with when visiting a number of them across the country, including, like I mentioned before, the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust in my own electorate.

Going back to the consideration of this bill, it wasn’t a contentious bill in any way, shape, or form. We did receive submissions from nine interested groups and individuals, so it was quite targeted in terms of the submissions that we heard. We heard oral evidence from five submitters at hearings in Wellington, and also ones who appeared by video conference. Certainly, video conference has made things a lot easier for people to participate in the proceedings of Parliament without having to travel to Parliament, which I think is a positive development utilising new technology, and one we should continue to encourage.

We did make some minor, but we thought important, recommendations to amend the bill. We added new clause 25.3, because we did consider the founding purpose of the trust was for the benefit of the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula region, and we were going to allow it to expand its operations. But this was established initially to take over the Christchurch City Council social housing portfolio, and we wanted to make sure that if, for any reason, this trust were to be wound down, that the assets of this were to return to those who had initially built them up. So we did introduce a new guiding principle, that required the board, when transferring trust assets on wind-up to have regard to distributing them to organisations that can use them “for the benefit of people … in the geographical area [where the] … assets were [originally] generated, acquired, developed, or … situated”. We were just trying to make sure it reflected the original guiding principle on which this was established. It’s helpful having done a bit of work in the legal field!

This addresses the committee’s concern, that if the bill was introduced it would have given trustees unrestricted discretion, with no formal requirement to prioritise the regions where the assets came from. Even though it was understood that that was the intent, we wanted to make clear that this needed to be given regard to and, if in the unlikely event it were to be wound up, that that would be done.

We also added new clause 25.4, providing that if the board can’t reach a decision on asset transfer, the matter would go to the High Court for direction under section 27 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, which reflected the existing wording in the deed. Again, we wanted to strike that balance between the existing intention and language in the deed that established this trust, and broadening the trust’s intentions, but making sure there is a balance between the original intention and what we are enabling it to do. All of these were consulted with the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust themselves, and they were happy and comfortable with these changes.

I’ll just note also that the trust has agreed with the Greater Christchurch Partnership to investigate options to expand the trust model as part of a joint housing action plan that was adopted in 2023. That is because both the trust and the council believe there is significant demand for the trust services beyond the current geographical area and they may have, unintentionally, presupposed a bit of the work that has now been under way with the Head Start proposal that the Government is seeking from councils, in terms of an amalgamation. We’re wanting to hear from councils about how they could better deliver services more effectively, cheaper, reflecting the needs of their communities, looking potentially at unitary models to reduce the complexity and reduce the cost of delivering services. Certainly, this bill, by enabling a broader geographic area, probably has done some of the hard yards, in terms of this, to some of the work that we’ve done potentially, depending on what those councils put forward to the Government as options. We’ll see where that goes in the future.

This is a great bill. I commend, again, the work that the housing trust does, I commend the committee and all of our advisers for all of their assistance, and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (16:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to support this bill. I would like to commend the Hon Megan Woods for bringing this to Parliament. It’s a good day when we build more houses, especially in my hometown, Christchurch.

Everyone in Aotearoa deserves to have access to safe, warm, and affordable homes. Supporting community housing organisations, like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, is one of the ways we can meet the gaps that leave people in instable houses, and those unseen homeless people—parents, mothers with children, staying on their friend’s couch until they stay on their next friend’s couch. It is people and organisations like those at the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust that are bringing stability to some families in Ōtautahi.

This week, or last week, Frank Film in Christchurch released a film on homelessness, and one of the former chairs of the Ōtautahi housing trust was on that wonderful, little documentary. I just want to quote Pam Sharpe now—Pam is a nurse who goes around and works for Housing First and has worked tirelessly to make sure people are housed in Ōtautahi, and she was also the former mayoress. Pam said, “These are real people here, and they are somebody’s son, somebody’s child, and I think, as a society, as a decent society, we need to let them know that we care.” Thank you to everyone who works at the Ōtautahi housing trust and to the select committee, to the submitters, and to everyone here who is supporting this bill, because we need more houses, and that’s what this is going to do: 2,700 people right now are leasing homes, and we can increase that when this bill passes. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (16:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill, and, firstly, I’d just like to say thank you to the Hon Megan Woods for bringing this bill. I am a Christchurch girl myself, and I have seen the work that the community trust has been doing. They’re a great example of what we call a CHP—a community housing provider—that is providing affordable housing in Christchurch. I know, where I live, that you can get a pick-upper home on what they call their progressive home ownership programme. It’s basically where you own the home but you leasehold the land for a hundred years—and you can get a home in the Cashmere school zone for $350,000. That is really, really affordable, and, honestly, there’s nothing else quite like it. I’ve been in some of these homes, and they’re actually really, really nice. They’re great quality, and they’re creating nice wee communities in our suburbs, in our communities.

This bill came through our committee. It was definitely not a controversial bill, but any time that there is a trustee that is changing and you may be going away from your original purpose, it’s Parliament’s duty to have a look at what they’re wanting to do—the trust themselves—how they’re wanting to extend it, and where they’re wanting to go with that. Look, I think that the kind of housing that they’re building is really in line with this Government’s programme of having community housing providers and trying to get more housing. So that is definitely one of the reasons why we support this bill.

On being able to extend out to some of the areas, we heard from the trust themselves about wanting to go into places like Ashburton, potentially in North Canterbury, and possibly even over to the West Coast. I think that, given the fact that they have a really good track record so far, they work closely with the Government in partnership, it seems sensible to be able to expand the work that they’re doing. They also gave us reassurances that the priority will still be for Christchurch and the Christchurch region Ōtautahi, because that is where they’ve started, but it doesn’t stop them going elsewhere. The previous member talked about the fact that we do have a housing shortage in New Zealand. Christchurch is quite fortunate; we do actually have a lot more homes than other areas around New Zealand, and that’s possibly thanks to the earthquake and some relaxing of Resource Management Act (RMA) rules that happened for a wee while there. It can be semi-pro the changes to RMA that are going to be happening. There are areas like Ashburton that are seeing significant growth. It’s one of the developing areas, I’d say, in South Canterbury. We’ve got a huge amount of inequity in those areas, and you’re also seeing a lot of retiring people and individuals that might actually want to settle down into one of these cheaper, more affordable homes because they are often townhouses or apartments and things like that.

A little bit about the community trust: it was a registered community housing provider in 2016, the trust is a charitable registered trust under the Charities Act 2005, and it was originally established to manage the Christchurch City Council’s community housing portfolio, which I think is really interesting. I don’t know if there are other people here who remember what it was like around—I see someone else from Christchurch over the other side of House. I don’t know if you remember, but we used to have a lot of council housing and council flats around Christchurch. I grew up in Bishopdale, and there was quite a few there. There’s still a little bit left behind, but a lot of councils actually sold off their council housing because they became fiscally not sustainable. There are a lot of other reasons and arguments around that, but what I do think is that where someone like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is able to come in and offer a solution by building new, nice properties and helping the council potentially manage some of their future properties, I think, it’s a really good idea. Maybe I’m with ACT and maybe I’m for the community actually owning some of the properties—would you have thought that?

Secondly, I’d like to thank everybody that worked on this bill—my other committee colleagues. I’ve got the chair of the committee here, Joseph Mooney, which is great. I also want to thank the submissions that we had on this bill, which wasn’t a lot, because, like I said again, everybody is really for more housing and particularly community housing providers that are doing a good job. We also had a bit of work that was undertaken by the staff, the advisers, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, so I want to thank them for their work that they do in this space.

The other thing that we actually debated as well—and this is actually a question really for this House going forward—is that these trusts have tiny little changes to their deeds and are coming through Parliament, and they are coming through select committees, and they are taking up our House time—not that I’m taking up any House time right now, of course. But there is something to be said about how we deal with these bills. I think the future Government should be looking at ways in which we could possibly deal with this in a separate way. I hate to think that any community trust would come to Parliament because they didn’t want the legal costs of going to the High Court, because we do know that it is a very expensive route. Sometimes they have tried that, and that doesn’t work in itself. But bills like this which we all support, and that make very minor changes to the trust deed—and I think we’ve got another one that we’ll talk about after this bill; it also has some changes, although that was a slightly different scope change—I think we should be dealing with them in a different fashion. That is something that I think everybody in this House should consider. Maybe it’s a little bit of a process change as to what we do when these bills come through the House.

I won’t talk any longer on this. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to seeing what progress Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust makes in the Canterbury region and the wider region. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:40): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill. It’s great to have this bill back. Actually, it was interesting just following Laura McClure’s comments about different ways of dealing with non-contentious legislation, because I know that is something that is being considered around the House, and maybe we’ll get to that fairly shortly in the next Parliament.

This is a private bill developed by the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust—ŌCHT. I just wanted to congratulate them for the bill, but, also, to congratulate the Hon Dr Megan Woods for sponsoring the bill to the House. ŌCHT, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, is a very good operation. I think we’ve all said that. Just going back a little bit further in the history: 2014 was when the Christchurch City Council started looking at whether there was a different way to run its own council housing, and they ended up establishing the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust in 2016. I want to congratulate them for that—for that step that they made—but, also, for their ongoing involvement in the trust. Three of the nine trustees are appointed by the Christchurch Council and, of course, they are—I suppose—the beneficial owner, ultimately, of the assets.

I also wanted to say that Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has also been very generous outside of Christchurch. When my council in Wellington was looking at establishing a community housing trust, as well. Actually, we worked with the Hon Dr Megan Woods on that, and getting some Government support for that, because we needed that, because that was the whole purpose: being able to access the income-related rent subsidy for some of our tenants. We looked to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to get advice for their experience—the way they’d gone about it and how to go about it. I thank Cate Kearney, in particular, as the chief executive then and the chief executive now, for that advice. I thought they were very, very generous with that.

It was also great to be able to visit ŌCHT in Christchurch. When I did that, they did actually say, “Yep, look, we want to expand our boundaries. This is the piece of legislation we’re looking at. We have looked at all the other ways of going about doing this, but we want to be able to benefit people outside of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.” I think that’s an excellent idea. They do a great job, and so being able to expand it outside of that to wider Canterbury, West Coast, wherever it might be—I think that’s really, really good. Of course, this week, I think, we will see whether there are any changes suggested to the boundaries of Christchurch and other councils. If that is the case, then the ability for ŌCHT to be able to go wider on that score alone would be a good idea.

When I think about the level of social housing supply in their neighbouring territory, Selwyn District, when I was there and talking to them, one of the things that they complained about—no, they asked about; this was the previous council, not the current one. The previous council said, “Look, there’s a lot of areas which we think, as a very fast-growing area, Government support will be important for.” Yep, fair call. One of those was social housing, because, essentially, they said they don’t have any social housing in that fast-growing district. And they said, “What about doing that?” Well, allowing ŌCHT to expand into Selwyn District would help them.

I might also mention, as I have in this House before, that that didn’t stop them trying to get rid of a housing community—a lovely housing community—down at Upper Selwyn Huts. I had to step in there with Jamie Arbuckle to fight against them doing that and to persuade them that was a very bad idea, and so that beautiful community, which has been there for 130 years, hopefully, will have another 130 years, at least, to enjoy that. But many of those people—and Selwyn District Council knew it—would have ended up in social housing, which they didn’t have any of, and, therefore, they would have needed to go to Christchurch. I’d just make that point. That’s an area which doesn’t have any social housing at the moment. It’s one we went into bat for, but it makes sense to have ŌCHT being able to expand into that area, as well.

I wanted to congratulate the whole team at ŌCHT: Chairperson Darren Evans and CEO Cate Kearney, as I’ve said. Just a couple of months ago in June, they opened the 19^th and 20^th new communities at Griffiths Avenue and Elm Grove. Since 2019, when they started doing these developments, they have built and opened, and now occupied, 401 warm, dry, energy-efficient, secure homes—401. I think that’s great, because that means that there’s probably—what—1,500 people or so who are being housed by ŌCHT who previously weren’t. That’s fantastic.

Also, I wanted to congratulate them for doing this in a financially efficient way. They say that their above-ground development costs in that period of 2019 to now have only gone up by 5 percent, when the market across the board has been between 30 percent and 40 percent. I think that says that not only are they doing a great job for the community but they’re also doing it in a financially astute way.

I just wanted to make a little comparison here, because we had a speech earlier in the day in the general debate about building and construction, and it was to say, look, this Government have pulled the plug on some building and construction projects. A lot of those were Kāinga Ora (KO), and I want to compare ŌCHT with KO. When I was mayor of Wellington, I used to meet with KO regularly, and they would turn up and they would talk about houses that they were going to build—one- or two-bedroom houses at $900,000 to $1 million. I would look at this, going, “That is extraordinarily expensive. That is not good value for money.”

I have the Canterbury Construction Report here, which said that in the year to March 2024, in Christchurch City, of the biggest 50 construction companies, totalling 2,610 homes with the average being maybe $2,500 per square metre, 35 of those were below $3,000 per square metre. ŌCHT was at $3,741; Kāinga Ora was the top by a country mile at $4,785. That is 28 percent higher than ŌCHT. That tells you why something was going wrong there. And why was that? When I talked to lots and lots of building firms, they consistently talked about what KO was doing. They take a standard design and they change it, and then they change it again and then they change it again—that’s expensive. They turn up to meetings where the building company might turn up with two or three people, and they turn up with 20—that’s expensive. That was why we were on track, or KO was on track, to end up with a debt—I think it was going to be $29 billion.

That is why the wings were clipped and that is why I think that the Opposition need to reflect on that before they say, actually, this Government pulled the plug on some things. We could have kept going, but that would have cost an enormous amount of money, racked up a huge amount of debt and somebody—the taxpayer of New Zealand—would have ended up having to pay for that. So I think we need to put that in context. Instead of that, what this Government did in its first Budget—and this is relevant to ŌCHT—is we backed community housing providers (CHPs). Community housing providers have shown that they’re more nimble, they’re more innovative, they’re more connected to community, and they’re more focused on getting good value for money.

One thing, Madam Speaker—so, you’ve changed, now—is I’ve visited what I think is our largest—I think it’s still our largest—CHP a few days ago, Tāmaki Regeneration, which is joint-owned by the Crown and Auckland Council. I want to congratulate their chair, Evan Davies, and CEO Shelley Katae and her team, and thank Shelley and her strategy and master planning general manager Joanna Brain for a look around and a talk through what they were doing. They own 2,500 homes; they house 10,000 people; and they’re currently, all at once—not sequentially, but all at once—building 600 homes. That’s pretty impressive to be able to go around the suburbs of Panmure, Glen Innes, and Point England, and see how many homes are being built by Tāmaki Regeneration. They are doing a fantastic job. The aim is to build 10,500 homes. Some of those, they’ll recycle back into being private homes, but they’ll keep on building those things. They are creating not just housing but, also, rebuilding the community of Panmure, Glen Innes, and Point England.

I also just want to reflect, finally, on another concern that was expressed in the general debate, and it’s about employment. I’m just using, again, Tāmaki Regeneration, as a community housing provider, as an example. They’re actively getting local young people upskilled and into employment. I visited the place where they were doing the interviews and talking to people—“What are the skills you want to do?” They’re building trades skills there. Since 2014, they have helped 2,000 local young people into employment. Those people are literally building their community. That’s a source of huge pride, skills, and is good for the community.

Just to finish: ŌCHT, Tāmaki Regeneration, and I know lots of other community housing providers are doing great work to build communities and build warm, dry homes, those two, in two of our largest cities. This bill will help ŌCHT to do its great work across a wider area, and I’m delighted to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:49): Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of this bill. I’d like to acknowledge, actually, the work of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust over the last decade, and the great mahi that they have done.

Christchurch City Council has a proud history of providing public housing, and I must point out that the formation of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust came about because of the 2011 National-led Government’s social housing reforms that unfairly excluded councils from actually accessing the income-related rent subsidy, which was a great shame because of the history that the Christchurch City Council had had in providing that public housing and the great job that they did do in that space.

It’s been pleasing to see the success of the trust, and it makes complete sense to expand that to areas that would benefit hugely from their services. As I said at the very beginning, the Green Party supports this bill. Kia ora.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn) (16:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise, alongside my colleagues, very much in support of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill at the second reading. I think it’s already been acknowledged by other speakers that this is a relatively small and straightforward bill but that it has the potential to make a really meaningful difference for communities across Canterbury, including, might I add, a district that I am very proud to represent: Selwyn.

Hon Simon Watts: Oh!

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I think that that member across the House has been there once or twice.

Reuben Davidson: Many times—love the place.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: At first reading, this House considered the purpose of the bill and the problem that it was seeking to address. Since then, the Social Services and Community Committee has gone on to examine the proposal and reported the bill back to the House, and that committee has confirmed the bill’s core purpose of enabling the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to operate beyond Christchurch and Banks Peninsula while maintaining its charitable focus on providing community and affordable housing.

The central question of the bill is: should a successful, proven community housing provider be allowed to operate beyond a geographic boundary that no longer reflects the needs of the region it services? I think that for all of us here today who have considered the bill and the work undertaken through the select committee process, the answer is a resounding yes.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has established itself as a very respected and capable provider of community and affordable housing. Since it was established in 2016, it’s grown into one of the larger providers of community and affordable housing in the South Island. It’s now managing thousands of homes and supporting thousands of tenants. It’s demonstrated that it can deliver housing solutions at scale, whilst maintaining really strong governance and financial sustainability.

This bill does not alter that core purpose. It simply removes the restriction that limits the trust’s work to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, allowing it to provide social and affordable rental housing and related services beyond those boundaries, if it chooses to do so. From my perspective in Selwyn, that really matters. Selwyn, as I think I’ve told members across the House many, many times, is one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing districts, and, of course, every year we enjoy having thousands more families coming to make Selwyn their home. They come for the opportunities, for the employment, the lifestyle, and the very strong sense of community that exists right across our district.

That growth is something we should celebrate and it’s a sign that people see a future in Selwyn, but, of course, the growth creates challenges, and as our community expands, the demand for housing expands with it. We need homes for younger families, we need housing options for older residents wanting to remain close to their families, their friends, and their support networks, and we need accommodation for the workers who keep our communities running, whether they’re teachers, healthcare workers, tradies, farm workers, or the employees of the many, many small businesses across our district.

One of the realities of rapid growth is that not everyone benefits equally from rising demand and rising property values. There are people in Selwyn who work hard, contribute to their communities, and do everything right, but who struggle to find housing that’s affordable, secure, and appropriate for their circumstances, and so community housing providers play a really critical and, I think, understated role in responding to that need. They’re not the sole answer to housing affordability, of course, and they’re not intended to replace either the private market or Government housing programmes, but they are a really, really critical part of the wider housing system that providing practical support for people who might otherwise find themselves with very limited options.

That’s why this bill is a really sensible one, because it recognises that housing challenges don’t stop at council boundaries. The conversations that we’re having about housing in Christchurch are also being had in rural Canterbury and in Selwyn. In fact, many of the pressures are actually shared. Communities across Greater Christchurch are increasingly connected, and people cross district boundaries every day for work, for education, for socialising, and for play. It therefore makes sense to allow experienced organisations the flexibility to respond to housing need whenever it exists.

Importantly, this bill does not require the trust to expand. It does not mandate projects in any district across Canterbury, it does not commit funding, it does not override local decision-making, and it does not change the trust’s core purpose. What it does is remove an unnecessary barrier. It allows the trust, if it identifies demand and has the capability to respond, to bring its special expertise to other communities that might benefit from those, and that is a practical and enabling approach. I think that distinction is really important.

Today, here in this Parliament, we’re not directing the trust to move away from Christchurch and to build houses in Selwyn, or Waimakariri, nor are we predetermining any future development decisions. What we are doing is ensuring that this outdated restriction doesn’t prevent sensible conversations from taking place in the future. This bill removes barriers that no longer make sense, while allowing communities to determine what solutions best meet their needs, and that’s very much aligned with our Government’s approach to housing and it is why we’re supporting this bill here.

I also note this proposal did not emerge overnight. It arose through work undertaken by the Greater Christchurch Partnership, which recognised the benefits allowing of allowing the trust’s successful model to be applied more broadly across the region, like, as I’ve mentioned, in Waimakariri and Selwyn.

As the proud MP for Selwyn for the past six years, I see firsthand how our communities are evolving, and they are evolving fast. Rolleston is now a major urban centre in its own right, Lincoln continues to grow rapidly, and Prebbleton, West Melton, Leeston, Darfield, and many of our smaller communities are experiencing significant changes as well.

Hon Mark Patterson: Southbridge.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Southbridge is very much on the map, I say to the member from New Zealand First, who proudly calls Southbridge home. People very much want to live in these communities because they are fantastic places to raise their families—[Member gestures towards the Hon Mark Patterson] exhibit A—grow businesses, and build a future. Our challenge is ensuring that people from a range of backgrounds and income levels can continue to do exactly that.

Healthy communities need diversity. We need young people who are getting started, we need families putting down their roots, we need older residents who want to remain connected to the communities that they helped build, and we need the people who teach our children, we need to look after our health, and we need to run our businesses and support our local economy to be able to afford to live in the communities. That is one of the reasons I see merit in this bill. It doesn’t solve every housing challenge facing districts like Selwyn, but it adds another potential tool in the tool box. It creates flexibility, it creates opportunity, and it allows an experienced organisation to explore ways that it may be able to help to contribute beyond the existing boundary.

At the same time, the bill retains the trust’s commitment to Christchurch. Christchurch remains central to its purpose, and the trust itself has made clear that any future expansion would be undertaken carefully and strategically. That should provide reassurance to those who want to ensure that the strong work already being undertaken in Christchurch continues.

One of the real privileges of being a member of Parliament in Selwyn is spending time with people across the district and hearing directly about what matters to them. Whether I’m at the Men’s Shed in Rolleston, a Christmas parade in Lincoln, or an A & P show in Leeston—I haven’t seen you there for a while, Mark Patterson—as I travel around my district, I’m constantly reminded how much people value this wonderful community that has been built.

People want their children to be able to stay local when they grow up. They want their parents to be able to downsize without having to leave the district. They want the teachers, the healthcare workers, the tradies, the farm workers, and the small-business employees who keep our communities running to be able to afford to live there too.

At its core, that’s what this small bill is about. This bill will not solve those challenges on its own, but it is a practical step. It removes an outdated restriction, it provides flexibility for the future, it ensures that for communities like Selwyn who wish to partner with an experienced community housing provider, the law will not stand unnecessarily in the way.

For those reasons, I’m really pleased to be able to support the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill at its second reading. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Nicely read speech, Minister.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (17:00): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand and take a call to deliver a speech—not read—on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. This is a great bill, and I’m very happy to speak in support of it. I also want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Megan Woods, who brought this bill to the House and through the process to get it to where it is today.

Every New Zealander deserves a warm, dry, safe place to call home, and Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust have done an extraordinary job and continue to do an extraordinary job of providing exactly that across Christchurch, and particularly across a number of communities in Christchurch East. Very recently, I was able to see new properties being opened both in Bromley and in a new part of the Christchurch East electorate, just off Fitzgerald Avenue. These are fantastic homes that have been very well built, and very much the focus is on building and strengthening the community within and around them through that process. It’s excellent to see that through this bill, we will be able to allow the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to go beyond the geographic boundaries under which they currently have to operate.

One thing that I can’t let an opportunity to discuss housing pass without referencing is the current situation we have across New Zealand with homelessness, but particularly in Christchurch East, within Bexley, a suburb that was red-zoned after the earthquake and that is now home to up to 80 people, none of whom are living in homes that are warm or dry. Many are living in cars, in vans, in buses, in tents, under tarpaulins, and under pallets through what is one of the coldest Christchurch winters, in recent days, that we’ve seen in a very long time. So, more than ever, the need for trusts and organisations who can support and provide housing for those who so desperately need it need to be supported.

This is an excellent step that allows the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to be able to provide that support continually within Christchurch and Canterbury but also beyond into all of the communities that they could potentially step into to provide that support. It’s great to see a bill that empowers the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to be able to do that.

I think we definitely need to be doing more to ensure that adequate, safe, warm, dry housing is available and that homes are available for the people who do not have them, and so in passing this bill through the House, we make that easier for people who are very good at it. I’d like to acknowledge Cate and the board at Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, who do such extraordinary work, and I look forward to seeing what they can do beyond Canterbury when this bill passes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:03): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill in this second reading. I’m sure that the Social Services and Community Committee would’ve heard some very good stories about how the trust operates.

Recently, the the Hon Chris Bishop and I—I think it actually was last year, so time flies—attended the opening of an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust housing development in my electorate: the laneways, it is called, and it is a collection of various different models of housing. Some are low-cost rentals and some are lease-to-own or rent-to-own - type arrangements, and so they have a progressive ownership model. This is one of a number of similar kinds of developments that have happened across the city, but it is the second one that has occurred in my time as the “very happy to be the” MP for Banks Peninsula, and so I have been very honoured to be at those opening events.

At the opening last year, I met a man called Steven. Steven had been trying to get into housing for many years, and for part of his time had actually been homeless. He, through various different organisations, had been able to work his way up, first, to getting to the position of being able to be in a stable rental property and then to actually have employment, and having steady employment meant that he was then eligible to be part of this progressive ownership model. He is now the very proud owner of a little townhouse in the laneways community, and he is just going from strength to strength in his life and is really getting involved in the community. I have to say that one of his hobbies, along with AI, is writing songs about things. He even composed a little song about what it meant to him—ChatGPT did actually help him to compose the song—and his life to be living in this community now, and it really showed me how deeply impactful housing is on people’s lives.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has shown that they are very capable of delivering the kind of support that helps people very holistically. They are not just in providing the housing but also providing them with the financial acumen to be able to help them and support themselves, and they also have some ability to connect in with other social services—they’re very well connected. It’s a very welcoming environment for people, and they’re able to live very good lives because of it.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has been building up—as we’ve heard across the House—from its inception in 2016, and it has developed quite a good model of reinvesting some of the money that they have back into the new developments. The guaranteed partnership loan - type situation that the Government has provided has also helped them to further their portfolio, and then reinvesting those returns into more developments means that they’re actually starting to gather a lot more pace now. They are getting to the point where, on average, they’ve been building about a hundred houses or units per year. They’re hoping to be able to get it up closer to 200 per year, and, as they gather pace and diversify, I think we’ll see that success only develop further.

As has been pointed out, this is part of a collaborative housing plan across the greater Christchurch metropolitan area, with the Selwyn District Council and the Waimakariri District Council also at Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, looking at how growth in that greater metropolitan area is going to develop over time and how they can work together on housing to be able to make that happen. Everyone will be aware that there’s a little bit of an elephant in the room around local government at the moment about how local governments might look. This bill is fixing up this particular trust variation.

I suspect that the other way of doing this might’ve been to amalgamate the councils of Selwyn, Waimakariri, and Christchurch City Council, but I don’t think any of them would thank me for suggesting that they’d just do that straight off the bat for this particular purpose. But it does demonstrate that there is a willingness to work together across the greater Christchurch area, and acknowledging the huge growth that is happening in parts of those geographical areas, particularly, as the Hon Nicola Grigg has said—she pointed out the huge growth in Selwyn. There’s been quite a lot of growth in my electorate as well, around Halswell, which connects on to Selwyn. Also, in Waimakariri, they’re expecting to see quite a lot of growth in the future as well.

Where there’s growth, we need to make sure that there’s an allowance for all people in the community to be able to afford to live and work from there. The community housing trust model is an exceptionally good one. It’s one that National supports really strongly, because we don’t believe that the Government alone can provide all of the housing requirements. We know that community trusts, as well as Kāinga Ora for Government, as well as private developers are all part of a larger ecosystem of housing. This bill is another practical way in which we’re advancing the practical expansion of a really useful and really successful model.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is, as I said, reinvesting really well. It’s got a very strong governance structure; it’s been in place for ten years now and is a really good success. Being able to expand beyond those rigid boundaries is a very useful step. I think there was some discussion about whether they could just take over all of the South Island. I’m not sure if that’s—

Joseph Mooney: Probably not.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Probably not, but when there’s a really successful idea—it seems like the member for Southland doesn’t want Christchurch taking over.

Joseph Mooney: Queenstown Lakes might have something to say about that.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yes, well, Queenstown Lakes has got, I’m sure, a very strong community housing trust as well.

Those community housing trusts are absolutely vital for providing the ability for communities to have housing. The rationale and the reasoning for having housing is really strongly understood by most people. Banks Peninsula has a bit of a housing issue in Akaroa, because it’s a very popular holiday destination, and many of the houses that are there are actually holiday homes. It makes it quite difficult for those who are working in the local hospitality sector and tourism to be able to find accommodation during the summer months and when it’s particularly busy, and also for teachers and any of the local health workers to be able to have somewhere to live.

It is a challenging thing, and I think it’s a similar thing for Queenstown Lakes as well, where there is that challenge of tourism operators having workforce but having a really big population of empty houses most of the time. I don’t think anywhere in the world has solved that particular little nubbin of a problem, but we still have community housing available. There’s a small number in Akaroa, and as I mentioned, across my electorate, there is quite a number of units of social housing.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill is a very practical way in which we’re fixing some of the basics and literally building the future.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (17:13): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Some people might think Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is far removed from the area we’re discussing in this bill. However, according to the Māori seats, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is actually the neighbour of Te Tai Tonga, which covers Ōtautahi. Hamoterangi, our ancestor, who is the mother of Ngāti Porou, is also the mother of Ngāi Tahu, so naturally, I support the housing of the mokopuna of Hamoterangi and, of course, all the other whānau who are benefiting from this amazing organisation, who’ve we’ve heard accolades from across the House for so far. I support them being able to broaden their horizons to support as many more families as they can.

As I was sitting and listening to speeches, I reflected on the work of my mother. Housing was a very important aspect of the mahi she did, both in a voluntary capacity and then eventually with Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou. I observed Mum helping whānau secure their land, save up their deposits, and eventually build their houses. What you see when somebody’s got a dry, warm home and a roof over their heads—not only is it life-changing and allows them to advance in other area of their life, but it also gives them somewhere for the whole whānau to come back to and call home.

We know that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust exists to bridge the affordability gap between the general market and social housing. As we traverse Aotearoa, and people tell us, of course, the cost of living is the number one issue, housing is not far behind. Labour’s housing record is something I’m very proud of, so it’s only natural that the Hon Megan Woods would be the person who’s brought this bill to the House, and Labour naturally supports it fully. It was working alongside organisations like Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust that Labour built a record number of public homes, with organisations such as this building over half of the 14,161 homes build under the Labour Government with vital community partnerships.

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

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

—because, tino kaupapa, the main point is to stand up and support the expansion of housing, to support the expansion of this amazing organisation to continue to help whānau—now not only in Ōtautahi, but in further surrounding communities. I commend the bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (17:17): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call here on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill at its second reading. I always enjoy the opportunity to rise and take a call on members’ days where we have members’, private, or local bills going through the House that give the sponsor of the bill an opportunity to promote a comparatively lower profile but still very important issue in their particular area of interest or in their particular community, as the case is in this example today.

I want to start, though, by acknowledging and thanking the Social Services and Community Committee, chaired by Joseph Mooney, for their consideration of this bill. I understand they had a modest number of submitters but that those submitters’ views were well-traversed and contributed to the ongoing progression of this bill. We see that coming through, I think, with the amendments proposed here as well and, indeed, the collaborative approach that the committee demonstrated in working to get this piece of legislation into a better place such that it can progress through the remaining stages in the House.

I think it also highlights, and we’ve heard from many of the speakers on this piece of legislation already, the value of community housing providers. That’s something that we firmly believe in the National Party—that it isn’t always the case that Government knows best, that Wellington knows best, but, indeed, in many cases, those in the community, at the coalface, are best placed to deliver the outcomes needed in those communities. A community housing trust like this one, from all accounts, is doing a fantastic job.

We’ve heard also about the strong growth happening in the region down there in Canterbury. It’s something we also experience in my electorate in the Waikato, where there is an exciting period of growth happening. Of course, alongside that does come some challenges. It’s important that we have mechanisms to support that, and I’m really proud of the progress that’s been made under this Government around modernising our consenting laws, our building laws, to get to the point where we can deliver housing in a more efficient manner to meet the need in the community.

Also, alongside that, when you look at the social housing wait-list numbers, we saw, obviously, what was at the time, from memory, that about 12,000 back in 2017, rose to a peak of 26,000 to 27,000 over the subsequent six years, and it has now fallen back down to, I think, about 18,000. There is still high demand there, but a really good level of progress is being made under this Government, and when you look at the value that community housing trust providers bring to the area, of course it’s something that we’d want to continue to support.

Now, in terms of the growth happening in that region, I think it’s a pragmatic approach to be able to look at this legislation and say that, OK, the original intent of Christchurch City, which was only a year after the legislation was passed, was then expanded to include Banks Peninsula, and it has now, subsequently, been given flexibility to expand again beyond that region. I think it’s a wise move that we are not defining specifically in legislation the names of the territorial authorities in which it could be expanded into, because, as we know, we’re going through a process now around potential amalgamation of territorial authorities. That would potentially provide another unreasonable hiccup, such that we would need to be amending the legislation again, should that level of detail be prescribed.

So I think the wording that’s been proposed is very appropriate in terms of just giving that flexibility to the trustees down in Christchurch to make those decisions based on their assessment or where the need is, where the growth is happening, and where the opportunity is for them, as well, to drive some development, ensuring they are capturing those efficiencies and maximising the output for the trust, as well. I think that on the basis of those aspects, it’s a prudent adjustment there.

In terms of the committee’s decision around wanting to amend the wind-up clauses: again, I think that’s a really reasonable approach just to make sure that it’s clearly articulating that the benefit must pass on to the community. I support that as well, and I look forward to this bill progressing. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s lovely to be able to rise here to speak about the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. It has been brought to the House by the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who is a huge advocate of public housing and has done great work in this field.

I want to pick up on a couple of comments that have been made by other members in this House. One is what we’ve just heard from Tim van de Molen about potential local government reforms. I do wonder how many bills like this will have to come through Parliament if all the changes that this Government is considering actually happen, because, of course, there are many organisations such as this trust that refer to local government boundaries—I can see Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh nodding there, as the previous mayor of a local authority.

I also want to pick up on something that Andy Foster said, which was that it was so much easier dealing with community housing organisations rather than Kāinga Ora, and he mentioned about Kāinga Ora’s stopping building. I have a couple of reflections on that. One is, of course, that in the great city of Dunedin—not that far away from Christchurch, but a good four hours’ drive—there are some wonderful examples of Kāinga Ora housing developments that were ready to go. They were all consented, houses demolished, 41 sites on Carroll Street, and what has this Government done? Ended it. What’s happening in Port Chalmers? They’re trying to sell the land when we’re at the lowest part of the cycle, and this land has been public housing for a long, long time.

Shame on this Government and those members trying to say that they are supportive of public housing. Those are not the facts on the ground, and particularly in my electorate of Dunedin.

I also heard some reference to “Well, maybe this housing trust can extend out to the rest of the country.”, and there was some quibbling from the member for Southland about the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust. Of course, that is a very great housing trust, and I agree with the member’s quibbling on that point. It does relate back to my Dunedin examples of where perhaps the Minister of Housing would like to come and talk to communities in Dunedin about building those 41 units in Carroll Street. I’ve invited him many times.

But—moving on—good for Christchurch, good for the areas around Christchurch that might be in different local government areas, and congratulations again to the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her fantastic advocacy always for the people of Christchurch.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (17:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a great day to stand and talk about Christchurch. So it is with great pleasure—[Interruption] My colleagues are giving me a bit of grief. I think they think I’m a little bit one-eyed, but that’s fine. It’s a great pleasure that I stand in support of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill.

It is a private bill that has been brought to the House by the Hon Dr Megan Woods, and the Social Services and Community Committee have been going through it. I have been looking through their report, and I just do want to acknowledge the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. It’s one of the few select committees I’ve only ever been subbed on. I think I’ve been subbed on to most of the other ones, but this one is probably the least out of all. But I don’t hold that against them, and especially not the chair Joseph Mooney for the work that he does.

It did cause me to look through the submissions that have gone on before this bill, and there weren’t very many. I do believe there were nine, and so it’s probably not an overly contentious bill. Just reading through those submissions, I think it’s probably quite important to maybe highlight some of them because some of the submitters might come and have a submission before the select committee, but they may not necessarily think that the rest of the House actually takes into consideration what they’ve thought.

I thought I would just kind of read through and see what some of the submitters had to say about this bill, bearing in mind it hasn’t been overly contentious. There were only nine written submissions and five oral submissions, but they included a very good submission from the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust. I do just want to acknowledge the team there and the work that they do, and I will get back to talking about them a little bit later.

There was one submitter, Stephen, who was a former tenant of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust. He was very supportive of this bill because he had benefited from the work that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust does. As we’ve heard, they do have public and social housing. They also have affordable rentals and they do have that progressive model to be able to get people into homeownership. I do wonder whether Stephen probably did benefit from that latter scheme to actually end up having his own home, which is what we hope that all New Zealanders can achieve. I think that is a very good goal.

Interestingly enough, one of the submissions actually had a screen capture of me speaking in the first reading. It’s not very often in submissions to select committee that you see a screenshot of yourself, and so I was quite chuffed to see that. Luckily, it was in complimentary terms about some of the language I’d used about it being a registered charity, so Anna had just taken that screenshot of me. It’s not every day that you see that when you look at a select committee submission.

Also, not all the submissions were for the bill. Some were maybe a little bit misguided in what they thought the bill was going to do, but I suppose you’d come to expect that there are some that are going to have different views. One concern was raised that they didn’t want the trust to be spread too thin right across the country, and I think that that probably speaks to the quality of the housing trust that this submitter didn’t want to see that quality being diminished by kind of spreading it too far. You never know, Madam Speaker, they might even be able to spread to the West Coast, if we pass this bill. Maybe you can get—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Who knows?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yeah, who knows—who knows. You may get some love from Christchurch, all the way over in the West Coast, one can only hope, because it is a very good community housing trust, if I may say so myself. That’s not just because it’s from Christchurch, but that does stand it in good stead.

Just looking through some of the statistics, it is the largest non-government provider of community and affordable housing in the South Island, and it is registered under the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. It manages more than 2,400 homes, serving more than 2,800 tenants across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, which is interesting, because I was busy looking through where all the units are located. I found that about 187 of those units just happen to be in the mighty Ilam electorate. Ilam has probably about 900 Kāinga Ora homes as well. We’re probably in the top 50 percent—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You probably sold quite a few of those.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —of State houses, and actually, we have brought in—

Reuben Davidson: He didn’t deny it.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: There was a bit of an interjection from the other side. We have actually brought in some rules toughening up about tenants in Kāinga Ora, because that’s probably the number one issue that comes through my office door—the antisocial behaviour that goes on in some of the Kāinga Ora homes. You have lovely young families in Kāinga Ora homes, and they have neighbours that are displaying very aggressive antisocial behaviour, and the previous Government did nothing about fixing the problem. We did fix that problem.

The thing is, as has already been mentioned, this didn’t happen just in isolation. It has been in conjunction with the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn Council, the Waimakariri Council, and also Environment Canterbury to make sure that there’s broad support. I think it does show that there’s growth in Christchurch. Christchurch has the highest level of domestic migration anywhere in the country. That’s, I think, kind of showing the boom that is happening in the area.

If we look at building consents for new homes in the year ending in June 2026, there were 8,647 new homes consented—that’s an increase of 33 percent. Canterbury is also the record holder for the number of new homes consented per 1,000 residents. We’ve got 12.1 new homes consented per 1,000 residents, and I think the national average is around 7.4, and I think that talks to the growth.

We have heard from the member for Selwyn, Nicola Grigg, that a lot of the growth is in Selwyn, and it’s also in the Waimakariri district as well. The trust has seen this growth and the need to grow and expand in those areas. I think this bill does make perfect sense. It does allow expansion past the district of Christchurch. Of course, when you talk about Christchurch, people often think that includes places like Rolleston and Kaiapoi and things like that, but we’re actually talking about the local authority area of Christchurch.

This is really just a simple fix. As we say on this side, we’re fixing the basics and building the future, so this is fixing the—

Hon Member: It’s a beautiful thing.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: It’s beautiful thing, that’s right. We’re fixing a very basic thing with this bill.

Also, just getting back to the select committee report; it is a fairly brief report—only a couple of pages—and probably that reflects that the bill itself is actually really only a couple of pages long and very straightforward. Of course, it had to come to Parliament; it was the only way that this bill could be changed—hence we’re dealing with it in the House. It might seem a little bit strange that we’re dealing with what would seem a fairly straightforward and even minor issue here in the House, but it’s good just to kind of outline that.

There were a few changes recommended to the bill, and those amendments were passed unanimously by the select committee, and hat is really what happens if the trust was to wind up. If you’d built a whole lot of houses down in Ashburton, would then the benefit go back to the people in Ashburton, or would it all kind of go back to Christchurch? Of course, I’m not overly biased, but it’s great to see that the trust is still focusing on Christchurch because it is, of course, the best city in the country. It’s good that we can actually spread the love around. This is a very efficient trust. I think, since its inception in 2016, they have built over 134 houses by actually kind of returning back their returns into the building. Also, I think it has given back about $130 million to the Christchurch City Council in rates. It’s an amazing organisation. Of course, they have developed expertise, strong governance, and a proven operating model, and I think has the capacity to kind of spread that model further around the country. Maybe some other community providers, or maybe people who aren’t in the community housing providing space but want to get there could actually follow what they did.

Following the earthquakes, of course, our city did face some enormous challenges, but we’ve learnt the value of partnership—whether it be with NGOs, with the charitable sector, and also local bodies. The trust, of course, did grow from the Christchurch City Council, and it has evolved into a very highly regarded community organisation. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill

Second Reading

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (17:36): I move, That the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a second time.

It is a privilege to stand in this House today as both the sponsor of this bill and the member of Parliament for the East Coast, soon to be East Cape, representing the communities that will be directly affected by the bill’s passage. At its heart, this is a practical bill, a community-focused bill, and a bill about ensuring that a successful local institution can continue to serve the people it was established to benefit, but with a new focus and a wider statutory purpose that enables much greater opportunities for support in our community.

To recap, Trust Horizon was created following the reforms to New Zealand’s electricity sector under the Energy Companies Act 1992. Since then, it has become an important source of funding and support for communities throughout Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa. For more than three decades, it has operated under a trust deed that requires its grants to be directed towards energy-related purposes. That purpose reflected the circumstances of the time. However, communities change, their needs change, their aspirations change, and what may have been an appropriate framework in the early 1990s has become increasingly restrictive in the 2020s.

The wonderful Social Services and Community Committee—a great bunch of people—has heard evidence that Trust Horizon now holds assets of more than $200 million, yet the range of projects it can support remains constrained by a narrow requirement that funding be linked to energy-related purposes only. This has meant, for example, that the trust could fund a new solar development on the roof of a sports club, but it could not pay to fix the roof itself. The trust has found itself in a position where it wishes to distribute more funding into the community, but the scope of eligible projects has just been too limited. Meanwhile, Eastern Bay of Plenty continues to face significant challenges and opportunities across housing, education, health, environmental restoration, community development, sport programmes, and social wellbeing. This bill seeks to address that mismatch.

The central proposal is simple: it broadens the trust’s objects from energy-related purposes to the wider concept of charitable purposes within the district served by the trust and for the people of its region. Energy remains fundamental to the prosperity and resilience of our region, and Trust Horizon has made a significant contribution to energy initiatives over many years and will continue to have the ability to support such projects into the future. What this bill does now is provide flexibility; it allows trustees to respond to the real needs of their communities, rather than having those decisions constrained by an increasingly outdated legal definition.

During the select committee process, there was robust engagement from across the Eastern Bay of Plenty. We heard from a large number of organisations—from former mayors to charitable organisations to sports clubs and various others. We heard from local government as well, philanthropic bodies, and members of the public. Many of those submitters recognised what appears obvious to local residents: that charitable funding should be capable of addressing the issues that matter most to local communities at any particular point in time. It’s fair to say that the select committee did have a robust conversation on a number of occasions, and I know that there were members, including yourself, Madam Speaker, on the committee who gave their views that it was important to retain the original intent of the trust, which was energy-related, in its future form. The committee carefully considered the issues and ultimately concluded that the bill should proceed, albeit with some small changes to ensure that that initial integrity of the trust was maintained.

I do want to take just a moment to acknowledge all of those who participated in that submissions process and in the select committee, whether they supported the bill, whether they expressed concerns, or whether they simply sought different aspects of clarification. The contributions helped ensure that Parliament examined the proposal thoroughly and responsibly. We did have some—as I say—robust conversations, and I think we’ve landed in a really good place with it. The select committee resolved unanimously to ensure that the dual purpose, energy-related purposes, and other charitable purposes were to be allowed going forward, and the trust could then expand its philanthropic work while staying true to its initial legislative set-up.

A second important feature of the bill concerns any future amendments to the trustees. One of the things that we’re always quite keen to do is ensure, when these kinds of Acts come before us, that they don’t end up just going in a circular process and keep coming back to the House and back to the House and back to the House again. So the proposal from them was a good one, and that concerns future amendments to the trust deed, if there are any to be done in the future. Currently, any significant variation requires the extraordinary step of returning to Parliament through a further private bill at great cost and time to the House, as well, which is a cumbersome process and one not typical of a modern trust governance set-up. Accordingly, the bill as it’s amended now introduces a mechanism that would enable future amendments to the trust deed, subject to the approval of the High Court. That safeguard is significant. It ensures that any future changes must be demonstrably in the interests of the trust and consistent with its charitable purposes, while avoiding the need for Parliament to revisit administrative matters more appropriately dealt with through the courts. This strikes a balance between flexibility and accountability. It gives the trust the ability to adapt over time, while preserving appropriate oversight and public confidence.

As the local East Coast MP, I’ve had the privilege of meeting countless organisations and volunteers across our region. I’ve seen sports clubs keeping young people engaged and active. I’ve seen community groups supporting families through difficult times. I’ve seen environmental projects restoring waterways and native habitats, educational initiatives helping young people reach their potential, and I’ve seen iwi charities and local organisations working tirelessly to build stronger communities. Many of these groups face constant pressure to secure sustainable funding. This bill now creates the opportunity for Trust Horizon to play a larger role in supporting the aspirations of its community. The significance of that opportunity should never be underestimated.

Trust Horizon has already distributed millions of dollars back into the community over its history, yet the evidence before us suggests that even greater benefits can be achieved, as the trust is now allowed to invest according to community need rather than a narrow historical restriction. Ultimately, this bill is about trust, not merely in the legal sense—not merely in the name—but also in the wider, broad, community sense. It’s about trusting local people to identify local priorities, it’s about trusting trustees to act responsibly within an appropriate governance framework, and it is about trusting communities to determine what success and wellbeing look like for themselves.

I wish to pay tribute and acknowledge the trustees, staff, and leadership of Trust Horizon. Their approach throughout this process has been thoughtful, helpful, and transparent. They have recognised both the responsibility that comes with managing a substantial community asset and the importance of ensuring those assets generate the greatest possible public benefit. They have worked with the select committee in an open and transparent way, and this has been extremely helpful for all of us to work through.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee, under the chairmanship of Joseph Mooney. Thank you very much for the hard work that you did and the various conversations we had.

But, most of all, for the people of Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa, this legislation represents an opportunity to unlock greater investment, greater flexibility, and greater impacts for future generations. I’m proud to sponsor this bill on behalf of the region I represent, and I thank members across the House for their consideration of it. It will be a bit of a race against time to get it through before the end of the parliamentary term, but I know we are all doing our very best to try and see that happen.

As a result, and in the best sense of it, I wanted to add that I’ve just flown back—I literally ran into the House to deliver this speech, which I was very keen to do. I thank my colleague Tom Rutherford, who was standing by to step in, if need be. The great news of today in the other part of my electorate is the announcement of the special school in Gisborne, which is a brand-new school for those with challenging educational needs. I just think it’s worth noting on the basis of the wonderful electorate that the East Cape is, and the very great need it has for extensive investment across education, health, and roading infrastructure.

As a result—Madam Speaker, thank you for indulging me in that last little piece—I will move—

Dr Carlos Cheung: Fixing the basics.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Yeah, we will be fixing the basics and building the future, but I commend the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’d like to congratulate the member who’s just taken her seat, Dana Kirkpatrick, for bringing this private bill to the House on behalf of her community. I’d also like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee that considered this bill and put the work into it.

Labour is supporting this bill, as we did at the first reading. What we know is that Trust Horizon is a significant community asset. It was created to serve the people of the Eastern Bay of Plenty. What this bill is asking to do is to give the trust flexibility to continue to deliver benefits for their community as circumstances change. The bill seeks to address a very practical problem. Trust Horizon says it has accumulated substantial assets over time, which its existing trustee places very tight limits on in its ability to distribute and the purposes for which those funds can be used. This bill is asking that we broaden those purposes to allow the trust to support other activities in the area and to the people that the trust deed lays out, namely the people of Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa.

Trust Horizon was established through the energy sector reforms under the Energy Companies Act of the 1990s. These trusts speak to a point in our history in terms of the breaking-up of energy in our country and the way this was distributed to communities. Labour supporting this bill does not mean accepting the proposition that energy-related opportunities in our regions have been exhausted—just the opposite. What we do accept is that the purpose as it sits at the moment constrains what the trust can do within our energy sector.

I do acknowledge, at this point, that private bills are designed to address narrow local issues that are largely technical in nature. Usually, they pass through this House really cooperatively; there is a desire for members to work together on this, and that is the spirit in which we have approached this. But beneath this, and something we have not applied to our consideration of this bill, sits the broader part of party-political agendas around what we should be doing in terms of the organisation of our energy system. While we are supporting this bill because they are operating within the environment as it exists at the moment, that does not mean we don’t think there should be broader consideration of that environment.

We are moving into an era of greater electricity demand. Households and businesses are electrifying, and that’s something we want to see. We’re seeing transport electrify, we’re seeing heating electrify, and we’re seeing industrial use electrify around the world. At the same time, communities also need a more resilient electricity system, one that can withstand extreme weather events, that can reduce power bills, and that give people more control over the energy. That’s what we call our electricity distribution businesses, or EDBs. Horizon, in one of its guises, is the local lines company for that area. That’s where we need to think about the role of these businesses in the 21^st century. We need to stop judging networks simply by how much copper and concrete they can install, and we need to benchmark networks on whether they can deliver affordable, reliable electricity to their communities.

Now, this is not the environment that is currently operational. Change needs to be made to allow this to happen. We need to make sure that we are putting in place those changes that will allow this, and that is exactly what Labour has said it will do, putting in place those benchmarks around affordability rather than simply building poles and wires, rewarding electricity networks for delivering reliable, affordable capacity, testing the networks to see whether they are affordable and reliable, and recognition around the cheapest form of delivery. These kinds of changes would open up so many more opportunities for trusts like Horizon to deliver electricity and energy-related projects in their local area.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good save.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, absolutely. This is about what a lines company can and can’t do. What we are seeing at this election, as we go in to it, is we are going to see a contest of ideas around that. Labour has put out a proposal in Solarsaver that expands the role of an electricity distribution business. It sets up exactly what can’t be done and what Horizon is saying it can’t do in terms of the ability to lend for solar and batteries in the way that would take pressure off its need to build poles and wires. This is exactly what the Sustainable Energy Association of New Zealand’s (SEANZ) submission to the bill said. SEANZ came to the select committee and they said look, “There are all kinds of other ways that we could be using our distribution businesses in the 21st century, but it is going to require Governments to make change.”

So nobody here is judging Horizon for what they’re doing What we are saying is in order for them to operate differently, we need a Government that is prepared to change the system, and we haven’t seen it from the current Government. But, at this election, we have that alternative being put up—the ability for our lines companies to really get in there and make the difference.

When we’re considering the way in which a trust like this really can support its community, not seeing energy sitting over here and community sitting over there, but seeing the delivery of very affordable solutions for its community and the ability for a lines companies to engage in those activities is something that we believe a Government should do. And that’s something that needs to be there, because there should not be a choice about community investment and energy enhancements. They should be one and the same. We should be making our communities more resilient. We should be having more affordable energy going into our communities, and this is the New Zealand that, on this side of the House, we want to see.

In the meantime, we are more than happy to support this private bill because this is the environment in which they operate and we recognise that. But we think that as a party that is seeking to be the Government, that it is our responsibility to put up options, to make the changes so that we actually can have a New Zealand where we have more affordable, more reliable energy, and that we have organisations like this able to be more active players. At the moment, the regulated asset base keeps them from doing many of the things. Change needs to be made, but we are happy to support this bill. We can see that this is an organisation that is seeking to serve its community within the current framework, but we are signalling that we want to modernise the environment in which organisations like this operate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to support this bill. I want to thank Dana Kirkpatrick and the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Joseph Mooney, for the very helpful discussion we had on this bill and the movement that we were able to achieve working together. I did note that I participated also in the discussion of this bill, which somehow has been left off, but I wanted to participate because this is going to be the electric election. This bill is important for that reason, because when we initially discussed it, it was about simply opening it up to all charitable purposes. I am very pleased that we managed to ensure that we are keeping energy-related charitable purposes as a priority, and other charitable purposes subsequently. So it really does open it up.

One of the useful things, and I think this is something I just want to raise for the House—one of the examples that was given of why this needs to be done was the example of a property that needed a roof replaced and that that wouldn’t be covered as an energy-related purpose. I just think this is a helpful thing that we actually try and understand: what is an energy-related purpose? A roof is part of the thermal envelope of a building. It has an energy-related purpose. Under my reading of an energy-related purpose under this bill, that’s a poor example; it should have been able to be funded. Nevertheless, we have something here that is going to open up things, and the Trust Horizon is a member of the Community Energy Network. The Community Energy Network is a network of community organisations that work on energy hardship and energy innovation around the country. That’s important because there’s so much that needs to be done. We’ve heard the Government wants to put in 10,000 EV chargers, or are going to under this term. Well, we are far from that, but if we can enable an organisation or a trust to do some of that work, they can pick up where the Government’s failed.

We’ve heard that we need greater investment, community energy accelerators that some of the networks, Orion for example, have funded. That’s some more work that this change can enable; where the Government’s taken away money from the Community Renewable Energy Fund, we now look to trusts and electricity distribution businesses to provide for those services. To that point, we are very pleased to have launched our energy policy to support community energy. I think this will feed into Trust Horizon and their ability to build their own energy as it’s to build resilience for their communities. We should be thinking about democratisation of our energy system, decentralisation of our energy system, and decarbonisation of our energy system. That’s what this bill is going to enable. We should not be thinking big, we should be thinking decentralised.

We support this bill, and we think it fits extremely well with the Green Party energy policy, which we will implement in a few months when we’re in Government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. We’ll see you all here back at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. When we finished, we were on the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill, second reading. The next call is call No. 4 for ACT—Laura McClure.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (19:30): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise in support of the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. As a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, we had this bill come to us, and it was brought by the member Dana Kirkpatrick, so I want to thank her for bringing this bill to Parliament. Unlike the previous bill, this one was a little bit more controversial. There was actually more of a significant change requested to the deed. Trust Horizon needed their deed changed so that they could move away from supporting just energy-related projects and to be able to fund other projects in the community, because they found that they had a very large, voluptuous bank account needing to be spent, so they looked out to community to see what other projects they could fund, and there were all kinds of different things. To be honest, in the submission process, we heard from a lot of organisations that could really do with some funds right now, given that there are tough fiscal constraints and, actually, philanthropy is down a little bit.

It makes sense to be able to expand their remit, but also, at the same time, we wanted to take into account the fact that there are actually a lot of energy issues out there for people, particularly in the Bay of Plenty. My colleague Cameron Luxton is from a place called Murupara. Trust Horizon have some of the lines there, and they’ve had issues in the past—big power outages. You’ve got a really small, low socio-economic community and power and resilience for them and energy security is obviously really important.

There were questions raised. I haven’t actually heard the previous contribution, but also the Greens had issues with what it actually means to go out of that remit, and had they really exhausted all of the options when it came to energy-related projects There were suggestions around whether you could even actually just lower people’s power bills, but as it turns out, that is not actually something that the trust can do.

But where I think we landed given all the submissions on this bill was that we came to a compromise where we kept energy-related purposes as the first and foremost—what would you say?—requirement of the trust to take into consideration when actually making grants or applications. If it turns out that they have applications, for example, that are energy-related projects and also they may have things like funding, I don’t know, a hospice or something else, we would expect that the energy-related projects would still be given priority. That is because that was the original idea of the trust being set up, and it is a dividend from an energy supplier. I think that that is really good.

But what we heard from the submitters, and also from the trust themselves, is that sometimes they want to fund projects like—they talked about a marae where they wanted to fund some of the energy projects there but they also wanted to build a new roof, for example, and put in some other things within the marae to actually make it the most energy-efficient it could be, but given their remit, they were unable to do that. They could only fund the electrical power component and the switchboards and things like that. That actually felt like the project was not going to be completed, and, in fact, the project didn’t go ahead, because they couldn’t get the funding for the other part of the project. The trust wanted to be able to expand this out so that they could, say, complete a full project for someone in the community, and we think that that is a really good thing to do—and, at the same time, keeping that energy-related charitable purpose at the forefront.

I commend this bill. I want to thank the member again for bringing it. I want to thank my colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee for the scrutiny of this bill.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Great committee—great committee.

LAURA McCLURE: Absolute great committee—the best committee; no bias at all from us. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (19:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill, and first also to congratulate Dana Kirkpatrick for her work on this bill. You have been challenged a little bit in the Social Services and Community Committee, but you’ve definitely brought all the information the committee needed, and the way that you’ve shepherded this bill up to this point has been really, really impressive.

The select committee had 38 submissions in total, but we heard from eight oral submissions, and those submissions were quite interesting because they were quite a flavour of the Eastern Bay of Plenty—different people and different groups that came along and spoke to us. They spoke to us in favour of this bill and about how it could create opportunities.

What also happened was, before this came to Parliament, there was actually a poll, and I think that’s worth mentioning as well. There was a poll of—I think it was 3,469 people who took part in that poll, and over 80.7 percent of the people said, “Yes, this is a really good idea.” So there was actually public support to actually see this change go ahead.

As we also realise, this is a private bill, and something I just want to touch on, also sitting on the Standing Orders Committee, where we’re looking at different changes going ahead into the next Parliament: something like this, and the previous bill that’s been already spoken to tonight, there’s a lot of time that’s been taken up in the House with these types of bills. They are worthy in part, but for the amount of time and effort to go through select committee then come through the House and to get the resolution that’s needed—why I draw the House’s attention to that is it is my understanding there are 100-plus bills that are similar to this one and similar to the other one that we’ve already debated this evening. The issue with that is it’s taking up so much of the House’s time, and there needs to be some thought around a more efficient way of actually dealing with these types of issues with trusts.

But Trust Horizon, they did come on their merit, and the bill is with us, and it is about getting a better contribution to the community it serves. As I mentioned, that is the Eastern Bay of Plenty community, and if we just see at the moment on the news across New Zealand the cold weather that is affecting all of us, even here in Wellington with snow falling yesterday, it’s these types of trusts that give so much benefit to communities in what they actually do.

This trust has had a long history since back in 1992. It was formed in the energy sector reforms, and at that time it was the Energy Companies Act 1992 that gave life to this. A deed was written up in 1994, and why we go back to 1994 is because at that time, the purpose was the energy-related purpose of this trust, and that’s something that we’ve got to keep mindful—and the committee was very mindful, and challenged the sponsor a little bit on this, that we didn’t want to lose the original purpose of the bill, and that was to be related back to an energy-related purpose.

The ironic thing is that each year, because this trust has built up so much money—over $200 million in assets—40 percent of the net income goes back into supporting energy transition aims. That’s renewable energy, and that’s something that’s going to continue. But the other 60 percent go towards the local community funding and grants. That’s actually the issue we’ve got here. Ironically, the trust in one sense has too much money. That’s a very rare thing to get up in this House to say that you’ve got too much money, but it’s not actually too much money; they just can’t get it out the door to where they need to get it out to. The idea of actually opening the scope up to other charitable purposes was the idea of this coming to the select committee and then allowing the community to actually access the money, not just for the energy-related purposes but for charitable purposes as well.

We’ve heard from a number of the other speakers that ironic thing that happened where insulation or heating within a building could be granted by the trust, but then we had the situation with the roof. The roof wasn’t classed as something that the trust could fund. That meant that some of the projects that they wished to fund, they had to wait on another third party to come along to fund that part of the project before then they could come along with the charitable energy trust money to fund that. What this actually does is actually opens the door where the trust can fund a full project and get it across the line.

In a previous life, one of my former jobs at the Marlborough District Council was being a hearings commissioner for the Resource Management Act. We always had to use the term, when we were making decisions, of “weighting”—weighting up the weight of a decision or information that you received. This here became the contentious part of this bill, where originally we had the energy-related charitable purpose, and now also adding a charitable purpose to it. The committee, over a number of weeks, discussed at length what actually has the weighting—whether the energy-related issues would always outweigh the charitable purpose, or whether both of those things put together a decision maker could look at either one and then grant. I think where the committee’s come to, not in the fact that we’ve weighted a priority of one or two, but in the decision, we’ve made a decision where we’ve made it quite clear that the energy-related part of the trust is the first thing that they need to be funding and looking at. Then the charitable part should be the second part. But it’s not written in a priority order, but we’ve given that clear direction.

On that, this is a very, very good, common-sense thing that the committee’s taken the time and looked at what is the best use of this money. As I say, having over $200 million that keeps accumulating, and actually to be able to get some more of that out the door, for New Zealand First, makes it common sense. It’s something in our regions. We want to see our regions thrive as much as possible. By making this small change to this trust, we’ll make sure that the eastern Bay of Plenty community can get on with projects. So I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mike Davidson—five minutes.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (19:44): Mr Speaker, thank you. I’m actually very surprised—after listening to the criticism about the amount of time these types of bills take up in the House, and I also understand there’s desire to ensure that some of these bills pass all their stages before the end of the parliamentary term—at the duration of some of the calls that we’ve been hearing tonight. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (19:44): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. I wish to commend the member Dana Kirkpatrick, the great member for the East Coast, who’s brought this bill on behalf of her community and has done a sterling job on shepherding this bill through the House. I wish to also just acknowledge the sterling work that Trust Horizon does in its communities. It’s one of those rare organisations that has actually been so good at doing its job that it has over $200 million more than it can spend, which is a highly unusual thing.

Maybe it’s worth just going back a little bit into the history. I think it’s been touched on from a few other speakers, but I think it’s quite important. As a charitable trust, it was established through the sector reforms under the Energy Companies Act 1992. It was established as part of the establishment plan for the Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board back in 1994. It was given a very specific purpose: its purpose was to provide funding for energy-related purposes within its district, which includes Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa. Now, we’ve had quite a discussion in our committee about that original intention and what this bill is intending to do, which is to expand it from just energy-related purposes to allow it to focus on other initiatives in its area of interest and reflect the needs of its community in recognising that this community does have quite a few challenges that are not just energy-related.

We listened carefully to submitters. I want to thank all of those submitters who did both written submissions and oral submissions to our committee. We received submissions from 38 interested groups and individuals, and thank you to all of them. We heard oral evidence from eight submitters. The majority were in support. There was some concern raised by one or two submitters about expanding energy-related definition. We really canvassed this with the trust itself and with advisers. The advice that they had is that they would like to do a lot more, but they were constrained in what they could do, including in things that some members thought would be obviously energy-related, but the advice that the trust had was that would actually be outside of the scope of the legal definition.

So we did carefully consider this as a committee. We recommend the dual purpose that this bill will now have. So it’ll be a consequential insertion of energy-related charitable purposes, and also it has a dual purpose for other charitable purposes. So it’ll be up to the trust to determine those two purposes and how the funds are allocated to the community, but we do and did recommend that the trust continues to give weighting to energy-related charitable purposes where practical—that is “where practical”.

There’s one other thing I should mention, because I’m quite familiar with another trust, which was founded in the same time period. This is down my way—the Central Lakes Trust, which is also founded from the Energy Companies Act 1992 and the Electricity Industry Reform Act 1998, which required power boards to be incorporated, allowing communities to determine how the shares of the new energy companies were held. It’s just interesting to compare the difference between Trust Horizon and Central Lakes Trust, because many communities, including the central lakes down in my part of the world, allocated shares into trusts, as was done here. In this case, in central lakes, while many trusts retained their lines business, with the 1998 reforms, Otago Central Electric Power Board sold their lines business but retained the generation business, now called Pioneer Energy, which is actually a very, very good company. Those assets were settled into the Central Lakes Trust, and it forms part of the investment portfolio which powers their grants. In that case, it was determined that the purposes would be for the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, and other purposes beneficial to the community.

I just raise that to illustrate that different communities at the same time around the country determined different things. On the East Coast in this case, the determination was for energy-related purposes. We, now, fast-forward to 2026, and they’ve realised that they’ve accumulated over $200 million that they think could be better allocated to other things, including energy-related purposes. I know my colleague Sam Uffindell also has communities of interest in this area, and I’ve spoken to both of these great members of Parliament, who are very strongly representing their communities and are both strongly supportive of this bill, and I thank them both for their advocacy and representation of their communities.

There was an example that the trust explained in terms of the challenges they currently face. If they were to fund an energy project, such as installation or heating for a building, at present, a different stream of funding would be needed to build the roof. Broadening the trust purposes, in this case, would allow it to fund projects that are energy-related without relying on another sponsor for other components of the infrastructure. I did hear from another member on this point earlier in the evening, and it’s a very good point that he made. It’s that the roof of a building is, in fact, part of the energy envelope of a building, and should be a really important part of ensuring the energy component that will protect the loss of energy is done properly. But, in this case, the trust had been constrained in the interpretation they’d been given. That’s a good, practical example of how this can actually help with something that is energy-related but had been deemed to be out of scope.

We also did take a close look at whether this could be done by other means. We looked carefully at this, as we do on all of these types of bills, and we were satisfied that the only way we could have this consequential amendment was through the parliamentary process and through this mechanism. Laura McClure did speak earlier—and it’s something we’ve been discussing for a while now as a committee, as we’ve had a few of these bills coming through in this term for these trusts who are needing to come to Parliament to have a change to their empowering trust legislation. It has to come to Parliament: we then have to have a first reading; we then have to have a select committee process; then we have a second reading, as we are tonight; and then a committee of the whole House process; and then the third reading.

Broadly speaking—and, I think, with all of the trust bills, in fact, that we’ve had in this Parliament—we’ve actually all agreed on the outcome and the changes that have been recommended by the trusts with the very broad support of their communities. All of the parliamentarians in my committee that have been discussing this are all in agreement that it would be worth Parliament’s time to look at, actually, a mechanism to—and I see Helen White nodding; thumbs up—

Helen White: Yep.

JOSEPH MOONEY: —to look at a mechanism where a sort of omnibus bill could address scenarios like this, where there is broad agreement, there isn’t controversy, and there could be a mechanism so that all of these types of bills could be changed without coming to Parliament and taking up Parliament’s time. It’s not that we don’t appreciate the opportunity to speak to these communities, to hear from them and to help them empower them to do what they have decided as being in the best interest of their communities, but we think, in cases like this and all the ones we’ve had in this Parliament, that that actually could be done much more effectively. I think that’s a good piece of work for a future Parliament to work on. We’re short on time in this Parliament to do it, but it’s something that we would really like to recommend going forwards.

I’m going to conclude my comments very shortly, but I just wanted to say that I know what a fantastic region that this area covers. I have been fortunate in the past to visit it, including with both members of Parliament who happen to be sitting beside me tonight, who represent different parts of it—oh, and Tom Rutherford; can’t miss Tom. Great members of Parliament. It’s an area that people are very passionate about, and this is fundamentally an opportunity to help empower that community to determine its own destiny. That’s 100 percent something that I think all members of Parliament are in support of. The National Party is, of course, really about strengthening communities, and we want to recommend this bill to the House as an opportunity to build their future.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:54): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Look, we will be supporting this bill, and I want to acknowledge the member who’s shepherded this bill through, Dana Kirkpatrick. It’s always a privilege as a member to shepherd a bill through the House, particularly when it’s got support from the Parliament.

This is a bill that seeks to deliver for members of the Eastern Bay of Plenty region. I’ll tell you what, though: what’s also going to deliver in the same energy space for members of the Eastern Bay of Plenty and much wider will be Labour’s SolarSaver policy, because that is about energy and ensuring that there is investment in areas that will support households who are really finding it difficult in the sense of energy efficiency and actually making a difference when it comes to cost of living. So while the fine folk of the Eastern Bay of Plenty will no doubt benefit from the change that this bill will make in terms of broadening the purpose for the monies to be made available for the community, it’s also good to see that Labour’s SolarSaver policy will also deliver benefits. We commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (19:55): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Unlike the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, I’m going to take a long time to talk through the many positives associated—

Tangi Utikere: This’ll be different!

TOM RUTHERFORD: This will be different, Tangi Utikere. I’m not going to be standing up here spouting off party-political messaging around it. I’m actually going to talk to the substance associated with the bill, for a nice change—for a nice change. I see a smile on your face, Mr Speaker. It’s a nice change to see a smile, as well.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): There’s no rules against irony, Mr Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD: There’s not, but it’s very clear—it’s very, very clear. Thank you very much.

The first acknowledgment must go to my friend, the exceptionally hard-working member of Parliament for the East Coast, soon to be the East Cape, Dana Kirkpatrick, who has done a phenomenal job not only representing her community—which, as she outlined in her speech leading off this second reading debate, is a really diverse community. If I think of the Eastern Bay of Plenty side and Whakatāne and Ōpōtiki, and then I think of the other side of her electorate with Gisborne and the many, many small communities that make up her East Coast electorate—she does a superb job getting her way around it, listening to those who come and speak with her and raise issues, and then advocating and fighting on their behalf. That is the true testament of a really strong local member of Parliament.

This is a bit of an anomaly of the way Parliament works, where local members of Parliament often have to bring these private bills to fix something. We often stand here, and I can remember, goodness me, it feels like many, many times just in this three-year term where I think, gosh, why is Parliament—not that this isn’t an important change; this is really important, and I’m going to dive into that. But, gosh, why do we have to get here to do this? Why did we actually have to bring this bill to the House to actually bring about this change? Surely there must be a way that we can fix that and make this more streamlined and easier for people, rather than having to—not necessarily waste Parliament’s time, but not have to waste their time waiting for Parliament to deliver that change.

Actually, as I was reading to prepare for my contribution this evening, I noted that, actually, that was one of the changes that is enabled in this piece of legislation—and Dana mentioned it in her contribution, and I thought it was a really worthwhile point, where she mentioned that any future changes actually won’t require coming back to the Parliament to do. It can be done through the court process, and, ideally, they won’t need to do that either. It can just be delivered as we’re intending for it to be.

Ultimately, the bill is about amending the terms of the trustee to broaden the Trust Horizon’s objectives to include any charitable purpose. I think that’s really noble of them. They’ve worked pretty damn hard to raise the funds that they’ve got sitting there, and they want to make sure that they can put it to the best possible purpose across their community. I think that is something that is worth commending. They want to bring about changes that will directly or indirectly benefit their district in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. At present, they are fiercely limited in what they can do. They are limited to objects that are only energy-related projects and purposes for the district. I think, by broadening that, they’re going to have a really positive impact across the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

They were established through the Energy Companies Act 1992, and as part of the establishment plan for the Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board. If I think back to the western side of the Bay of Plenty for a moment, I think we had Trustpower previously. If you were a local consumer of theirs, you would get your cheque in the mail; you would get your Trustpower cheque and that would come off your power bill, and you would get your discounted rate. It doesn’t quite work like that anymore, but what we’ve got instead in Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty is a phenomenal organisation called the Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust (TECT), and they do some of the most amazing and incredible work across our community. I look at Sam Uffindell and I look at Jan Tinetti across the House; both are nodding, because often what happens is someone says, “Oh, I’ve got this idea and I’m looking for funding.” The first response they get from almost anybody in our community is, “Have you asked TECT? Have you been to TECT to see whether they would help?” And boy oh boy do they have their fingers in so many pies across our community, bringing about really positive change, that I can just see that happening now for the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

That’s what this bill’s going to enable. I think of the amazing organisations that TECT has been involved in, in Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty, and I’m excited for the Eastern Bay of Plenty, because Trust Horizon are going to have that same opportunity. Ultimately, it’s not actually going to be about them; it’s going to be about the people of the Eastern Bay of Plenty who are going to benefit from those positive changes and the positive impacts that this investment is going to have for their future and for the future of their community. We’re talking about people who live in Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa. They’re going to really feel the positive impacts from these changes, and I’m pleased that our Parliament is going to be delivering it.

The trust considers that it’s at its natural limit to the amount of energy-related purposes that it can support within their district, so they’re capped at what they can do at the moment, and they’re saying, “We’ve actually got this money and we want to be able to allocate it to our community. Can you enable us to do it?” They say that they’ve built up over $200 million, and Joseph Mooney, in his contribution just before, actually paid credit to them for being able to even build it up. That takes really fantastic governance and management to have enabled that. I’m really pleased to see that they didn’t actually, you know, get the bazooka out and decide to just spend it all on something; they were actually really sensible and reasoned in their decision making, and I think that’s really positive.

On average at the moment, they’ve distributed about $1.7 million a year, and I note from reading the Social Services and Community Committee’s report here that they are wanting and willing to do more in that space for the Eastern Bay of Plenty. They want to distribute equity to benefit the district through a very broad remit of charitable purposes. I was pleased to hear, also—I wasn’t part of the select committee process, but I was pleased to hear that through that process there was quite significant scrutiny from a number of members who made up the select committee around whether changing that purpose was the right thing to do. That’s the right question to be asking, because, actually, we shouldn’t just rubber-stamp it and say, “Trust the people who have put this forward—this is what they’re wanting.” We actually need to say, “Is this the right thing to do?”—not just for the people standing there now in those governance positions and making those decisions but for the future of the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

A really good example that Dana Kirkpatrick gave in her contribution was that if they wanted to fund a solar panel project, they’d be able to do that, but if the roof it was going to be situated on needed to be repaired, they couldn’t put any money towards that. Most of us would sit here and go, “Gosh, isn’t that just ridiculous? Isn’t that simply so backwards?”: “We’ll give you the solar panels, but, sorry, you’re going to have to do something about that roof, and you’re going to have to do it on your own.” I think this is trying to get out of the way: get that stuff done, give us the easy process so that we can do it, and make some really positive changes.

The other points I wanted to highlight were some other points that Dana raised in her contribution as well around energy remaining fundamental to the prosperity and resilience of her region. It’s a really big challenge, not just for the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and not just for the East Coast, but all of New Zealand, but recognising that Trust Horizon have made a significant contribution to energy initiatives in the Eastern by Plenty over many, many years. Just by changing their purpose here, it won’t stop them from investing in those energy projects moving forward. It’s not saying that they’re not going to do it; it’s just saying we’re broadening the opportunities for them to invest. It’s going to allow their trustees to really respond to the needs of their community, and I think that is a really positive change.

Some of the other things I thought also were around how the bill is introducing a mechanism that would enable them to make further amendments in the future to the trust deed. I talked about this at the start of my contribution, about not having to come back here to Parliament, and I think that’s a really good thing—not that Dana Kirkpatrick wouldn’t be interested in, in future, sponsoring another member’s bill; I’m sure she’ll do many in her long tenure as the MP for East Coast, and soon to be the East Cape. But it’s about saying let’s make some common-sense changes here to improve it and not having to come back to this place again.

It also, in allowing it to go to the High Court rather than having to come back to Parliament, ensures that future changes will be in the interests of the trust and consistent with their charitable purpose while avoiding the need for Parliament to revisit administrative matters that, ultimately, I think are more appropriately dealt with through the courts. I think that’s a really fundamental process and place we need to find. It strikes that balance between flexibility but also some accountability as well.

Just in the final few seconds of my contribution, I just want to acknowledge that, sometimes, Parliament can be a really nice place where political parties can all come together and say, actually, this looks like the right thing to do. Tonight is one of those opportunities, with the previous bill, the Ōtautahi housing one that we just had previously that Dr Megan Woods was bringing to the House—and this side of Government was supportive of it as well. It’s the exact same with the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. It’s not about party politics, it’s not about who’s bringing the bill forward and whose name it is in, and it’s not about getting the win for one person over getting a win for somebody else; it’s about what’s best for that community and what is best for our country. So, in that vein, I commend my colleague Dana Kirkpatrick, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I remember, back in February it was, when this bill was first brought to the House by the member Dana Kirkpatrick, having the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. I remember saying at the time how I had looked up the work of the trust and what an amazing trust they are, given the narrow confines of what they have been able to operate under. I remember thinking how wonderful they will be and they’ll be able to grow on that when they have that extended remit that this bill is giving them.

So I think, with full support of the House, across the House, we’re doing a really good thing here tonight progressing it through to the next stage. I look forward to seeing the work of this trust continue and expand under their expanded remit, including the energy-related purposes that they’ve already had and now including charitable purposes. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (20:07): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I really love a community bill or a member’s bill, because it’s one of those things—when they’re originally made into law, I don’t think anyone having all the right intentions of, you know, turning an energy fund into something for the community would’ve thought, you know, “We’re going to do this and we’re going to ring-fence this funding and we’re going to make it really hard for them to do all these other things.” They would’ve thought, “How good is it that we can have some funding that’s come from our energy revenue and put it back into the community?” The fact that because we’ve made it a law, it then has to come back to Parliament to get changed, because we can see that the things that they intended to do with the bill in that fund are now not quite going to cut the mustard—there’s more that they want to do. They want to take it further, and they see that they can, but, somehow, they have to come back to Parliament and get us to change the law. You know, the world does move on, and so I think it’s great when we can come together and see the rationale behind this and get out of the way.

Look, it’s a National Party value to have limited government and have us involved in these things as little as possible. And, you know what, wonderful too that we have organisations like this that can provide funding to communities, community-led initiatives where the Government doesn’t have to intervene. But here we are today intervening just a little to enable them to do that work so we don’t have to intervene as much. How good is that?

Look, like all of my colleagues, a little bit of credit goes to Dana Kirkpatrick, MP for East Coast—soon to be MP for East Cape. I know how closely connected she is to these communities. Obviously, most people would know Whakatāne; most people would know Ōpōtiki. Kawerau and Kaingaroa—Kawerau is a little energy Mecca, a little geothermal energy Mecca, and we’ve heard a few things—

Dana Kirkpatrick: An industrial epicentre.

KATIE NIMON: Exactly; it is an industrial epicentre, and it’s actually a town that was set up around industry, and so it should benefit from industry. The fact that this trust is established to do this and we are better enabling it to do that is wonderful. Kaingaroa, a little forestry town that really is completely reliant, again, on industry, and lack thereof at times—it’s really important that these sectors and these trusts can do stuff to better support them.

I think no better point was made than my colleague Tom Rutherford, where we want to put solar on your roof—“Sorry, your roof is not fit for solar; we can give you the panels but we can’t fix your roof.” I mean, let’s get out of our own way and do the right thing here. I think this is a wonderful example.

We have an organisation in Hawke’s Bay called Unison—Unison’s our power company. You know, you grow up thinking everyone has Unison, but, actually, they’re regional entities, and they do wonderful things.

Stuart Smith: Mainland.

KATIE NIMON: No, well, look, not in the mainland, Stuart Smith; I’m sure Kaikōura has other wonderful companies that do similar things.

But in Hawke’s Bay, I mean, I’ve had conversations with Unison and the work that they want to do, and they are also bound by the rules of what their funding can go to. As Tom mentioned, also the Hawke’s Bay Power Consumers Trust and the cheque that you get in the mail for having a power bill, and actually what they would really rather do with that as well. We also have the Eastern and Central Community Trust that’s able to support community organisation—for example, in Wairoa a year and a half ago, it opened a new basketball court in Māhia, which is a little part of the Wairoa district, for members of the community. Those organisations are able to do that by listening to the community. And wonderful that the MP Dana Kirkpatrick, who knows these communities inside and out, is able to advocate on behalf of Trust Horizon.

I’d be really keen to know, actually, having not been on the Social Services and Community Committee, some of the people that submitted. Because you think members’ bills obviously really get a lot of passion and emotion and they’re rooted in issues that people have raised. Community bills and private bills like this are usually very technical, very much driven by necessity, and not largely called for from a huge range of people. So you often wonder: do you get the thousands of people writing in that are actually going to benefit from it, because I know how many people will greatly benefit from this change. But I have heard from my colleagues to my side that 36 people submitted. I have no doubt that, actually, in the scheme of things, those 36 people would have had a contribution that’s considered these amendments. I think the amendments as well give great consideration to the fact that we don’t want this trust to stray too far away from its core purpose, which is to stay around energy contribution. So with that, I think that it has been very thoughtful, the changes are clear, and this trust will go on to do great things. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:12): Mr Speaker, thank you. I was on the Social Services and Community Committee during the consideration of this bill. I think it’s a really good change that we’re making here. I was born in Kawerau, and so it’s close to my heart—

Hon Members: Aw.

HELEN WHITE: Yeah. It’s an area that is wonderful, it’s very beautiful, but it’s also very poor. It’s got a struggling community. So if we can get this bill through by the end of this Parliament, rather than taking full calls on it, I think that would be an excellent thing for that community. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (20:12): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s really good to be able to stand and speak on this bill. I want to start by acknowledging the trustees of Trust Horizon, who I understand are watching this from across the eastern bay—kia ora. It’s good to have you here watching, and I know you’ll be proud, just as everyone from around our region is as well.

After that little mention, I’d also like to mention my colleague from the East Coast Dana Kirkpatrick. It’s a real pleasure to be able to get bills like this up and also through the House—second reading today—but with support from the other side of the House as well. It doesn’t always happen, but when it does it’s a good thing, and it’s good to see Parliament operating like this, as they did on the previous bill, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill—that was good to see as well. In the spirit of conviviality, we’ll make this a positive speech about all of the positive things that will be coming from this bill.

Trust Horizon do some excellent work, and they have made significant contributions across the eastern bay over the past several decades. Starting out as the Eastern Bay Energy Trust, now as Trust Horizon, they have contributed over $40 million to projects across the eastern bay.

Katie Nimon: For some really good community projects.

SAM UFFINDELL: That’s absolutely right, Katie Nimon, there would be a number of good community projects. I was looking across their website earlier today, and I saw a number of things they’ve been investing in from apprenticeships—making a huge difference in an area which is a notoriously deprived area, relative to the rest of New Zealand. To have Trust Horizon stepping in and providing those apprenticeships not only makes an impact at that point of time, but over a lifetime for those people and their families as well. Also there’s been mention around the creation of warmer and healthier homes—that is a good thing; that is a really positive thing. The trust needs to be commended for all of the work that they have done in that space.

But like many things, when they set up initially, the purpose is what the purpose was at that point in time, and things have evolved. We’ve got to the stage now where there are greater opportunities for the trust to invest and support the community through other means. Initially, when it was set up, it had quite a tight charitable purpose. It was limited to those with an energy-related purpose. As members who have been sitting through this reading will know, this bill seeks to amend the terms of the Trust Horizon charitable trust deed to allow it to support a broader range of charitable activities within its district. I believe it was my colleague Joseph Mooney who spoke about the key towns and cities in the region and the district being Whakatāne, Kawerau—where the previous member Helen White noted that she was born—Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa. I also brought Joseph Mooney into the debate. I understand Joseph was also the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. Well done to you, Mr Chair, on getting the bill to where it is.

I will acknowledge, I think one of the members said today—it was probably yourself—that there was quite a lot of discussion and pushback and challenge through the process, which is good. It wasn’t just a walkthrough. There was a genuine attempt by committee members to move around and discuss and challenge and ultimately bring a pretty good bit of legislation back to the House.

I’ll talk a bit about some of the opportunities that there are. Look, the eastern bay is close to where I am, obviously, in Tauranga. There’s a lot of interactions. Part of the Bay of Plenty, but we do share a lot of services. There is a lot of stuff that is obviously centred in Tauranga, which is the major population base across the Bay of Plenty, where people from across eastern bay will come in—thinking specifically with the use of health services. I have spoken to people in our community who are very keen on a cancer lodge to be set up close to Tauranga Hospital. This is something that the trust wouldn’t have had that ability to contribute towards, given it isn’t an energy-related purpose; however, it would serve the broader purpose of assisting people from the eastern bay to come into Tauranga, to be able to be accommodated in Tauranga, and seek treatment at Tauranga Hospital. Without that service—and it is still in discussion phases at the moment—this is something that the trust may well consider in due course. But, hopefully, once this bill gets through the future stages—the committee of the whole House and then the third reading—it is something that they would be able to consider.

I note that my colleague from the ACT Party Cameron Luxton has walked in—another person from the bay. You should have been here giving a speech, Mr Luxton. I noticed that my colleague Mr Rutherford did talk about the excellent work that the Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust, colloquially known as TECT—

Tangi Utikere: What about this one?

SAM UFFINDELL: —does across our region. Jan Tinetti is here as well—kia ora, Jan Tinetti. But what a fantastic entity TECT is. You can walk anywhere into Tauranga and across the western bay with a charitable purpose, and you will see who the funders are—almost without exception, you will see TECT on the wall. Mr Rutherford was absolutely right: whenever anyone comes and says, “Look, I’ve got this community project that we want to look at, what would be your suggestion?”, one of the first questions would always be: “Have you spoken to TECT?” They are a fantastic organisation that serves their community incredibly well.

I have hopes and aspirations—as I know Dana Kirkpatrick will as well—that Trust Horizon will be able to provide that level of community care and support throughout the eastern bay. This bill brings us one step closer to this. I was reading, as well—and believe one of the other speakers mentioned it—that the trust has accumulated over $200 million in assets. That is a substantial capital base and assets that it cannot effectively distribute due to its narrow mandate. There’s only so much in energy-related projects that you can distribute towards, but I know that there will be a significant number of sports clubs out there, or schools—you name it—any number of community interest groups or organisations that are going, “Hey, this is a really good day for the Eastern Bay.” I know that those trustees watching this will be thinking the same.

Katie Nimon: They’re thinking, “Oh my gosh, the floodgates are about to open.”

SAM UFFINDELL: They may be thinking that the gates will be opening, Ms Nimon, on the applications to come through. With all good deeds and intentions comes an increased workload, but also comes increased purpose and, obviously, a feeling of community spirit and real pride that an organisation you’re a part of is able to deliver more and more to a community that genuinely needs it. I’m really happy to see this.

There has also been some futureproofing of the bill—of what may be the future bill—to allow amendments to the trust terms without needing to come back to the House and relitigate it through here. I think that is a sensible, common-sense approach from the committee, where that came in. I know you did have quite a few submitters, Mr Mooney, I believe—

Katie Nimon: Thirty-six apparently.

SAM UFFINDELL: —36 from memory—good memory, Katie Nimon—and I believe eight of those were also oral submissions that came in. I’d imagine a high proportion of those were in favour of where we were heading, which is good.

Joseph Mooney: The vast majority.

SAM UFFINDELL: Almost all of them—excellent. In closing, I just want to say, look, this is a really good bill. I am supportive of it. The National Party is supportive of it. This is going to improve community outcomes across the Eastern Bay. Well done, Trust Horizons, and well done to my good friend and colleague, Dana Kirkpatrick, on her shepherding of this bill through its second reading today. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Rachel Boyack—this is a 5-minute Te Pāti Māori call.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (20:22): Thank you. Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take the final call on the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. Can I also acknowledge the member who has had the opportunity to shepherd the bill through the House, Dana Kirkpatrick. I had the opportunity to take a private bill through the last term of Parliament—not to be confused with a member’s bill; they are quite distinct—so congratulations. It’s always an honour to take a bill through the House on behalf of your community.

We also had discussions in the Governance and Administration Committee last term about the amount of time that these bills do take up in the House. They do tend to belong to institutions that are somewhat older—that began when it was usual practice to have an Act of Parliament governing an organisation rather than a constitution, as is now the common practice. I do agree with members’ comments that there are perhaps ways that the Parliament could look at these bills slightly differently.

The Labour Party supports this. It’s excellent to see an organisation looking to further expand their charitable purpose and how they can make stronger benefits into their community. That has been well traversed by many members tonight, so I’m not going to be the one to get in the way of this bill passing so that this trust can continue their excellent work. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 July.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (20:24): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to talk to this bill, the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill.

The Green Party will support this bill to select committee. I think it’s really important to improve transparency, and we know that elected members need good advice and information to inform sound decision-making. I think it’s really important that this bill does seek to look at openness and accountability, which is one of the reasons why we are going to be supporting it to select committee, but there are a number of concerns that we do have within the bill that need to be addressed during that process. I just wanted to take a little bit of time to outline those concerns now.

I think one of the things that is mentioned in the general policy statement is that the amendments are intended to, I guess, align governance and management of local authorities with that of the corporate and not-for-profit sector. I think we just need to be a little bit careful, because they are not exactly the same. We know that company directors and officers are legally accountable for the decisions they make, whereas elected members of local councils are protected. There’s a lot of responsibility that does fall on to the shoulders of the chief executive of a local council.

We also need to make sure, when it says here “to minimise the increasing tensions between councillors and senior management … of local authorities”, that this bill will actually be effective. I think, when you look at the Local Government Act and the role of a CEO, that role is to implement the decisions of the local authority. It is to ensure the effective and efficient management of the activities of the local authority. We have seen examples, and they were well highlighted through previous call, of some of the concerns, which is understandable. However, if you read through the Act, those provisions may already be in there, and potentially it’s not an issue with the Act, it’s an issue within the councils themselves that needs to be addressed.

I think one thing to also draw attention to within this bill is clause 5, new section 42(3B), which does not prevent a member of a local authority from obtaining advice from any other person. I feel that this could lead to some unintended consequences of elected members going beyond their role of governance with their interactions with council staff or beyond. What I’m not sure of is who is defined as “other person”, and I’m also not sure where that cost would lie. What we would not want to see is any elected member commissioning reports because they don’t like the advice and that cost falling on ratepayers. I do wonder why this amendment bill, if so important, was not actually included in the system improvements bill that is currently going through the House.

As I’ve said earlier, we do support this, but there are a number of concerns that I have outlined here that I think need to be looked at very closely, because I think it’s really important that, if we do make changes, they actually have a material effect. I do agree there should be no occasion when an elected member has to actually use the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to get information from councils. That is totally unacceptable. The question is: that shouldn’t be happening now, with the Act we have, and I don’t know if this bill will actually fix that problem, when it should be addressed by the current Act.

We will support it to select committee, but these concerns need to be, I guess, addressed during that period. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise on another wonderful member’s bill in the name of Stuart Smith— or, as he’s come to be known through his various iterations of member’s bills, “St Stewie”. This is “St Stewie” once again coming to the rescue of another important part of New Zealand’s society and fabric, and that is, when we elect local members to represent us democratically—not appointing people; when we elect them—we expect that that giving of an electoral mandate will come with certain powers and responsibilities.

Now, there is a lot of responsibilities on councillors, and some of the powers that are expected haven’t always come to pass. I think the contribution from the Green member Mike Davidson was actually quite worthwhile in this regard. You would expect that, under the current legislation, local members wouldn’t need to resort to things like the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to be able to get information.

But, again and again, we have seen, in this country, local elected members exercising the mandate on behalf of their people being denied information that will help them make informed and responsible decisions, so “Saint Stuey” rides in again out of the dust plains to save the day, and here we are for it.

It’s quite clear that Stuart Smith has taken a responsible path in drafting this bill. He’s clearly identified the difference between governance and management. This is not a bill that will give the ability for elected members, councillors, to reach into decisions beyond their purview, into hiring and direction of local government at that level—they still hold to account the chief executive on behalf of the entire organisation—but what it will do is mean that there is a clear distinction between what they need to govern their local authority and what is expected to be in their purview.

Now, I came into politics at an interesting time in my home city of Tauranga, where we had a period of unelected representation from the commissioners. Now, people have got their own thoughts in the wider New Zealand about that time, For me personally, I was shocked, dismayed, and encouraged to get further into politics because of what I saw happening when unelected, unaccountable people are making decisions in a way that doesn’t reflect the elected role of their community. This Government was able to bring local democracy back to Tauranga, and I was very grateful for it. Jan Tinetti was a great celebrator of having democracy in Tauranga, I know.

Hon Jan Tinetti: I’m pleased the commissioners were there. They were brilliant.

CAMERON LUXTON: We were very happy to see democracy return, as I know we all were. As I said earlier, there were differences of opinion about the commissioners, and Jan Tinetti has given us an example of that right now. I know she celebrated, with myself and Sam Uffindell and Tom Rutherford, that democracy was returned to the people of Tauranga.

Now we’ve got our democracy back, we expect our local members of wards throughout Tauranga to be able to make those decisions with information. I’ve had conversations with elected members in my home area who have had to resort to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests to get information. In a place like Tauranga, with a period of commissioners and the trust that was fragilely put on the back-burner, in a way—I’m trying to find a nice analogy—the trust that was taken out of the hands of local democracy. Trying to sort through those issues, it’s very important that we’ve got full and frank and understandable accountability and information as to that time. I was glad to see it.

It’s not just Tauranga. Up and down New Zealand, the story has been repeated. Looking into some of the examples, it was interesting that in a few cases when the Ombudsman has had to get involved about LGOIMA requests and information, there has had to be a requirement for a deed of confidentiality. The very fact that councillors are using the LGOIMA to get information and then have to sign up to a deed of confidentiality to get that information is madness. Well, “Saint Stuey” is here to fix it. I’m glad to support this bill in its second reading. I look forward to seeing it go through the remaining stages of this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:33): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill, at least as far as the select committee process. I think the intent of the bill is right. There is an issue here. There’s a perception that there is an issue here, and we need to explore that. I’m not sure the wording is quite right it’ll achieve what it’s intended to achieve, but, hopefully, it can be panel beaten through the select committee process.

Look, democracy is supposed to be by the people, for the people. I think that we expect in our democratic process that we have the right to elect our representatives. Of course, we probably are going to have some dispute across the Parliament here about unelected people making decisions around the council table, and that will come back when we get the systems improvement bill At some stage—hopefully in the next few weeks—we’ll have a discussion about that. I hope there’s some consistency here, because there you have some unelected people making decisions on behalf of the ratepayers, not answerable to ratepayers.

The CEOs are in exactly the same space. Time and time again, I read things from people who are commenting on what’s going on in local government, saying, “Well, who actually really makes the decisions? It’s not the councillors; it’s not the mayor; it’s the chief executives. That at least says there’s a perception of a problem, whether or not there’s a reality of a problem. The CEO, quite clearly, is not answerable to us the ratepayer, us the citizen, us the voter, and that is what this is trying to address. It’s that balance of power, if you like.

I can say that CE sometimes probably do carry a lot of the weight. One of the issues we’ve got—and I go back to that systems improvement bill as well—is that, at the moment, we’ve just passed a public sector Act which says that public sector CEs cannot be reappointed; they have to go to the market. At the same time, we’ve got the systems improvement bill sitting there, saying, “Well, at the moment, you can reappoint them for two years. You can have five years, and you can reappoint them for another two, and actually we’re going to extend that for another five.” That is utterly inconsistent between those two bills. It’s also completely inconsistent with what this bill is trying to do, which is to rebalance the power between the chief executive and the council. The council is only elected for three years. The chief executive is appointed for five, potentially plus two—and, potentially, if the systems improvement bill goes through, plus five. Well, who is going to have the power there in that situation? I can tell you what. It tilts the balance in favour of the CEO.

The CEO should be working with the council. Sometimes they don’t, and I think we all know that. The whole idea of saying the CEO is the only employee of the council, the whole idea of that is to say that you can hold them accountable. But how easily can you actually hold somebody accountable who—if you’re going to try and get rid of them because you don’t think they’re performing, that is a really expensive and disruptive process. You can’t reach down to the people who they employ. They’ve got to make that decision rather than the council make that decision. Even if it’s tier 2s and tier 3s, you can’t really reach down to do that. I think there really is an issue there about the balance of power, and that’s what this bill is trying to deliver.

My friend Cameron Luxton said that there’s a separation between governance and management. When I was, I think, fairly early on in my time as a councillor, the point that was made is, yes, there is a separation between governance and management but it’s not a hard black and white line—it’s not a narrow line—it’s actually a bit of a grey line, because when management stuffs up, who wears the consequences? I can tell you what. By and large it’s not management; it’s the elected members who wear the consequences. I can see, Mr Speaker, that you’re actually nodding on that one as well. That is an issue that we really need to think about.

Just to finish off, CEs have an enormous amount of power. Councillors actually, in their own right, have no power whatsoever. What they have is influence. Collectively they have the power, but you actually have to have a council that’s working together. You can have a divide and conquer sort of situation, and I’ve seen that happen in councils as well. Just to finish off, I think this is a worthwhile thing to do, a worthwhile bill to explore. I’m not sure that the wording is going to get it right. I think we do need to have a fundamental review of the whole of the Local Government Act. It’s not just around the CEs; it’s around the expectations that there are of local government. I think this is a worthwhile conversation to have. New Zealand First is going to support this bill at this stage, but I think we can panel beat it to make sure that it actually does the job that I’m sure that the sponsor of the bill wants it to do, which is to try and rebalance the power so that democracy actually means democracy and that the democracy is held by the people that the ratepayers and the citizens and the residents and the businesses of each jurisdiction actually elect to do a job on their behalf and that they can hold accountable, because they can’t hold a CE accountable. I commend this bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (20:38): When we talk about local government, we’re talking about the decisions that shape our everyday lives. It’s the water we drink, the roads we travel, the parks where our tamariki play, the homes we build, the whenua we protect, and the places where our communities either flourish or fall behind. The question before us today isn’t simply whether councillors should have greater authority over chief executives; the real question is this: will this bill lead to better outcomes for our people? If it doesn’t improve the lives of whānau, what problem is it actually solving? This bill says that it will reduce tensions between elected members and senior management and clarify responsibilities. On the surface, greater accountability sounds really sensible. Nobody wants confusion about who makes decisions or who should be held accountable or responsible when councils fail the communities that they serve, but there is a significant gap in this legislation. The Government hasn’t clearly explained why these changes are needed, what evidence supports them, or how success will be measured. Good law should solve a clearly defined problem, not create uncertainty around relationships that have taken decades to build. For Māori, that uncertainty really matters.

Across Aotearoa, councils have developed partnerships with mana whenua and Māori communities through Treaty settlements, through local agreements, through shared governance arrangements, through advisory structures, and years—decades—of whakawhanaungatanga. This bill is silent on what happens to those relationships. Silence isn’t reassurance. It’s not certainty at all, especially when it comes against the backdrop of wider local government reforms that have steadily weakened Māori participation in public decision-making. When Māori have seen Māori wards challenged, Treaty obligations questioned, consultation reduced, and our voices treated as optional rather than essential, we have every reason to ask whether this bill strengthens partnership or simply centralises power.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi cannot become an afterthought in local government. It must remain a foundation of local democracy. One provision allows councillors to seek advice from people other than the chief executive, and that could be positive—could—and it could open the door to expertise from hapū, iwi, Māori organisations, and community leaders whose knowledge has too often been overlooked. But the bill doesn’t say that. It leaves the door equally open to advice that may give little regard to Te Tiriti, to mana whenua, or the long-term wellbeing of our communities, and that ambiguity must be addressed.

If Parliament intends to widen access to advice, then Māori knowledge—mātauranga—and mana whenua expertise should be explicitly recognised within this framework, not left to chance. Te Pāti Māori believes accountability matters, but accountability must flow in every direction. Councils must be accountable to their communities, Governments must be accountable to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and every reform of local government must strengthen, not weaken, the enduring place of Māori in decisions about our whenua, our wai, and our future. For those reasons, we believe this bill requires greater scrutiny. We want to hear directly from iwi, from hapū, from Māori councillors, from Te Maruata, from local authorities, and our communities about what these changes could mean on the ground and especially to them. If amendments are needed to protect Treaty partnerships, strengthen mana whenua leadership, and ensure Māori representation endures regardless of the Government of the day, then this House has a responsibility to make those changes.

Te Pāti Māori will always judge legislation by one measure above all others and that is this: does it improve the future our mokopuna will inherit from us? [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] That is the standard that this bill must meet.

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

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

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:43): Hello, Mr Speaker. I’d like to tell you a little story that illustrates the importance of a bill like this and the principles behind it. I’d like to talk about Kāpiti Airport. Kāpiti Airport is a real treasure in the region that I represent.

Hon Tama Potaka: A taonga.

TIM COSTLEY: A taonga indeed, the Hon Tama Potaka, and the reason we need it, of all the reasons, the most critical one is about resilience of our community. When the big one hits, which inevitably it will one day, much like Kaikōura in Stuart Smith’s region who brought this bill—I congratulate him on having his brought to the House—much as Kaikōura was cut off to the north and the south, the rail and road links, it was an island within an island, so too could Kāpiti be when Transmission Gully or the coastal road is out of action. We’ve got three almost 100-year-old bridges to the north of us that will see us isolated—that airport will be our lifeline. It’s used regularly by rescue helicopters. It’s used by Life Flight. Wellington Airport is often shut—whether it’s weather, whether it’s turbulence, whether it is maintenance—and all these essential life-giving services come and use our airport. But the airport is owned by some out-of-towners, big corporate company, all funded by offshore money; bunch of offshore money that’s gone into some, I don’t know, Aucklanders that want to cut it up and make a quick buck off the backs of the good residents of the Kāpiti Coast; chop it up into housing and sell it off.

Now, almost no one in our region wants that. We’ve got thousands of new houses going in, many of them through fast-track enabled by this Government, and many other developments going in. Land for housing is not the limiting factor here, but we’ve only got one place for this lifeline utility asset—the airport.

Now, at the moment, there’s another group, apparently Hāpai Property, that wants to come in and build it, chop it up, and use it for housing on the condition that the airport has been shut. Some people have said to me, “Well, it’s privately owned. Why can’t they just go and do that?” My consistent answer is always: privately owned but publicly zoned. If someone wants to change the use of our airport, sure, the owners can sell it to someone else, another group of out-of-towners that want to just turn it into property development, but they have to get it zoned. That is where our council come in. That is where the community have a say, because it is council that will be responsible for that process.

Our community expects to be able to hold our elected councillors to account at the ballot box in two years’ time; to hold them to account for decisions that are made. It is the fundamental principle that says councillors should be accountable for the decisions that a council makes. That underpins this, because I can tell you what will happen now if they try and shut the airport: there will be public meetings, there will be rallies, there will be marches, there will be—

Hon Tama Potaka: Pitchforks.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, I don’t know about the pitchforks—that may be a step too far—but there will be a huge demonstration of support, as there has been consistently for many, many years showing the need for this airport. Anyone that thinks they’re going to come into Kāpiti and just make a quick buck off the airport and shut that thing down should think again.

There is another great offer on the table. I’d love to see one go here that actually wants to keep the airport open. It is out there, but we expect them to look at that, and it is a bill like this that reinforces the core message that it is the elected councillors that are ultimately the ones that govern the chief executive. Yes, those council staff working to the chief executive have a role to play, but the chief executive works under the guidance, the authority, and the scrutiny of our councillors.

Fundamentally, I have many people come to my office in Paraparaumu and say that they’ve got this issue with council, and the first question I say is, “Why don’t you go to the councillors? That’s actually their job.” This bill is about strengthening that it’s their job. We heard from Te Pāti Māori that this is about “centralising power”. No, it’s not.

Oriini Kaipara: That’s not what I said.

TIM COSTLEY: It’s about centralising accountability. That’s a direct quote—a direct quote; she said “centralising power”. This is about strengthening accountability. The public deserve that, when they have a say at the ballot box, they get to hold those people to account.

I take the point that she made that sometimes expertise from various groups is needed. I accept that, and those groups can provide their expertise, and they can provide advice, and they can work with council staff, and they can provide advice to councillors themselves, but it is councillors that should make the ultimate decision and are then held to account. I support a bill like this that strengthens those principles. I commend the member Stuart Smith for bringing it to the House, and I commend it to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:48): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I take the opportunity right at the start of this call to congratulate the member Stuart Smith on the bill? It is a short bill, it’s a modest bill, but it does a lot of good for local democracy. As has already been outlined by my colleague Tangi Utikere, Labour is supporting this bill.

We’re supporting this bill because we believe that there are councils across the country where things work really, really well, but there are other councils where councillors and the council as a whole have been shut out of decisions. As has been outlined here this evening, they’ve been refused information and told that their own council’s activities are beyond their own oversight, and that is something that needs to be corrected.

We will be supporting this, but we do have a caution, and again, my colleague has outlined this already. The caution is that there are some sound reasons why there is some information that sits with officials, or some work of the councils that sits with officials. That’s mostly because they come from other Acts, not the Local Government Act, but they come from consenting, building enforcement, licensing, and official information. This Act, and the carve-out in this bill, only refers to this particular Act. We believe that that’s easily rectified, but we believe that select committee needs to test this carefully through the select committee process. I don’t want to hold it up any longer, so I commend this bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (20:50): Thank you Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to congratulate the member Stuart Smith on this bill, a very good bill which I am a big supporter of. At its heart, this bill answers a simple question: are the elective representatives in charge, or are the officials in charge? This is an issue that we have across local government in New Zealand. You hear about it and see it far too often, we’ve seen cases of it locally. I know, in Tauranga for instance, we have elected members currently on the council having to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Tauranga City Council to get information out of them. That is an absolute disgrace. How we get into a situation like that, I do not know. But frankly, I want the elected members in charge, because those are the people that that people of Tauranga elected to be on their council, not the Chief Executive, and all the general managers, and everyone else. They do their jobs, they are employed to do their job, the day-to-day operations on it. But I want the elected members having all the information that they need, when they need it, and making the key governance and strategic decisions, and the management below that should carry it out. But somehow in New Zealand we’ve got our self into this situation where the Chief Executive, and the managers are in charge.

They see councillors come, and they see councillors go, and you got long term staff members there that do exactly the same thing. They are the ones that run the show. I can see Cameron Luxton in front of me nodding his head. We hear this too often and I‘ve heard this raised with me recently about the Bay of Plenty regional council—around the Chief Executive there running the show—and it shouldn’t be like that. It frankly shouldn’t be like that. It’s not good enough, and it’s an insult to the democratic process. I thank Stuart Smith for bringing this bill before us.

We’ve seen these other horrendous examples up in the Far North district as well, where the elected members are clearly not in charge of their council. I do not know how we get to this situation; it’s not just one or two councils, it is across New Zealand. Yes, you do have some good councils, but you have a number of them where there is not true democracy, where yes, there are elected members, yes they go in there, but no they don’t have all the information available to them. Staff withhold information from them, staff ultimately make the decisions. I’ve said it before, when you get to a situation where elected members are having to LGOIMA their own council to get information, we’re in a pretty dark state.

This bill rectifies that. It helps go a long wat to making sure that the people elected are responsible to the public, that they have all the information they need, that they have the strategic governance decision making. That also means that councillors get out of the way of the day-to-day operational stuff—because they shouldn’t be in it. They shouldn’t be meddling in that, that is for the Chief Executive and the staff, that is their job.

I remember when this bill was put into the ballot, and I was very supportive of my friend Stuart Smith, we even went and did a small video on it which I was very proud to put up there. ‘Stewie the Saviour’, he’s doing a fantastic job, and I want to commend you on your member’s bill. I am a big advocate of it, I really am. I think this is a wonderful bill. I’m glad to see support from it, from across the House, and I commend this bill.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (20:53): Thank you Madam Speaker, I rise to take a call on the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill. You’ve heard with my colleagues that Labor will be supporting this bill through to Select Committee. This bill inserts a new section, 41B, into the Local Government Act 2002, providing that the council activities are managed by the CEO, subject to the direct supervision of the governing body. We know that elected members of councils across the country are elected by their local communities. It is important the activities of management are clearly defined also with elected members who have been voted in by their communities. It is important that through that democratic process, elected members, when they are given some information, they actually need all the information to make correct decisions for their local communities. This bill will progress through to the next stage. I want to thank the member, Stuart Smith, for bringing to the House. It is as short bill, you have heard my colleagues, I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) (20:55): Thank you Madam Speaker, and thank you to all of the speakers tonight, and Tangi Utikere from speaking a couple of weeks ago on this bill. There’s widespread agreement, which very seldom happens in this House, but it’s great to have—people do understand why I brought his bill. Just to go back to the history of the actual Local Government Act, this came about where essentially the responsibility for the council sits with the Chief Executive, not with the elected councillors. That came from an English model, and that was the genesis of it, that was why the power sits there. A framework matters, because if you get the frame work right, everything else falls out from underneath that, and you get a good functioning entity, but the framework isn’t right. That is why I brought this bill.

The amount of feedback I have had from that first reading speech a couple of weeks ago has been phenomenal. I’m still getting messages from councillors and former mayors saying “Spot on” and “You’ve got this right”, all that sort of thing. But I do take on board some of the comments from those around the Chamber, who have pointed out that this is a very simple bill—it’s only a few lines. So that means we have to get those words exactly right, and I accept that and I think we’ll be able to tease that out through the select committee.

But I want to talk about a couple of things. I note Mike Davidson from the Green Party seemed to be quite concerned that it was aligned with the Companies Act, but the Companies Act is also how charitable trusts, and other good governance is run—based on those principals which is simply putting the power with the elected councillors. That’s what the people expect. The reason this has struck a chord with people in the public is because they get it. They completely understand what this means, it’s not some complicated technical thing that we normally see in legislation, it’s very simple, but will be very effective. Cameron Luxton—from the Act Party, my friend, who’s just sitting right here—talked about the commissioners in Tauranga, and how they’ve now got a democracy back. This really matters. It matters because local government is what people interact with everyday. The streets that they use; the water that they get; the sewerage; all off that stuff—all of that local stuff—that seems quite boring, but actually, when it doesn’t work, those people notice. When their rates bills go up, they notice.

All of that comes down to good governance, we have councillors who—if you’re being unkind, you’d say that they merely turn up to rubber stamp the decisions that are being made behind the doors by the officials. And there’s a bit of truth in that, and that needs to change. That can’t change with the way the rules are now. A lot of councils are high functioning, they don’t have these issues at all. But because the framework isn’t there in the right way, it can develop quite quickly and cause the problems that we’ve had. The fact that’s been traversed by many other’s tonight, about how councillors have had to use the LGOIMA—or the Local Government Meetings and Information Act—is actually shocking that it would get to that stage. And that sometimes, they have gone through that Act and been refused access to those papers. It is their right to do it, it is their information, it is not the information of the officials. You can’t make decisions if you don’t have the information. It is wrong, and it needs to change so that those councillors that we elect will be able to be out, when they run their next election campaign, on what things they can do, because they will be able to do them, rather than being hobbled by a poorly functioning—

Hon Member: Hobble’s a good word

STUART SMITH: Yes, I think it is appropriate, I think it’s apt—hobbled by the people that are supposed to serve them. And with having information, rather than it being filtered by the people that they manage—or oversee—they will get the information that they need. I thank all of the members in the House who’ve spoken this evening, and I commend the bill to the House.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor) (21:00): The question is, That the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill.

Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. We come to Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 and 4—“Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to probably ask a couple of quick questions just to kick us off; just to provide a little bit of context. Acknowledging, to start with, the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and acknowledging the member who’s sponsoring this bill, the Hon Dr Shane Reti—and this is not the first member who’s had ownership of this bill, so acknowledging the handover period. The member in the chair has been very enthusiastic in his continued support for the bill.

To provide a little bit of context, it was obviously a member’s bill that started off somewhat differently to the one that we’ve ended up with now. There’s quite the story behind that, and the story essentially outlines a select committee process where we were able to hear from many submitters actually, but particularly there are times when certain bills come before the House where the submissions clearly are from people who are very, very invested in the concept that this bill encompasses. Given this one is about safety and about preservation of life and all of those things that we all hold dear—no matter what side of the House we sit on in this House—it made the gravity of the context and the gravity of the bill even more interesting.

With regards to affording the member an opportunity to give us a little bit of an opening statement, I’m wondering if I could direct that somewhat by asking the member to perhaps give us a little bit of an overview of not only the bill itself but the substantive changes that were made to make this bill applicable to everybody, and just to give us a little bit more information about why that happened. Because it’s not often that a select committee perhaps has to go back to the Business Committee and ask for a change of scope, and that there be a relative consensus on the importance of taking that step and acknowledging that it’s important to take the opportunity whilst a bill is in front of us to see if we could make those positive changes. My question to the member is: can he—whilst still sticking within that clause 3 or 4—just give us a little bit more information about how those changes were made and why he thought that that was important?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:04): Thank you. This bill came to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in October 2025 and submissions were opened. When it first came to the House it was a young person’s life jacket amendment bill that was particularly focused on young children under 15. The select committee heard a wide range of submissions, and very clearly it was pointed out that the majority of fatalities are actually over the age of 15. In fact, if we look back to 2015, there have been eight fatalities for children under 15 and 161 for those over 15. This weighed heavily on the committee. They certainly understood the intent and purpose of the bill—to reduce the number of drownings in people in recreational craft less than six metres who are not wearing a life jacket. Indeed, tragically, I understand as of late that this year we’re already well in advance of what our average is and they’re projecting an unfortunately high drowning rate to the end of this calendar year. In fact, I understand 57 drownings have already happened and that’s already starting to push up to what our yearly average is. So we’re not doing so great this year already, which is why we’re looking to have impact.

Anyway, the committee, in their wisdom, was impressed by the evidence from submitters and officials that actually maybe the focus wasn’t quite where the biggest benefit could be, so as a committee wrote back to the Business Committee asking for several things. One, if the report-back period could be expanded. Secondly, if the terms of the bill could be substantively changed—more particularly the age group expanded to everyone, not just to under-15-year-olds. Thirdly, that they could go back to consultation. And that’s exactly what happened: the Business Committee said, “Yes, that’s a wise thing to do.”, and so the committee reopened submissions with an expanded scope on the bill.

That expanded scope (1) talked to the increase in age, (2) it clarified water length versus boat length—it said what we already settled on: less than six metres—and fine-tune some of the other parts to the bill through that second process. But substantively it was the wisdom and/or courage of the committee to go back to the Business Committee and say, “The core intent is good, but actually the focus on the bill as it was introduced misses the key points and we’d like to suggest that that be re-explored.” Again, it was a substantive change so it did need Business Committee approval—it wasn’t just a tweak that could come through an amendment—and to reopen the submissions process. That was very successful and has made this bill much more focused and fine-tuned towards what we all want to achieve.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very excited. It’s one of those things, life jackets; it’s like when riding a bike without a helmet used to be normal and some crazy idea of making those mandatory and here we are with life jackets. I think we’ll look back on this as a similar moment. I just want to indicate I do have a question on both clauses—a separate one on clause 4 as well as clause 3—and the Schedule, if that can be debated at this point as well. But I’m going to start with clause 3, just to allow others to chip in, but I do want to come back with my clause 4 question.

Clause 3, I note to the member in charge, the Hon Dr Shane Reti—and it’s good to see the doctor taking firm charge of this bill—the initial bill, as it was presented to the House, was amending Part 91 of Maritime Rules, which are made under the Act itself; in the new version, where actually it says this Part amends the Maritime Act itself. There is a bit of a relationship here between the Act and the rules which are then set.

I’m interested to know, from the honourable member, the thinking and I guess the rationale for elevating this. To me, as I look at this, it looks like an elevation. Cards on the table, I’m not a big nautical guy—I’m more aviation—but we have similar rules in aviation; we have the Civil Aviation Regulations which sit under the Act, but it’s the regulations that people operate by. If you’re flying, you’re looking at, again, Part 91 would be the rules for most punters flying around the sky, and the same here in the maritime context, as I understand. If you do your day skipper certificate and you’re going to get that so you can take a small craft out and you’ve got the tick in the right box—which is a great thing that I would encourage people to do—you’re going to be looking at the regulations more than you are at the Act. Much as I know, if you’re going to your day skipper certificate, they’re going to teach you this, “Hey now, under 6 metres, you do have to have a life jacket if it’s underway, not if you’re swimming.” I’m sure we can explain that to people, but a lot of people, when they’re looking, might be looking just at regulations. Does this imply that regulations therefore will be amended and it will flow through? Because I know Subpart 1 of Part 2, when we get to that, does take that.

But I just note the change here in clause 3 in terms of what it is that we are amending. Is this—I’ll be interested to hear the member’s view on this—a mechanism to elevate the importance of the issue, to say, actually, life jackets are critical to safety, they are critical to the wellbeing of people that are going out on those boats, and it’s so important we actually want to capture this in the principal Act itself? We want to elevate this up a level. Or is there a risk that by not focusing on the tactical, the regulations, the things that people might look in, day in, day out, when they’re going out in their small boat, taking the kids out fishing—that kind of thing. It’s these exact scenarios that we’re thinking about. Is there a risk that we go too high by not just making this really targeted, really focused on the regulations, or do we get a bit of both by doing it this way? Can we say, “We’ll look through some of the substantial amendments in Part 2. We can amend the regulations, but at the same time we can target this to the Act.” So I’m really keen to hear from the member.

I don’t want to prolong this because I do want to come back with my question on clause 4. But for clause 3, the thinking that moves from just changing regulations to changing the Act itself. Thank you.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:10): Thank you. I’d like to thank the member Tim Costley for a really good question. In Part 1, clauses 3 and 4 are actually a change in primary legislation; Part 2 deals with regulations. I’d have to say clauses 3 and 4 are particularly benefited, as we heard in the second reading, by having select committee members with two previous mayors and one previous deputy mayor—and the point I’m making here is clause 3 and clause 4 is actually to make the logistics of changing the regulations easier.

What it says in clause 3 and clause 4—clause 4 refers to Schedule 5. Schedule 5 actually talks to the legislation that says, “Look, if there are some councils, and their by-laws are disparate to what this national policy is, we want to make it easy for them to harmonise.” Because part of what we’re trying to do is to harmonise the wide variation of lifejacket carrying versus lifejacket wearing across all of the country. That’s where some of the issues have arisen. So we do the substantive work on that in Part 2.

Part 1 is the primary legislation; the logistics of doing that. And what we say in Part 1: clause 3 identifies the Act, and clause 4 is the mechanics to it. What we do in that part is that we say that councils have an expectation, if their policies do not align with what will now be a national policy, to make adjustments to their existing by-laws. We also make it easy for them by saying, “Look,”—this was discussed by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—“because you are adjusting to a national policy, you don’t have to go through all the rigour of what a standard consultation process would be for by-law and regulatory change at a local council level.”

So it was on the wisdom and advice, well-supported by the committee, of those in the select committee, who had actually done this in other careers, who said, “Let’s make it easy.” A number already aligned almost perfectly with what we’re trying to do tonight and a number do not. Those who do not, let’s not force them to go through long consultation processes to get to the end point, which they have to anyway, which is a national policy. So our Part 1 primarily—that’s the primary legislative change part; it’s why it’s in the House—talks to the Act that’s going to be affected in clause 3. And clause 4 is the mechanism referring to Schedule 5, which describes how we do that to make it easy for local government to adjust their by-laws, if they need, to what is now going to be a national policy.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:13): Thank you, Dr Reti, for the explanation and acknowledging your handling of this bill, and the care that you’ve taken engaging with members who are concerned, and also with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as a whole.

You are the third—fourth? Indeed—fourth member to have this. Dr Tracey McLellan sort of went a bit into the history, but also, going right back into the history of this. In this schedule change, there has been a more substantive move than what was in the original drawn, proposed, and questioned bill that, I think, started life with Alfred Ngaro and moved through Cameron Brewer, and now is with yourself—I’m not sure of the intermediary who makes up that fourth.

You’ve got here a piece of legislation that’s doing a lot of work to change some regulations. Clause 3 is talking about the legislation that is being amended, the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and clause 4 is referring to the new Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA by the Schedule—so not Schedule 5, Part 5. Is that correct?

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Yes, that’s correct.

CAMERON LUXTON: Thank you. In here, I guess, the question that I have straight off the bat is this is something that is already able to happen. It seems that in the legislation as written and the regulations that flow out of that, there is already the ability for local bodies to amend this—and you’ve acknowledged that yourself. Well, how many parts of the country are not aligned to this? Did you, in your work on this bill, engage with any local bodies that haven’t done this and found out why? Because I know the select committee heard from harbourmasters of regions who had done this and they were supportive of it, but that begs the question: the harbourmasters that hadn’t, why do they not?

So I think the first question that I’ve got for you is: which part of the country is not covered, how many, and have you engaged with them?

Then, also, these regulations are in the hands of regional councils to change, and harbourmasters, you would expect, would be the prime, say, resource for information for those regional councils to understand how a regulation’s working in their area. It was intriguing to me to see the harbourmasters—you know, plural—come to select committee and ask for this when it seems that this power is being sort of enforced, modified, taken away from local government in a way, when they’ve got the power to do it anyway.

Part 91 of the Maritime Rules enables these decisions to be made locally. Was there any investigation taken by your good self or other members who previously had this bill, into why that hadn’t been taken up at local authorities and how many of those chose not to do this?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:16): Thank you. That’s a really good question. And yes, we did have discussions with harbourmasters who have by-laws that are not consistent with what we’re trying to achieve tonight. I would point out, for example, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council, who do not have legislation of this type, in May, completed their consultation process to do exactly what we’re looking to do here—substantively; there may be a few tweaks. So they were already in that direction, along with their national body saying, “Oh, we, we need to do this; this is important.” So they completed consultations in May—I believe two-thirds were in support of what they were looking to do.

To answer your wider question—there is a map and I don’t have that with me—there is probably a third, as I recall, of all regional councils that are not aligned with what we’re wanting to do here tonight. I’ve also spoken with those who have. Waikato, for example, in 2013, brought in their legislation, which is like what we’re wanting to do tonight.

So I have spoken, and we have spoken, with harbourmasters who have different regulations to what we’re wanting to do tonight, and those who have. I’d just point out that our biggest area for drownings, which is Auckland, is progressing this way as well—they’re now waiting for us to progress this.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:18): Thank you, Madam Chair. I say I’d like to ask about clause 4, and the member the Hon Dr Shane Reti touched on it in his answer to my question on clause 3—it was a beautiful segue, interrupted only by a great question from Cam Luxton, who I have now interrupted his flow as well; we’ll get there.

But my question is on the “repugnancy”—it’s not often we get to talk about things being repugnant in this House, but that is the wording: inconsistencies or repugnancies—between current by-laws and this bill. And so, as I understand it, and as the member, I think, has explained it, when this comes into force 28 days after it receives Royal assent—and all that good stuff—it may override or contradict some existing by-laws. For example, it might be that someone has one that says, “You have to wear it under 15.”; well, this one trumps it because it actually says, “Everyone has to.” Maybe they have a different minimum size for the vessel that it applies to; this trumps it and it provides a pathway for them to reset their by-laws without requiring so much consultation.

Now, I support that because I think, at times, we do too much consultation; we actually elect members to represent us. This is what the last bill that Stuart Smith brought was about. We should just let them get on and make a decision for us and then hold them to account at the ballot box. But my specific question on clause 4 and introducing the new Part 5 into Schedule 1AA is: is there a need? Should this not just replace those by-laws, and therefore, those sections become redundant. They’re no longer needed; it just overrides them. Do we need to bring another one in because, actually, if their protection was at a lower level, this trumps it? Do we even need to replace them, or is it because you can’t just remove that one clause or that one part of a bylaw that pertains to wearing life preservers of lifejackets? Could it not—this comes in, and it trumps the whole thing, and we say, “Actually, we don’t need them now”? Do we need a process? Is there feedback from different councils or bodies around the country that says, actually, because of the unique nature of our waters, we want to have a higher level of protection, we actually want it on larger boats—whatever the rules may be.

Is there a need for this, or are we just creating a process for the sake of it? Or is there an implication, is there a point where we amend these bylaws and it actually jeopardises or compromises something else that is a good thing? Is there an interplay here that we may or may not have considered? I’m sure the Hon Dr Shane Reti will have considered it and have a very wise answer for us, but is there potential that this could somehow, in some perverse way, compromise some other bylaw that adds to the safety on the sea?

I’m just keen to tease out this idea of bylaws. Could they not just be overridden, and they don’t need to be replaced? Do they want to be replaced because we need a high level of protection, or is there this other sort of place where there’s an interplay between the rules around lifejackets and something else—whether it’s evacuating small craft in a hurry. I don’t know, but is there another reason that we might need to have this that we might want to go and develop bylaws that this can’t just trump outright? I put that question to the member.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. Another good question. I think the end point to this sort of line of inquiry is that harbourmasters requested this. What that says is, fundamentally, and for a number of reasons, they either didn’t have the resources or a timeliness—again, I’ve just mentioned that we look like we’re heading for a very bad drowning rate this calendar year already. For any of those reasons, they were very supportive of us progressing this, supported by officials, in the style that we’re looking to do it—that is, to adopt a national policy.

I’d comment that they may be able to do more than this. This is a baseline, if you like, that those on vessels less than 6 metres—recreational craft less than 6 metres—be required to wear, not just carry, a lifejacket. They may well be able to say, “No, look, we actually want to go further in the bylaw process and do more”. But at this point in time, this is the safety net that the data supports, that we wanted to be around, and again, harbourmasters asked us or supported us to do this. For whatever reason, if we look back, as I say, Waikato were the first to bring in bylaws of this type in 2013—what’s that, 13 years ago—and we’ve still got a third to half of the country with a different set of bylaws. I think that, in itself, is testimony that they needed a hand.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. The history is being traversed a little bit here, so I think this is an appropriate part to ask some questions of the member, regarding previous speeches that were given in this House, about the development of this bill and how we got to where we are.

In the first iteration, this bill was for lifejackets to be mandatory on all boats under 6 metres at water length for 15 and under—so under-16-year-olds—at all times. That was the original drafting. I don’t want to get into the “at all times” and all of those specifics, but I do want to ask the member a specific question. This bill was introduced with a specific purpose in a country where polling conducted by water safety organisations says that in the high 90 percent, parents overwhelmingly, when asked on surveys, respond that they know that a lifejacket is a life-saving good and should be worn by children under 16—and yet the bill was still introduced and carried on. We also had a lot of Kiwis believing it was already mandatory for young people—across the country, surveys showed that.

We had contributions to this House talking about our beautiful beaches and rivers and how the tragedies of New Zealanders and our visitors dying while enjoying our natural environment needs to be avoided. However, the bill was only for boats. Now we’ve got a change, I feel like—it’s an awkward question to ask, but I do want to ask it. People would look at this and say there is a Trojan horse element to what’s happened here, where members’ speeches were not actually addressing the issues identified to be fixed in this bill. It started with a defined area. How do we, as members of the House and the member in the chair, say to the New Zealand public who were listening to the first reading speeches that this was an honest attempt at a specific piece of legislation that has changed and not something that will keep going up?

I voiced my scepticism in those first speeches, and I’ve had the public come to me and say, “Is this a slippery slope?” I don’t really like slippery slope arguments, but is this a slippery slope towards boat registration and mandatory licensing? How do we know—how will this be enforced, and are we going to end up with something that we didn’t expect coming out as a result of this? I’ve got more specific questions to ask that will allude to some of this. I think since the history is being traversed, I felt it was an appropriate point to ask this question of the member.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:26): Thank you. Yes, a number of New Zealanders already did think that you had to wear a lifejacket, not just carry it—I think that’s a fair point—and yet, here we are, with one of the worst rates already of preventable drownings and the proposition that with the decisions we’re hoping to make, we may save 10 lives a year. We also look at when Tasmania introduced their legislation in 2013, and within the first year, they had a 50 to 60 percent reduction in preventable drownings. We know that what we’re wanting to do here today is likely to be impactful.

Is there an increase in scope? There was an obvious increase in scope at the request of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee because we were able to determine that the data and the evidence provided a better way to do what we all wanted to achieve. We want to achieve an improvement in preventable drownings. As the bill initially came to the House, it would achieve some—as I said, eight preventable deaths, potentially, in the last decade, or since 2015. But that’s incomparable to the 161, and that’s why the select committee agreed to go back—that’s why the Business Committee agreed with it—because its initial focus wasn’t quite right. Therein lies the benefit of the select committee and the select committee process.

This is not a request here tonight, in any shape or form, to take it any further. The considered wisdom of the select committee, I think, has landed on a good safety net, so I am comfortable with where this is sitting.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to Maritime Rules and consequential revocation

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 5 to 9—“Amendments to Maritime Rules and consequential revocation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:28): There were just two definitions I wanted to ask about, if I could. The first one is the definition of “life jacket” itself. I’m thinking of what we used to wear, at least in the air force when we were flying, and I know some vessels will have the same thing. We called it a “May West” or a “Mk 15”. It was a life preserver vest that you would wear with a handle that you could pull—it’s got a small carbon dioxide cylinder. If you find yourself in the water, once you get back up to the surface, pull the handle, it will inflate and keep you afloat. It’s a great device but, obviously, a low and compact form.

I’ve seen a lot of similar—maybe not the Mk 15, but similar sort of “May West” - type vests being worn by boaties out fishing. It’s great; it keeps it out of the way and gives you lots of room. It’s maybe not so suitable for kids because they may not be able to activate it themselves, but it’s a great little device for people to wear—particularly if they’re working, if they’re active, on the boat itself.

I guess my question to the member is, given that we are targeting this to small craft under 6 metres, and it’s targeted not at those who are swimming; it’s not if you are anchored up or you’re tied up and you’re fishing; it really seems to be targeted at an inadvertent, accidental overboard - type scenario It could be that the boat gets flipped by a wave; it could be that there is just an accident and someone falls over. Often, a lot of the time in these sudden-impact events, it can lead to perhaps a head injury as you fall, as you get struck by the dinghy overturning, or you hit your head as you fall, or just the shock of it. Therefore, is there a consideration, if this is the context in which we’re doing this, that it needs to be either one that will automatically inflate—it’s got an impact device so, when it contacts the water, it will inflate by itself—or just a pure, old-fashioned life jacket that we think of. Is there any consideration to the type of life jacket it needs to be?

Just to be clear, I don’t want this to become over-prescriptive and onerous on bodies. At some point, my argument would be, we actually have to trust people to make a decision. We have to let them use their judgment. We have to provide the tools. We have to have policy and regulations, in this case, that illustrate, “Hey, we need to make safe decisions. We need to be thinking about this. We can do better. The current death rate on the water isn’t acceptable. There are easy solutions out there.” But where is the line between that and saying, “Well, actually, if the risk is about a sudden event, unexpected event, potentially causing head injury, potentially the person can’t inflate a device if it doesn’t automatically inflate itself, is there a requirement?” I look at the rules as they are stated here—I’m in the clause 7 definitions, which is rule 91.2, “lifejacket”, paragraph (c)—and it needs to meet a New Zealand standard for buoyancy aids. It needs to be serviceable, it needs to be designed to be worn on the body, but there are those “inflate”, “auto-inflate”, “non-inflate” categories, and I just wonder if there is consideration to that.

If I can ask my second question now, just in the interests of time, Madam Chair—I’m trying to help us get through this tonight; I’m trying to be cooperative. I just note—because the member has probably considered this—that we’ve gone, ultimately, with the definition of “underway”, not “making way”. I know this might be getting a little technical: “underway” meaning it is not tied to something, and the definition set out is “(a) at anchor; or (b) made fast to the shore; or (c) aground”, versus “making way”, where there is an intentional propulsion when it’s driving. The question would be: we’re saying “underway”, I presume, because, if it’s tied up, we’re saying, “Hey, that’s OK. You don’t need to do it. If you are making way, we think you need to have it on.” But what is the risk profile difference between a small craft that is anchored out in the ocean but is still going up and down over all the waves, is somewhat at the mercy of the tide and the swell and the waves, versus a vessel that is under way but not making way—so it is just, again, floating in the middle of a lake?

Are we really saying there is a risk difference if they’re tied up but, for whatever reason, they’re not able to anchor, but actually they’re just sitting in the middle of a lake fishing? Have we considered “underway” versus “making way”, being the operative point? I don’t want to labour that one, but I just want to know if that’s been considered or feedback was given. I know it’s a little bit fiddly, but “underway” versus “making way” could be important, and, secondly, the type of inflation device. Thank you.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:33): Thank you. As the member Tim Costley points out, clause 7 describes the various types of life jackets, but here’s what Maritime New Zealand and Water Safety New Zealand said to us, because we did contemplate all the various types of life jackets. They said to us, “Please God, let us do that. Don’t you guys step in and decide what’s fit for purpose: time, shape, place, all that sort of stuff. That’s what we’re good at, and our education component is going to focus on that amongst other things.” We were strongly advised, and we took that advice, not to be descriptive and prescriptive in our own hands—first point.

Secondly, this is underpinned by the mantra that Water Safety has: yes, there will be life jackets that are fit for purpose for various scenarios—and they will educate and describe that—but any life jacket is better than no life jacket. That is the underpinning safety part to this. Let’s also put it in the context that people are already required to carry a life jacket. What we’re doing is saying, for recreational craft under six metres, it needs to move from “carry” to “wear”. The life jacket is already there. Substantively, it’s an educational component, which will progress from here, around what is a fit-for-purpose life jacket.

To the member’s second point, yes, we had some significant discussion around “making way” and “underway”, and we were encouraged by several things. First of all, “underway” is already understood in maritime legislation. Secondly, it’s what has international precedent; it’s what other legislation of an identical type uses. It uses “underway”, not “making way”, and that influenced our decision making, but we did give some due thought to exactly what the member is describing.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:35): Kia orana, Madam Chair. I thank the member the Hon Dr Shane Reti for his response, and I just also add to the comments made previously by my colleague Dr McLellan around the member’s engagement with the committee through this process.

I’d like to ask the member—just picking up from his response around the definition there in clause 7, around “underway”—he’s indicated that that is a definition that is well understood in maritime circles. That was certainly what the committee heard. Can I just check: is that definition, though, basically a lift and shift from other maritime legislation elsewhere on the book? It might be understood as defined there, but is that something that has, effectively, been transferred from a definition elsewhere in maritime legislation?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding is that that is the case—that is as it’s understood in other maritime legislation. It’s nothing that we’ve created as a nuance to ourselves.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:36): The conversation is going a bit further and faster than I’d expected, to get to something that’s at the end of clause 7—ahead of its time, I think, because there is a lot more before that to be talked about—but, since it has been brought up and the member the Hon Dr Shane Reti has had an attempt at addressing it, “underway” versus “making way” has caused me a great deal of concern, it has to be said. The reason for that is that the “underway” definition is, as the member has said, understood; however, it also has some issues around it.

When you are out in very deep water—and it goes to some other parts of the bill about “reasonable” tests, which I hope we can get to—anchoring might not always be the most appropriate way to stop a vessel. If you’re out in 90 metres of water and you want to, for some purpose, on a safe, calm day when the winds have gone from one direction to the other and there has been a complete die-off of the wind—it’s a great experience, actually, when you get 10 knots going from the east and then all of a sudden it goes 10 knots from the west and the whole place goes still. No one would think it was a dangerous moment when you were drift fishing, perhaps for a hāpuku or the more and more elusive tarakihi, to say that that moment is more dangerous than anchoring in, say, a high-knot current in a harbour entrance.

The Tauranga harbour has got a great deal of current flowing through it. If you’re anchored, being in the water is the dangerous part, for sure, but also it’s the relativity of the water. If there is two or three knots of current going under your boat and you’re anchored, it makes not a lot of sense that that’s considered more safe than on a flat, calm, beautiful, gorgeous day out in the Bay of Plenty when, relative to the water, you’re not moving at all. The reason that “making way” makes sense is that it also implies a sense of action, as in the operator of the vessel has taken a step to move the boat. “Underway” can mean a lot of things, but it all implies stopping. I think the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has had to struggle a bit with some “reasonable” tests about this, and I think “making way” would make a lot more sense logically, about the way humans and boats actually interact with the water. I hope the member would readdress my concerns in light of that contribution.

Going back to the part earlier in the clause talking about what life jackets are or are not—“personal flotation device” being replaced with the more commonly used term “lifejackets”. I understand it’s a novel term, believe it or not. We’ve gone from “life jacket” to “lifejacket”. That is something that I hope the member can talk to. There are a great deal of regulations being laid out here and standards of flotation. I’m assuming a kapok—the old life jackets for which, if anybody at home is listening, if they ever find a kapok, the advice is to chop it up and make sure no one can ever use it. That was considered a life jacket for a long time and is no longer, as it is unsafe. The inflatable life jackets, ones that you pull tag and it inflates and get something blow up around you to keep you at the surface. Well, if you’re near sharp surfaces, like rocks or something like that, is that a safe outcome if you end up being washed up against the shore and you get the barnacles or the blue mussels and green-lipped mussels cutting that open? It is a serious concern.

But my bigger concern is: what’s going to happen? Are we going to get a bunch of overzealous regulators putting ever-increasing restrictions on life jackets? It started out that you bought a compliant life jacket—that’s fine—but, oh no, an inflatable life jacket needs regular servicing, but all life jackets could need servicing, and all of a sudden we’re going to end up with a situation where people thought they were complying with this, I think, regulation-come-law, but, actually, they wouldn’t because the regulator has come up with the idea that, actually, we need to have all life jackets checked every five years. I think that would be an imposition that would be an unfortunate thing to happen. With this new, novel term of “lifejacket”—one word—is that a possibility? Are we giving the power to the regulators, as the member has said, to start ever-increasing the restrictions on what people consider lifejackets?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:41): Thank you. Look, I agree with the member Cameron Luxton. How I think of this around “making way” is that it requires some sort of energy, some sort of propulsion. “Drifting” does not. “Drifting” would not be “making way” potentially, but it would be “underway”. I would contest that drifting is fatality free. I’m not convinced that that is the case, nor was the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I think that “lifejacket” as a term was encouraged by officials because that’s better understood. That’s why we’ve moved away from “personal flotation device”. It’s better understood by the public. Lifejackets, “fit for purpose”—we’ve talked about how that will be a large education component. The member talks about if that should strike rocks, and, of course, inflatable life jackets could be at risk of that, and there is certainly no suggestion that lifejackets require a warrant of fitness. Remember that the underpinning to lifejackets is that any life jacket is better than no life jacket.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the title itself has gone through a few iterations, and it’s obviously given the background that the member has articulated in terms of the changes there. It makes sense in its new form or new fashion in terms of a maritime transport amendment bill. The issue around commencement is just really around—what was originally in front of the committee was the day after the bill received Royal assent. Now, that has changed to “the 28th day”—that’s what’s been proposed. I’m just interested to hear from the member around the ability for these changes to, effectively, take effect. I know that, previously, the committee has already dealt with, for example, the process that councils would need to go through, and one of the considerations that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was thinking about was an appropriate lead-in time to allow the changes to be given effect and to actually take place. The question for the Minister is whether he is satisfied that “the 28th day”, which is not unusual—I mean, you often get bills that often say “one month after” or whatever it might be—gives a sufficient lead-in time, particularly given some of the changes around—I think, Madam Chair, you’ll be familiar with yourself—these special consultative processes that sometimes councils are required to enter into and give effect to. Is the member comfortable that actually 28 days is a sufficient amount of time to allow this? I mean, not all councils and territorial authorities have a coastal element to them, but a lot actually do. So we’re wanting to make sure that the date is sufficient in terms of giving effect to the changes that have been advanced.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:44): Thank you. Yes, it’s a really good question. Initially, it was to come into effect the day after Royal assent, but the will of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the request from Water Safety New Zealand and Maritime New Zealand officials was that if they could have more time to brief regional councils and prepare their education programme, because what will happen here is that the education programme will go probably over the next 12 months while we start to provide all the information that will benefit Zealanders firstly. Secondly, the infringements regime is going to take a year or so to develop anyway, but the officials couldn’t progress without the legislative ability that this bill provides to actually have those discussions. This is a preparation of the education component in lieu of quite a substantive roll-out. Particularly, officials were keen to be in front of the water safety week, which is around Labour Day weekend, end of September, so that this was at the request of officials. This gave them time. We all thought that the day after Royal assent was going to be too soon.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:45): Thank you. I thank the member the Hon Dr Shane Reti for that. I guess it raises a very discrete follow-up question. I don’t think anyone contends with the education component, because that will be very important and it seems as though there is an expectation. Certainly, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s conversations, as the member will know, were around ensuring that if this is a bill that is going to save lives, and all of the information and evidence will indicate that that is going to be the case, the sooner that this can, effectively, be rolled out over the summer months—the member himself talks about Labour Day weekend as a prime example there, so is 28 days too short a time period? Does the member want to make sure that the education components are all lined up but also that everything is actually in place? Otherwise, if this bill proceeds and eventually, at the next members’ day, it’s at third reading, and it all goes tickety-boo, then in a matter of weeks, this will be given Royal assent, and then it’s only a month later. I think the member kind of understands the nature of the question.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (21:46): Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. A large part of the 28 days is actually to brief officials so that they can prepare, rather than to debrief New Zealanders, because that’s a much longer roll-out. Our anticipation is that that’ll be over a year, if not longer. It needs to be really deep and understanding and flexible. Substantively, the 28 days is actually to brief officials so that they’re up to date, rather than actually to brief New Zealand public.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (21:49): I move, That the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Education and Workforce Committee and the members who considered this bill. I know that there was quite a lot of thought and work that went into this bill, and all members of the House will know that with a member’s bill, you don’t have the same level of advice and work that goes into creating a bill. I just want to acknowledge that there has been quite a few changes, and I want to thank the select committee for this.

While some of the changes I do disagree with, I do think overall the select committee process has improved the bill, and it’s landed in a really good place. It’s something that I think we can all be proud of. The committee recommended a clearer, more formal process for requesting negotiations so both employers and employees know where they stand. It also recommended that repeat requests be limited for six months unless there are genuine and reasonable grounds for another request. Having a clear regime is important, so that employers are not afraid to use this mechanism. The committee also made it clear that simply requesting negotiation is not by itself grounds for a personal grievance, and I think that this is really important, because for it to be effective in practice, we need to know that this protection is there in itself. In the end, the committee has recommended that by majority, this bill will be passed.

This bill is really about allowing employers and employees to actually have an honest conversation. Sometimes an employment relationship is no longer working. Most of the time, an employer and an employee actually know it, but the law makes it difficult for either of them to say so openly. Instead, the parties can end up going through months of performance management, needing formal meetings and legal advice, which often strains the relationship well beyond what was needed. This may eventually lead to the same outcomes, but only after a great deal of stress for everybody involved, particularly the employee.

This bill creates another, fairer option. It allows an employer or an employee to ask the other if the party is willing to discuss an agreed exit. This is all it actually does. It is what actually happens now when we go down the track of without prejudice, after there has been a lot of hurt and a lot of time wasted. The other person doesn’t have to agree to even have this conversation. They don’t have to even accept an offer if they have a conversation. This allows for an employee to seek advice if they need it. They can negotiate an exit package that suits them, whether that’s financial, or other terms that may matter to them. They also have the ability to walk away at any point. No agreement exists unless both sides agree to it. I think this is a really important point to make, because this is simply just a negotiation process.

Let me give a practical example of where this could actually help. Imagine a business owner can see that in six months’ time, the business may need to restructure because they may be missing out on some contracts, for example, or a contract is going to end, and one position is likely to disappear. Under the current system, an employer may feel unable to say anything. In fact, they probably won’t say anything to the team and the employees. They will need to start the formal restructuring process. The employee carries on for another six months without knowing what is coming, or maybe they know what’s coming, only to lose their job at the end of it. A lot of contracts now don’t include redundancy payouts like they once did, so they end up with nothing at the end.

This bill would allow an employer to be up front about what is happening in the business, about missing out on a contract, about what is coming, and how they could negotiate some kind of exit straight up. I think the thing that is really important to note here is that the employee could go along, get some advice—legal advice, union representation—and they might actually not want to agree to this. They could then carry on for the next six months, knowing that they’re being managed out of their position or that the restructure’s happening. That is absolutely OK to do so as well.

Alternatively, the employee could have a chance to start looking for a new position; they could start financially thinking about what is going to be happening to them in the next six months; they may relocate to another part of the country—maybe that is actually part of their package. There is lots of opportunity here for an employee to set themselves up really well. The key point here is about choice. It’s about creating the choice for an employer and an employee to end an employment relationship on a good note.

Right now, we have a system that is functionally broken. We have employment relationships that are breaking down, and we have the mechanisms in order to move somebody on, essentially, being used that are just not what they were created or intended to do. We all know that the system isn’t working, and part of the way we can fix that is to line ourselves up with what they do in the UK. In fact, I was really surprised that the Opposition didn’t support this. Actually I wasn’t, because it’s an ACT Party employment legislation bill, but in the UK, the unions like this legislation. It’s actually a popular mechanism for coming to an agreement, particularly in the workplace when there are two parties where the relationship has either broken down or there are personality issues, and you’re never ever going to resolve those. You can’t move them to another department; you can’t put them on anywhere else. It’s about having that opportunity to be able to come together and talk about what it would take to move someone on and what kind of financial incentives there need to be in order to do that. That is really important.

Another example could be two employees enter into a relationship at the workplace, and when the relationship later ends badly, they find that they can no longer work together. The tension may begin affecting the rest of the workplace. The employees know the situation’s not working, and the employer knows it too. One of those employees may decide that they’d be better off actually leaving, but resigning would mean walking away with nothing. It also means standing down from getting things like Work and Income assistance. Instead, they remain in the workplace, things become uncomfortable for everybody, and things escalate to points that they just don’t need to be. Under this bill, that employee could approach the employer, or the employer could approach them, and they could ask to negotiate and agree departure, including compensation, agreed references perhaps, and perhaps other things, like relocation, for example. The idea is that they could come to some kind of conclusion mutually, and that is what I think we desperately need. Instead of months of awkwardness, conflict, and disruption, they could sit down, reach an agreement, and move on. Again, nobody is forced to do anything.

Those are the kinds of situations this bill intends to deal with. It gives people practical ways to resolve a difficult situation, instead of forcing them to pretend like it doesn’t exist. I’ve heard that a number of parties actually intend to oppose this bill. Once again, it’s ACT that is left standing up for business, and I want to say, National as well—thank you very much for indicating that you will support this bill. We understand on this side what it is like to be an employee, and to be an employer, and we know that most of our businesses are small businesses in this country—90 percent of them are small businesses. We want to help them with their employment law, and we want to make sure that employees and employers have the best outcomes.

Reading the Labour Party and Green Party’s differing view in the select committee report was disappointing, because much of it doesn’t actually reflect what the bill does. They claim the bill would allow employers to dismiss people without a cause, or without fair process, however the process is really clear. The whole entire thing needs to be mutually agreed on, with that legal advice, or potentially union advice, so it’s simply wrong. An employer cannot dismiss someone by asking to have a conversation, they cannot force an employee to negotiate, and they cannot force an employee to accept an agreement. It is just not going to happen. If the employee says no, the employment relationship continues and the employer remains bound by existing laws. All of the usual protections against unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage do remain. If the employee does choose to negotiate, they may be able to secure a substantial payment, a good reference, and certainty about what happens next, which I know we’ve talked about.

I struggle to understand how giving an employee that choice is supposed to be unfair. Labour and the Greens also claim that once an employer raises the possibility of an agreed exit, it could be impossible for the employee to remain in the role. An employee can simply decline the request and stay in their job. The argument seems to be that employees are so fragile, that merely being asked whether they want to discuss leaving might make it impossible for them to continue. I genuinely don’t accept that. I think people can be adults in the room. Employees are adults, and they are capable of having difficult conversations. I have to say it’s slightly ironic to hear this argument from the Labour Party, because almost three years ago, New Zealanders had a fairly clear conversation with Labour and decided in significant numbers they did not want Chris Hipkins to remain Prime Minister. I think that was a very wise, adult conversation.

I’m running out of time, so we’re not going to get through all these points, because this bill is in fact a really good bill. If we’re going to unlock the potential of the next generation—of our businesses, of our employees, of this country—we need to be putting businesses first. We need a flexible labour market. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day. Sleep well.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Extended Sitting

Thursday, August 6 2026

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, and the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill

Committee of the whole House

Preamble, Parts 1-6, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, members. We come first to the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, and we begin with the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (09:01): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble, Parts 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (09:02): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to carry this matter through the House. We have tabled one minor amendment since the Finance and Expenditure Committee provided its report back to the House on 29 July.

A minor but important matter of clarification was identified that requires a bit of an amendment to the bill—I’m tabling that amendment with the Clerk; I think I’ve just seen it up there—that provides clarity for the Department of Conservation and Te Here ā Nuku Trust in relation to liability in the event of a fire. An inconsistency in drafting was identified that left open the possibility that the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai may be liable for a fire on a reserve that any another entity administers. Sometimes reserves are administered by different management organisations. This amendment to clause 98 clarifies that the actions of all the groups or other persons that are referred to are intended to be the responsibility of either the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai or the other entity. The amendment is minor; it does not change the intent of relevant clauses regarding liability.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (09:03): Mr Chair, can I just clarify before I begin that we are, indeed, taking this bill through as one part rather than in—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yes, that is correct.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, great. I am going to, I guess, deviate a little bit from our usual practice on this side of going through clause by clause and actually jump around a bit, so forgive me in advance for that, but I will be clear where I am raising questions for the Minister.

I want to begin by looking to Part 3 around the Te Here ā Nuku national park land, and I am just interested in having some dialogue with the Minister on this particular part of the bill. The reason for that is that under this part, and just taking up the part as a whole, parts of the Abel Tasman National Park will be transferred to Te Here ā Nuku Trust—not the entire park, but part of the park. My understanding is that there will be an arrangement in place for 25 years in terms of the management of the park and that, for those members of the public who use the park, nothing should change for how they access the park or use the park. It will be a seamless change. Towards the end of that 25 years, there will be a review of how that continues to operate. I’ve got some questions for the Minister on that, as to what the public can expect in terms of how things continue to operate—how that review will take place, and when it will take place.

But, before that, the principle in law is that this land has actually always been owned by the trust. There is some commentary in the public where members of the public and others have stated that this is land that has been gifted to the trust. It’s my understanding that the court processes were very clear that this land has always been owned by the trust and that the Crown, in its role, has inaccurately had ownership of it—not intentionally, necessarily; there’s nothing legal that’s happened from the Crown’s actions—but this isn’t a matter of the Crown gifting land to the trust, it’s a matter of that land having always been owned by the trust.

I think it would be helpful for the Hansard and for the public paying attention to this morning’s debate just to have some clarity from the Minister on the legal status of that land; and then, also, what the public can expect from how that land will operate; and then, any commentary the Minister can make around how that review will occur before that 25-year period. So there are three parts to my question, as the beginning. Thank you, Mr Chair.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is really a privilege, as I’ve said before in the earlier two readings, to be able to speak at committee of the whole House in relation to this bill. This is a very historic moment, and so I did want to make some opening remarks and then, of course, I have a few specific questions for the Minister, as well.

This isn’t an ordinary piece of legislation. It is the result of what, by any measure, is one of the longest-running legal disputes in our country, a promise of land essentially made in the 1840s that was almost immediately broken and now, 180 years later, it has been put right. While we are speaking about a bill—legislation, today, to give effect to some of the agreement—the totality of the agreement itself and this bill can’t be separated; the two sit side by side. I appreciate the initial question from my colleague Rachel Boyack, who’s just asked for the Hansard to record that the land is not being returned. This is not Waitangi Tribunal settlement. This is a trust law contract case, which really does put it in a unique place in our history.

There were a number of points within the settlement itself that are useful to note, and I would appreciate if the Minister would be able to acknowledge those things, as well. The finding that the Crown as a fiduciary had a strict duty that it owed—a single-minded duty to protect that land—I think, is worth noting for the record. That high duty meant that the Crown’s behaviour was very likely to breach that duty over the period of the years since that duty was assumed. To my view, that also justifies the final payment, as well as the return of the land that was made to those beneficiaries of the trust.

I also thought it was an interesting point of law that the courts found the birth of the Crown’s fiduciary duty was the direct legal consequence of the extinguishment of customary indigenous title. That is new for New Zealand law, but it’s not new for global law in this area. That finding leant on a finding by Canadian courts, as well. Again, I think it would be useful if the Minister recognised some of the unique factors in the broader settlement. The rule against perpetuities not applying is another one, and that’s something that I’ll refer to later as we walk through the legislation.

If I move to the specific clauses of the bill that I’d appreciate the Minister’s comment on, just given the historic nature of both the settlement and the legislation that’s followed, I would go first to the purpose section. I would invite the Minister to speak to the distinction in clause 3(d)—so, the difference between those provisions where legislation is required to give effect to the settlement versus where legislative authorisation is desirable.

What does the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti view as things that are required to give effect to, as opposed to things that are desirable to? In clause 4(2)(a), “the provision to have full effect on that date;”—I’m missing a little bit of a page, but essentially, it says that once this bill passes and it gets Royal assent, the legislation will be in effect. But of course, a number of things would have been needed to have been done in the background to enable the legislation to be given effect to, and I wonder if the Minister could comment on the conversations with the trustees and the beneficiaries while this legislation has progressed to the House, just to assure the committee that those steps have been taken so that the legislation can be effective from the date of Royal assent. I might leave those two questions with the Minister.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (09:11): Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these important questions that touch on one of the most bespoke arrangements ever curated in New Zealand’s parliamentary and executive histories. Of course, it’s a very important part of the world, and actually, an area of the world where Abel Tasman himself and the Janszoon and various other boats arrived many, many centuries ago.

Just in terms of the ownership matter, the court declared and acknowledged that the ownership in these lands was retained by the descendants of the original owners of those lands. In equity, of course, you have a distinction between the legal ownership and the beneficial ownership, and what the court declared, ultimately, was that the beneficial ownership has been retained in the descendants of the original owners, but the legal ownership held in trust is actually vested in the Crown. One of the key purposes, if not the key purpose, of this legislation is to actually carry out the terms of the resolution arrangement between the Government and, ultimately, Rore Stafford and others to transfer the legal ownership of this land from the Crown to the trustees holding the legal ownership of these lands in question in trust for the beneficial owners.

Now, in order to give effect to this arrangement, we have now reached this moment in our parliamentary time to give effect to that by way of legislation. One of the key reasons why we want to—and very desirable to do that—is that the Crown has, just like a number of other organisations and people out there, different responsibilities and different obligations; that if we continue to hold, as the Crown continues to hold, the legal ownership of these lands in trust for the beneficial owners, then it has potentially overlapping or counteracting responsibilities to the beneficial owners and trust compared to the general public because of the nature of the Crown’s position across the responsibilities that it has, and that creates or generates the potential for conflict.

We resolved in a resolution agreement for the legal ownership to be transferred through to the trustees and for that land to be held in trust for the beneficial owners, who were always the beneficial owners as acknowledged by the judicial decision recently. That is absolutely desirable, because we don’t want any conflict about who does what in this situation.

In response to the critical question about the ownership/management of this land as part of the National Park, it will continue to be owned by the beneficial owners. Some land inside the park, particularly areas of the world famous iconic Great Walk, the Abel Tasman Coastal Walk—sorry, the Abel Tasman Coastal Track. It’s a track. It’s not a goat track. It’s actually a wondrous track, especially places like Tapu Bay and Tōtaranui, all the way out towards Awaroa, and of course, the well-known recreation reserve Kaiteretere, also referred to as Kaiteritiri at times. If you ever get the chance to go there, Mr Chair, I recommend you do; beautiful place. Just don’t go in January when there are thousands of people there.

There will be seamless continuity of ownership, being the beneficial owners, but there will also be an ongoing front-facing Te Papa Atawhai Department of Conservation management of the track. If you want to book to go and stay in one of the campgrounds or one of the huts along the way, that will continue with the Department of Conservation managing those interactions between manuhiri, or visitors, to the coastal track and land in question; the whenua in question.

Now, there will be, and there is, I think, a licence arrangement that’s been curated between the trustees who hold the land in trust and the Department of Conservation to preserve and uphold public access to the land by way of the coastal track, but also to ensure that there’s confidence in the way this area will be managed over time. There is one area, Tōtaranui, that has a slightly different arrangement in relation to the reserve. We can get into that if we need to, but I’m sure that the team across the Chamber has poured through this. That will be reviewed in 22 years.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, just to reiterate, this resolution is uncontested across the Chamber. Obviously, we’re intending to support it. I wonder in regard, Minister, you spoke of the impacts on the public and the broader consequences. Certainly, most of us, I think, are very relaxed about that. We are very happy and content that Te Here ā Nuku will manage its part of the resolution in terms of the access to the Abel Tasman and the like, and then at that point it’s up to them how that’s managed.

But I wonder, Minister, how will the Crown manage its other Treaty obligations? This is not a Treaty settlement, of course—it is a resolution—but how will it manage its other Treaty obligations where there are overlapping iwi or mana whenua interests in these particular sections of land that we heard from at the Finance and Expenditure Committee from some of those impacted tangata whenua parties? How will the Crown ensure that there are not Treaty breaches affected by this resolution and that the Crown maintains its obligations to protect iwi from harms from this resolution so far as it has obligations more broadly to Te Tiriti?

This question is not one that is unfamiliar insofar as when Treaty settlements are done. There are often overlapping interests in rohe, and it is one of the fundamental tensions of settlements. Some of those tensions also exist in this resolution, and I just wonder if the Minister can elucidate the clarity that the Government has on how it might manage those tensions. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (09:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick question for the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti off the back of his very helpful comments, and I really appreciate his response around Abel Tasman National Park. I do just have a specific follow-up question because there have been suggestions made by some in the public domain that a better option could be a co-governance model, essentially for the land to be retained in full Crown ownership.

My question is quite specific because this legislation is enabling legislation to enable the resolution agreement that was signed between the Crown and the trust last year. If the Finance and Expenditure Committee had made changes to that model, or if changes were proposed by Government for a different model around the land that is currently held in trust by the Crown at the Abel Tasman National Park, what would that mean for the status of the resolution agreement? Would the Crown end up in a situation where we had to go back to renegotiate that resolution agreement? Would that take time, money, and effort, and would that put us in a position where the Crown was having to renegotiate with beneficiaries, which would, essentially, put us on the back step?

What would be the impact on the agreement that’s been made, because my view of this is that if the Finance and Expenditure Committee had made substantial changes to these parts in bill, it, essentially, would have made that resolution agreement null and void. It would have put us back months, or possibly years, in having to renegotiate with the trust, and that would have been detrimental for everybody who has an interest in this matter. It’s quite a specific question: what would be the unintended consequences for the resolution agreement and for the relationship between the Crown and the beneficiaries if we had a situation where the select committee had recommended big changes to this part of the bill?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (09:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a rather specific question, separate to Rachel Boyack’s—and I agree that they have been very helpful comments from the Minister in the chair, and so thank you. It’s about the licence arrangements that the Minister of Conservation mentioned in his contribution. I note that it is a 25-year licence term and that at about the 22-year mark, there will be a review. My question is about that specific review and the purpose and scope of that.

It says in the legislation that the review is meant to be an opportunity to discuss the effectiveness of the licensing regime, and I want to ask the Minister whether there will be any guidance, or what kinds of things would be taken into consideration in that review at the 22-year mark. What will they be looking for to determine the effectiveness of the licence arrangements?

I also want to ask the Minister: if the licence is then not extended and not renewed and a new licensing arrangement is not agreed to, what then happens with regard to the activities on this land that the Department of Conservation (DOC) undertakes? Also, the Minister mentioned in his contribution that the Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai would be responsible for maintaining tracks, and so on and so forth. So what happens to the maintenance responsibilities if the licence term isn’t extended or if a new licence isn’t entered into?

I also just want to check with the previous clause around the annual reporting requirements of DOC with regard to this. I note that the department will have to provide an annual report to trustees—which seems fair—three months after the end of each operational year. There is a whole list of things that the report must deal with in terms of activities and the relevant issues that might crop up during the licensing arrangement term, and I want to know whether those are the types of details that will then be taken into account at the 22-year review.

I’m also keen to get a sense of this: if there’s annual reporting that is provided to trustees, which is, clearly, to deal with any issues that might crop up during that particular year, then why is the review just after 22 years? Will there be some sort of an ongoing process to lead to that review? I’m guessing now, on reading about the reviews, that it is because of the 25-year licensing term. I’m also keen to get a sense of why the term of 25 years was landed on, and whether that was related to the court rulings or whether it was separate to that. Could the Minister just very quickly also give us a sense of, in clause 43, “Limitations of Department’s activities”, the types of authorised activities that the Minister envisions would take place, outside of, perhaps, the tracks, which he mentioned, as well.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (09:24): Thank you for the various important questions. Again, it’s a magnificent place, Te Tai-o-Aorere and Mohua, and if members ever have the chance to go down to the Abel Tasman Coastal Track, let me know and I might be able to come with you.

Just in relation to the licence arrangement—because that’s provoked a lot of inquiry—it is confidential. But any review of such an arrangement, and there are other similar arrangements around the country—there’s not a lot of them, but there are some arrangements where the Department of Conservation (DOC) does use privately owned land in order to enable tracks for the Great Walks. I think there’s one down at the Hump Ridge, or there are couple of arrangements down at the Hump Ridge, which is way down next to the sausage capital of New Zealand, Tuatāpere.

DOC doesn’t always own land where there is a track or an experience taking place, and so it’s not new in terms of the arrangements that DOC has, but you’d imagine that over time there is some need and necessity for repairs and maintenance, infrastructure, and other relevant investments. For example, down in some of the bays in the Abel Tasman, there is quite considerable septic and waste-water infrastructure, and so making sure that that infrastructure is looked after and enabled and that there is sufficient time for Te Papa Atawhai DOC to commit to investment in capital expenditure over time is quite important. You can’t just do that over a two-year or a three-year licence; you’d have to have a term to have confidence to invest in maybe a 25-year asset.

That’s the sort of kōrero that I would expect in any review of the licence arrangement. But in knowing also that this land has been effectively managed by others over the last 160 years, through the manaakitanga and expression of kotahitanga, the owners of the land have said that, no, they are comfortable with this land continuing to be managed seamlessly by Te Papa Atawhai, or the Department of Conservation, as part of the coastal track.—and, actually, other areas of land throughout the whenua that constitutes the Spain Award Area—and they should be acknowledged for that.

You know, if you’ve had a piece of private land that you haven’t managed, but you’ve owned it for 160 years and someone else has been looking after it, and there’s an intention to come together and actually continue an arrangement for another 25 years, that should be acknowledged and supported. We’re very grateful that the owners of this land have continued to support that.

Things like repairs and maintenance and capital expenditure need payments that are required for the infrastructure, and even the route on which that track takes place—because, sometimes, as the hard-working member from Nelson will know, the track does get pounded by the weather and it gets broken, and some of that will be on the land that is owned by the beneficial owners and sometimes you have to reroute things. So all of those types of attributes come into play.

In relation to the pātai around Treaty obligations, they will persist for land that is owned by the Crown—those Treaty obligations persist. For the land that is owned by the beneficial owners on trust in the Te Here ā Nuku Trust, there has been a range of communications between the iwi, the owners—Te Here ā Nuku trustees—and the Crown to resolve any outstanding overlaps around, let’s say, overlay classifications or statutory acknowledgments in a range of other Treaty of Waitangi settlement commitments that are already articulated in legislation involving those iwi. Those discussions have been ongoing, and you won’t be surprised that a lot of the trustees and managers of those iwi organisations are the same people as the owners of the land involved in Te Here ā Nuku Trust. Those conversations have been had and will continue to be had, and, of course, like with any whānau, hapū iwi, and, actually, communities, you don’t always get agreement all of the time—unlike this place.

Co-governance—I’ll just respond before the Hon Willie Jackson stands. Neither the owners nor the Crown desired this, and my understanding is that it didn’t occupy an extensive period of time in some of the select committee discussions, but it wasn’t aspired to or desired, and the arrangement à la Taranaki Maunga was not front of mind.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. Good to hear the Minister’s kōrero with regards to the question around co-governance, which was what I was going to get into. It’s fascinating that one of the former senior Ministers of the National Party—Nick Smith—is now a great advocate for co-governance; it’s one of his major priorities in life; co-governance is the way forward in this particular kaupapa.

Very pleased to hear the Minister talk about that, and I was wondering, in terms of that question, which has come up: has the Government got a strategy to navigate that, given that this former senior Minister is presenting as running around with a petition? And has the Government formulated a response to him, given that the insinuation is obviously that Māori can’t be trusted in terms of the management of this project? That’s the basis of it. I’ve listened to what Nick Smith has said on national radio—the nonsense that’s being perpetrated. He’s almost talking like they’ve lost something—they’re losing something huge. So I’m interested in the Minister’s strategy around that.

Does it affect the overall philosophy or strategy in terms of co-governance with this Government? I believe that the Government is embracing, is still a supporter of co-governance in different areas, but is this particular kaupapa affecting things going forward? Are they attaching any priority to meeting with Nick Smith, who is rabid in terms of his petition, where he’s got only a few people signed up?

In terms of those Treaty implications, and in terms of what’s happening internally within the grouping down there, I’m interested in how the Minister may well be navigating that, given that there is some opposition, sadly, from some of our most senior people down there. I’m interested to hear if the Minister has been able to mediate or facilitate anything in terms of that process. I think that some of the opposition, which is not major, has come from very significant individuals down there. I’d be interested to hear if the Minister has been able to mediate or navigate anything in that area. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (09:32): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It’s an honour to take this first opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. I know in the committee stages, committee of the whole House, I guess, I’ll take the opportunity to speak more wide-ranging and ask a few more wide-ranging questions of the Minister.

Can I acknowledge Rore Stafford and the trust members for their tenacity. I did meet with representatives while in Government where there was a request to resolve this quickly. Can I say it did have to go through an agonising and laborious legal process to reach this point, but can I congratulate the Government for moving to resolve this longstanding issue. I want to acknowledge Rore and what he has done in the transfer of this land rightfully back to its rightful owners to Te Here-ā-Nuku Trust. And can I say that moving forward, to the questions and the issues raised by my colleague Willie Jackson around co-governance, it is somewhat ironic, if not hypocritical, for those who have opposed co-governance when the land is in public ownership, to then have the land transferred to Māori ownership and then demand co-governance. I have to say I was horrified at Nick Smith’s—the Hon Nick Smith he’s called in title, but it wasn’t an honourable thing to launch a petition against a longstanding claim, rightful legal claim on this land.

In terms of Abel Tasman National Park, and I speak as former MP for West Coast-Tasman—proud of representing this region and understanding the significance of Abel Tasman National Park to Te Waikoropupū Springs; these are spectacular areas of significance to all people in the regions. They had been rightfully transferred back to the traditional owners of this land—legal owners—and we have to respect the governance proposals that are laid out in this piece of legislation. And for Nick Smith to stir up fear that there would be closure, there would be lack of access, was absolutely outrageous.

The goodwill that the Government has created through the settlement of this claim and this piece of legislation is to be applauded. I think we in Opposition are supporting this on the basis that we move forward into a new era where there is respectful recognition of ownership, just as there are blocks of private ownership within Abel Tasman National Park, owned by lots of wealthy people—Pākehā people, most of them—working in the national park, not necessarily blocking access, but working with the Department of Conservation (DOC). I’m sure that the trust, too, will show the same respect for the wider enjoyment of Abel Tasman National Park and the expectations of access to it.

We have to remember this is private ownership—land now transferred back into private ownership. And my questions flow on to other areas of legislation that this Government is passing: reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA), enhancement of property rights—interesting—threats to water conservation orders, perhaps the threat that they should be removed. Well, I hope that the Government in its passage and progress of legislation through the RMA maintains and upholds the water conservation orders, the one that will be so important to protect the rights allocated here to Te Waikoropupū Springs, and its majesty, its pristine nature, and the need for protection through that water conservation order. If the Government moves to undermine those water conservation orders in Golden Bay or anywhere else in the country—Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman and thank you for the call. I raise these issues because of their importance and because this is a significant step in history, really, where we’ve worked through a process in our legal system to rightfully acknowledge, as I say, claims of the past and I guess the respect for future management regimes.

Can I come to Kaiteriteri as well. There are significant commercial players, as Nick Smith pointed out, utilising Abel Tasman National Park and stirred up fears of potential problems into the future. I know DOC haven’t always been the easiest landlord or manager, and there will be, I’m sure, ongoing tensions between rightful managers and owners and operators. But the ones who I respect have welcomed this piece of legislation, this settlement. Those people who have promoted, utilised, enhanced, and respected Abel Tasman National Park are saying they are very happy to work with the new owners of some of these private areas within the park in and around Kaiteriteri, and I welcome that. I think that represents the views of the vast majority of people who live in and around Tasman, and in and around Nelson. They have watched, they have respected, and they’ve, I guess, agonised with the trustees and the legal process.

Can I just say, as part of the previous Labour Government, we were looking for legal guidance on this, given the precedence that this may set. I think, now, that’s for future Governments to work through where there may be other legal claims, but this was unique, the court decided that, and they have handed over to Te Here-ā-Nuku Trust the rightful ownership of these, as I say, amazing areas in the Tasman area.

Can I just ask if the Minister—because I know that’s what committee stages are about—if he has had a discussion with his colleague Nick Smith, who was a staunch National Party advocate that had asked him to actually help move this process forward, not hinder or disrupt it. I think that’s really important.

Can I ask the Minister also, in terms of assurances for people in and around Kaiteriteri, there are some major challenges with that area. The trust set up, or the board set up as it has been, has not been ideal. People with good intent have gone on to that board, the Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board, to try and help make progress. I just hope that the Department of Conservation works alongside the trust and the operators to develop that spectacular area in a way that is truly sustainable but does realistically deal with the pressures of the future.

Anyway, I’d just like to, as I say, give the Minister an opportunity to work through a couple of those issues on the conservation water order, and to ensure that the cooperation within Abel Tasman National Park can be facilitated by both the departments, the new owners, and the operators.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (09:41): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you for those insights from members of the committee. Look, Nick Smith is a fighter for conservation and for Nelson, and I acknowledge his extraordinary commitment to conservation over many, many decades. I have not received any petitions in the House from the Petitions Committee, from what I know, and I understand that there is a petition being signed by members of the public, but I haven’t seen any petition arrive at the House yet.

But just to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith, he actually was part of a Government that endorsed Te Awa Tupua, Te Ture Whaimana, and Te Urewera and the resolution arrangements that resulted in settlement legislation for those longstanding Treaty of Waitangi claims around resources. But the legislation is not about Nick; it’s about people like Rore Stafford, Kahu Kutia and Eva Rickard, and a range of other governors of Wakatū, and, importantly, the descendants of the original owners of the whenua in question.

Focusing on how we can best scaffold and support the health and wellbeing of all the land into Te Tai-o-Aorere, Tasman Bay, and Mohua, Golden Bay, and places as spectacular as Te Waikoropupū and Mārahau, out there at Te Tokanganui—and other iconic places of the areas that the Government and I are committed to.

There were some questions around co-governance or co-management and we see co-management has worked in practice and in various initiatives that multiple Governments have been a part of, whether or not it’s the catchment collectives or, indeed, the most recent announcements of the marine reserves off the coast of Ōtākou in South Canterbury, Te Au Roa o Te Rakihouia where the Department of Conservation and Ngāi Te Ruahikihiki, Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka, and Ngāi Tahu are now looking after some of those marine reserves.

There has been opposition in different corners of our communities around the resolution agreements and also the legislation which is currently proposed. But importantly, there’s also been agreement on the fundamental platforms for moving forward by the trustees that have been, effectively, appointed by the original descendants of this land. And I’m not a mediator or facilitator, but I’m someone who acknowledges that some of the opposition in the raruraru that might exist with some quarters needs to be resolved at a rangatiratanga sphere, not for the Kāwanatanga and Minister Potaka to jump in all amongst that; when I’ve full confidence, belief, and faith that the descendants of the whenua can resolve those disputes amongst themselves.

I talk with many people and I’ve heard Nick’s concerns—he’s expressed them in a wide variety of media—but, again, that’s for Nick. Our job and our responsibility today, in my view, is actually to carry this proposed legislation forward and get to the third reading, hopefully, in a couple of weeks, rather than belabour the points around individual concerns that may be channelled through a different pathway—petitions or the media or other communication platforms.

In respect to Kaiteriteri Reserve—what a place—I encourage everyone in this Chamber, all 16 of us who are here today, to visit and to invest not only in the area but in a couple of ice creams down there, because, actually, it’s a place you want to spend part of your life in. It is phenomenal how beautiful the Kaiteriteri area and, actually, the entire area of Nelson—just to acknowledge the member, the Hon Rachel Boyack, for her raging support and representation of that superb part of our country. The reserve has its own board and I’m sure the former MP from the West Coast, Mr Damien O’Connor, will know that that is one of the very few reserves that actually generates a surplus across the country. There’s not many reserves in the Department of Conservation estate that generate a service, but that is one of them, and that mahi will continue.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I begin just by thanking the Minister for his fulsome and very thoughtful responses. I know they’re really appreciated on this side of the House. I also just wanted to acknowledge the officials from Crown Law and Te Puni Kōkiri, who we have with us today, not only for being present today but for their work towards the settlement, which I know has been significant. I do have some questions for the Minister, which I will go through—some of them are quite broad and some of them are very specific, just in terms of the legislation. Again, just thanking the Minister for his thoughtful responses.

One question that came up during the select committee process was the question of precedent and whether the settlement, as well as the judgments themselves, create precedent going forward and whether the Minister is aware of any other like-circumstances that could fall into scope of the settlement that we’ve seen here. I think this is such a unique area of law in many ways, partially because, in terms of trust law relating to land, we have legislation through the property Acts now, through the former contracts Acts, and then we have English legislation as well that required land held in trust, or trust created to manage land, to be in writing. And in this instance, we don’t have a trustee as such, but we have a significant amount of evidence and behaviour, and in writing that has created, I think, what the Supreme Court called a “bespoke duty”. And so I’m just wanting to hear from the Minister his thoughts on that.

Another issue that came up was the possibility of new beneficiaries being added to the current beneficiaries of the trust and the provisions that allow for that to occur entirely validly. We had a brief discussion about whāngai relationships and those being acknowledged through the addition of new beneficiaries, and the Minister’s thoughts on whether the provisions are sufficient to enable new beneficiaries to be added as beneficiaries to the trust.

A third issue was in relation to encroachment on the land concerned by private dwelling houses and how, either through settlement or through legislation, that’s been addressed in a fair way to those third parties. And the Minister’s view on whether the provisions relating to third-party rights in the bill are as sufficient—what he has heard from existing third parties as to their satisfaction with the current provisions.

Specifically, in terms of clause 7, which is the interpretation clause, there’s inclusion of the term “corporate trustee” and the allowance of corporate trustees as well as individual trustees to hold a place within the architecture that protects the land. I’m just wanting the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti to comment. My assumption is that the duties are the same, and that mirrors what we often see occurring in relation to Treaty settlements, and the Minister’s satisfaction with that. There is clause 7, which talks about the impact of delayed release land, and I’m just wanting the Minister to speak again to the reasons for delayed disclosure and the way in which that land will be captured under the current legislation.

Finally, in terms of future third-party rights, the phrase is that “future third-party rights means any rights, interests, and other lawfully created matters”, and I wonder if the Minister could speak to what would constitute other lawfully created matters in the context of that particular definition. I thank the Minister again for his patience and his detailed responses to that.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (09:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. It sort of gives me pause to think about that famous Jarndyce v Jarndyce case. You might recall that, Mr Chair, in Charles Dickens’ Bleak House. Just ongoing, but we’re getting to resolution.

In relation to the precedent potential, in terms of the judgment, of course, all judgments have some precedent value, but I don’t think that this will be appealed because we’ve got to a resolution of the issues. Actually, the resolution agreement was endorsed by the High Court once it was received, so, in fact, we’re just carrying out that endorsement.

In terms of similar circumstances, we are not aware of anything of the distinct and bespoke unique nature of the Nelson Tenths circumstances. In relation to the Tenths arrangements in other locations, for the most part, those have been resolved by way of other settlement arrangements, which were conducted effectively through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. Again, we’re not aware of any commensurate matters to the Nelson Tenths arrangements.

It is important to acknowledge the third-party rights that might emerge in the future. There were a couple of observations that our earnest and adroit team just made to me. There may be a delayed release of lands from the beneficial owners or the owners of whenua in question back to the Crown, and there may also be lands that emerge that we don’t know about right now that need to be vested in the owners, because as you would imagine, across some parts of our country, there are no survey titles. That’s been one of the big challenging administrative matters that has had to be progressed and resolved over the course of the last few months.

The encroachment issue was raised and it’s important to make comment on that. There are private dwellings that exist within the boundaries of national parks, like the Abel Tasman National Park, and one of the important management and administrative matters is to ensure that there are appropriate surveys of titles to ensure that any encroachments are identified and resolved. The team are dealing with those and other related matters which may have popped up from time to time. I know Fish & Game New Zealand has been one of those, but that’s been dealt with in a separate manner and down a separate pathway.

With respect to beneficiaries, there was a question asked about whether or not there will be additions. Well, sometimes you actually don’t know who all the descendants of the original owners are because people may not have connected with their own tīpuna, and the definition that’s provided within the proposed legislation enables a class of beneficiaries, and there are pathways for those who may not understand or be aware of their whakapapa connection to the original owners to identify themselves and are included in the class. That type of situation will probably emerge, as will, I’m sure, more babies who will be descendants of the original owners. I will not be having more babies myself, but that has been addressed, that issue. There used to be an ad on TV about that stuff but I won’t go there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Presumably not by the ministerial schedule.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, no. It’s not in the amendments to the Act either. Finally, I just wanted to acknowledge not only the team behind us who have been losing sleep over this matter for the last 10 years but also their cohorts, and importantly, people like Uncle Rore and Auntie Lynne Stafford, Paul Morgan, of course, and James Palmer and others from the Wakatū massive; Johnny McGregor and Jamie Tuuta, Hemi Sundgren, George Stafford, and, of course, Karensa Johnston who have been absolutely phenomenal in their commitment to an enduring and durable resolution of matters current.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (09:57): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I also just reiterate the comments made by my colleague Vanushi Walters that the engagement and thoughtful responses from the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti is really appreciated. We really appreciate that, and also, like others, we want to acknowledge the officials that have done a remarkable job on this resolution and the legislation over what is a short period of time getting this legislation through the House. I know that that presents its challenges, so I really do want to acknowledge just how hard they have worked through that time.

I have a specific question. I’m going to jump to Part 4, clauses 93 and 94, and this is around quite a specific issue that has cropped up in questions from the community about gifted land. The background to this is where members of the community have rallied together to gift some land to the Department of Conservation. Usually, it can potentially be given to another Crown organisation or to a council, but my specific question is around the ones given to the Department of Conservation, and then what that will mean going forward. Because for those people, sometimes they have fundraised, there have been bequests from people who’ve passed away—a range of different ways that land can be gifted. If I speak specifically about clause 93(1)(f), which is part of Snowden’s Bush Scenic Reserve, where the land was sold by the Anglican Church and it was fundraised by the community and then gifted to Department of Conservation.

In clause 94, it says that the “Trustees’ obligations in respect of gifted land. If the trustees exercise the power under section 79 to revoke, in part or in whole, the reserve status of any gifted land, the trustees must have regard to the original purpose of the gift, to the extent that the purpose of the gift can be ascertained.”

Can I get an understanding from the Minister about what that will mean in practice? If, for example, the people who have made the gifting were very clear that the land should be for public use, for public enjoyment and recreation, will that have to be retained by the trust if they were to potentially sell the land or change the purpose of the land? How would that work in practice? What would happen if the purpose of the gift can’t actually be ascertained as is noted in clause 94? Perhaps, if the gifting occurred some time ago and there isn’t any written documentation as to why that gift was made and it’s difficult to understand what the purpose of that, how would that operate in practice?

I do want to acknowledge that I’m not asking these questions to try to suggest that this isn’t a fair approach in the legislation; I’m just interested in the Minister’s comments on how this will work in practice. I particularly want to acknowledge the trustees; I have discussed some of these places with the trustees directly, who have, in my view, been operating in very good faith, very keen to continue the use of the land as per its current purpose, and have been working closely with communities to have good-faith discussions around that.

This is not me raising a criticism; I’m just interested in the Minister, I guess, reassuring the community that there isn’t an agenda here for land to have been gifted to the Crown and then the legal ownership transferred to the trust, and then somehow that’s going to be sold and developed and used for purposes that mismatch with what the community intended. It has been an important matter raised in the community, and I’m just keen for the Minister to provide some reassurance to the community that there will be good-faith obligations going forward in respect to these parcels of land.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (10:01): I join with colleagues in complimenting the Minister this morning; I think we’ve had some very good and honest responses, and I’m really pleased to see the Government’s strategy and response with regards to this kaupapa.

Just further to some of the questions, though: in terms of the quantum, we’re talking about the biggest settlement in the history of this country, basically. In some ways, it’s gone under the radar, which is maybe good. I’m interested in how, going forward, the Minister is going to manage that—particularly the communications on this, given that the original settlements were $170 million in terms of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. This particular settlement of $420 million has in many ways gone under the radar.

Then, of course, there’s lots of offers of help and support from people like Dr Nick Smith in terms of helping “the Māoris” in terms of their investment strategy going forward. I know the Minister has given some answers, and I respect his answers with regard to Dr Nick Smith, but it is a worry for, I think, everyone that a senior former Minister has taken this condescending and patronising approach with our people down there. Damien O’Connor, I think, summed it up very well—the amazing sort of turnaround in terms of Māori receiving their justice through a private means, and all of a sudden, it’s a bit of an outrage. I’m still perplexed and what to know what the Government strategy will be over him because, with his petition coming, I am worrying about the type of controversy that might occur.

In terms of the co-governance, I heard the Minister’s answer with regard to that, and I felt comfortable with that response, but I’m wondering, given that he’s got coalition partners who are anti co-governance, how he is managing that at the moment. You’ve got two partners who have basically come out against the whole co-governance strategy and process going forward—and in fact want the whole process abandoned—but the Minister has confirmed this morning that there is no resiling from that for National. How are they managing that in terms of a strategy going forward? Although, we accept that in this particular case, this is not a co-governance model, and nor should it be.

I’m interested in that strategy, but also in terms of the strategy with regards to the trustees. You have trustees from around not just in the South Island but all the way up the North Island. How are we going to process the obligations to Māori and the benefits—what is the process in place with regards to that—particularly given the overlapping iwi claims? Not just overlapping iwi claim, but urban Māori claims; you’ve got Ngāti Toa and then you’ve got the different regions and the different groupings. With such a huge settlement, how is the Minister envisaging that going forward? What strategies are in place? Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (10:05): Mr Chair, thank you again for providing the opportunity to respond to these well-meaning and motivated questions.

With respect to the private land which has been gifted, I think it’s widely acknowledged that when the land in question was gifted, it had the imprint of a trust within that gift—albeit those people, and potentially the Crown at that time, were not across or aware of that imprint and that trust associating with the land in question. It has always been owned, as declared by the court, by the beneficial owners. When the land was gifted through to the Crown, it carried with it that imprint of trust. The responsibility of Government and this Parliament is actually to ensure that the purpose of the gift, when made for specific, bespoke areas of land, is given some consideration. That is the responsibility that we have, rather than forcing anything in addition to the provision that is now outlined and articulated in the legislation: to ensure that the purpose of the gift is given regard.

It’s a little bit ironic, actually, because often it’s the Crown having regard to matters, and now of course it’s the owners of this land having regard to matters. But that is the responsibility of this House and the responsibility that we have carried through from the resolution arrangements as the Crown to ensure that there is a process. That process is well set out and articulated in clause 94, as the erudite member has alluded to.

There were some other comments made in relation, again, to the Hon Nick Smith, and I think we should just acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for his mahi but move back to the key purpose of the bill and this legislation, and of course carrying out the resolution arrangements. My understanding is that there has been and there will continue to be a conservative approach to the governance and the management of the assets, pūtea, land, and any other assets that are now vested in the trustees to be held in trust for the beneficial owners.

Finally, I just wanted to step back and acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Chris Bishop for their leadership on these matters as successive Attorneys-General and for carrying through a sense of collegiality and professionalism in this House. It’s out of respect that all of us have come together, unified in purpose and unified in intention, to ensure that this longstanding—indeed, maybe the longest property debate and dispute in this country—is resolved. With that, I will take my seat.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 No tort liability for emissions-related climate change effects, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1; this is the debate on clauses 3 to 5—“No tort liability for emissions-related climate change effects”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can’t say it’s a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill. As we’ve traversed in previous stages of the bill, we are in a situation where we have a bill which has been brought to the House and is going to get rid of existing litigation, as well as prevent future litigation in respect of tort law.

I do have a question for the Minister, and I wonder if he would be open to making some opening comments on this particular bill, because there are a number of policy decisions that this Government has made which are unusual. They are unusual in the sense that we have a case in front of the court at the moment which will be extinguished by this particular bill, and we have a situation where future arguments in respect of this particular type of tort—and, if you look at the bill, and I know we’ll come to this in subsequent clauses, the definition is of all torts in relation to climate change emissions.

The reason I raise that is because, in earlier readings of the bill, the Minister did state that this won’t extinguish existing claims. I think that is a really important first initial question for the Minister. What actions, current and future, will be extinguished through the purpose of this particular piece of legislation? I look forward to hearing from Minister on it.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (10:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Like my colleague Camilla Belich, I do not support this legislation coming through the House.

Speakers during the first two readings have made it clear that this is a very unusual step to take. We’re very disappointed that the Government has decided, in many ways, to disrespect what is a common feature of our democracy: to allow cases to proceed through the courts, not undermining parliamentary supremacy whatsoever, because Parliament can then make a decision to override a decision of the courts, but, essentially, creating a large amount of uncertainty for the people of New Zealand, where they cannot be assured that they will have their day in court, can have a matter determined by a branch of our democracy, because the Government may override that decision midway through the courts. This was a case that was due to be heard next year, with papers due to be filed, I believe, this month. This really cuts across our democracy, and we will certainly want to explore this in a lot of detail.

I do note that, when Minister Meager spoke at the second reading of this bill, he started his speech by saying that this did not remove any rights. His argument was that it didn’t remove substantive rights, because those hadn’t yet been determined by the court. But, as many people will know and have experienced in New Zealand, there are both procedural rights as well as substantive rights, and, indeed, substantive rights are included within our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Sections 25 and 27 affirm that every person has the right to minimal standards of criminal procedure, and there are both substantive and procedural rights in domestic and international law. I really want to get a sense from the Minister of Justice himself, who is responsible for this legislation, whether it’s his belief that no rights have been removed or whether he, unlike his colleague at the second reading, will acknowledge that procedural rights are equally important in a democracy and that what the Government is doing in this instance is removing rights: removing the rights of Mr Smith, certainly, and other potential litigants before that court case has its final hearing.

Again, I look forward to the Minister’s opening comments. There are a number of other issues that, again, Mr Meager spoke to at the second reading, which I think we would really appreciate hearing from the Minister about, which we will run through, in terms of the limitations and the choices that have been made in this bill. We’ll start with that key point of just an acknowledgment, if the Minister could, that rights are being affected and that procedural rights are equally as important as substantive rights.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (10:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s just a couple of preliminary things I want to raise on this bill. This bill really should be called the “Deny Mike Smith Justice Bill”, because it’s his claim that this bill is all about.

The question I have is whether the Minister, in having this bill drafted—obviously, his officials looked at the claim that Mike Smith is bringing, and it’s a three-pronged kind of claim: one claim in negligence, claiming that harm is being caused by a lack of due care; another claim in nuisance, that there’s an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of the environment by others; and his third claim is the novel tort claim, that there is a climate damage tort, which, to be perfectly honest, I think was unlikely to get across the line, but it never will now. They’re all claims in the area of law known as tort—that is to say, the law of civil wrongs.

My question is: in the legislation as it stands, it says there are no tort claims for climate wrongs, or words to that effect, but it doesn’t say there are no common law wrongs, because, in the common law, there are many other areas of law. A contract claim would be tricky, so we could probably put that to one side; a restitution claim would probably be tricky, so we can put that to one side; but it does strike me that it’s possible to run a fiduciary argument, and we’ve seen those run in novel ways in a number of jurisdictions. The fiduciary argument has been run very effectively by indigenous peoples for claims against the Crown for wrongs to the environment.

Now, whilst we have a Treaty framework in New Zealand—and you’ll see that Mike Smith’s claim had a strong tikanga thread to it; that he has a particular standing because he is an iwi leader—this bill does not preclude a claim against another party, whether it be the Crown or a business interest, that they are in a relationship of particular vulnerability. That’s the key point of a fiduciary claim: one person is in a position of vulnerability to that other person. In this climate situation, there is at least an argument—the kind of argument the Supreme Court might not rule out as entirely untenable, because that’s the test that the Supreme Court essentially has to run—that the Crown or large businesses are in a fiduciary relationship with citizens or particular iwi who are vulnerable to things like coastal erosion through climate change.

I guess my question to the Minister is this: in drafting this specifically to preclude tort claims, is that an acceptance that, if a litigant wishes to reframe their action in another area of the law, whether it be fiduciary claims or some other area that I will probably be able to think of—or perhaps some of my esteemed, learned colleagues can message me and I’ll raise it in the House. Are you accepting that those other claims still remain open? If you wanted to preclude all claims, you would have said it, and, in fact, the Supreme Court decision itself says that, because the legislation doesn’t preclude other actions, we presume they’re still allowed. Because this legislation doesn’t preclude a fiduciary action, would it be right to say that that is still allowed, at least to be argued in the courts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:20): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank the honourable members for their opening comments in relation to this bill. This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of liability in tort for climate change damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, why did we do this? It’s a response to the litigation in Smith v Fonterra, where the plaintiff has brought claims in tort against several high-emitting companies, including claims of public nuisance and claims inviting consideration of a new tort relating to damage in the climate system. The amendments to the bill address the risk that a parallel and potentially contradictory regime to the Climate Change Response Act could be developed in common law. The bill clarifies that no liability in tort is available in relation to emissions related to climate change harm. This will provide certainty for business and investors about the extent of their obligations.

We’re doing this because it’s our intention that the New Zealand regulatory approach to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change harm should be managed by Parliament and the executive, who can take a whole-of-economy approach that carefully considers the environmental, economic, and social implications. We think that tort law is not an appropriate mechanism for responding to greenhouse gas emissions, as there needs to be careful consideration of all those matters. That’s what Parliament has done, and so that’s why we’re passing this legislation.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. On Part 1, given we’re meeting the Climate Change Response Act, I wonder if the Minister can respond to this inquiry. The Climate Change Response Act is, of course, New Zealand’s primary legislation for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the purposes of the Act is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement.

Now, the key component of the Act is to set up a framework for reducing emissions over time, including a 2050 emissions reduction target. The Minister’s obligation is that he has a responsibility for implementing policies to reduce net emissions. Where those policies are insufficient to reduce net emissions, whether to meet our target or to address the existential challenge of climate change, there remained—until this bill came to the House—a pathway for citizens to challenge the harm caused by emitters locally, which is what’s being eradicated by this bill.

My question is, if the objective of the Act is to help us reduce our emissions, then allowing tort pathways to remain open is not contradictory with the objective of the Act, because, in fact, it might assist us in finding other means and pathways through the whole of our legal system to reduce emissions. But eliminating and striking out the option of tort as a means to addressing that existential challenge of climate change actually contradicts the purpose of the Act, if its primary purpose is to address greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder if the Minister can respond to that question, because intrinsic in the actions of Smith v Fonterra is an assertion on the part of Smith that the Government’s actions have been insufficient: the Government has not fulfilled its obligations to address climate change emissions.

The other question there is, within the existing regime, agricultural emissions are not included. Fonterra, being an agricultural entity, because the primary mechanism is the emissions trading scheme, is not captured by this Act, effectively, or the actions of the Government.

So my first question is, how was it inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the Act to allow tort to be a pathway for addressing emissions; and where the Government has failed to sufficiently act, how is it justifiable to extinguish the right of citizens to seek other pathways to address the harms caused to them by climate change?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. The point we are making is that the response to climate change by New Zealand has been through Parliament and the elected executive, through the regime set up through the Climate Change Response Act. Now, the member is perfectly entitled to argue that the Act should be different and should include some things and other things, or it could be more stringent. There’s lots of arguments about that and that’s perfectly legitimate. The appropriate response to that would be to campaign and become Government and change the legislation. That’s fine. That’s, no doubt, what one will try and do, and we will line up our record on the economy and climate change and we’ll see who wins that argument.

That’s how it works, because we hold that our response to climate change is a very broad undertaking that involves consideration not just of climate but, also, the economy, society, and many other elements. We believe that an accountable Parliament making those judgments and being accountable for them and subject to change in the normal parliamentary fashion is the way to do it, rather than through a process of tort. And so, that’s the point that we would make there.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:27): Thank you, Mr Chair, and what an illuminating statement from the Minister of Justice. We seem to be getting a lecture on how to do our jobs in committee stage, and, in fact, we are told that it’s not actually our job to scrutinise the Government and actually look at this bill and find out what is wrong, but to campaign in an election if we disagree with it. Well, that’s not my understanding of how the committee stage works, and I have a few probing questions for the Minister. I would appreciate an informed answer on them, if possible.

The Minister stated himself, and so brought this point into the debate, that the justification for this bill was that the Government was better-placed to take a whole-of-economy approach to climate change. My question is: where is this whole-of-economy approach? Where can we find it? It doesn’t appear to be on the papers tabled in front of us today. It doesn’t appear to be in any information provided by the Minister or officials at select committee. And so, if the Minister is saying that there is a whole-of-economy approach to addressing climate change, effectively, could he please table that? It would be very interesting for us to be able to see that approach and how this, in fact, fits into that approach, because my contention is that it doesn’t.

There are a number of other, overall issues that have been brought about in this debate, but I wondered if I could ask some specific questions around the clauses in Part 1. The first question I have is in relation to clause 3, which amends the Climate Change Response Act. I wanted to ask the Minister, how is this a climate change response? Because it appears to limit the types of responses that can be brought—and we can get into this in clause 4—and it seems to be inconsistent with the aims of the Climate Change Response Act, which is to tackle climate change and to mitigate the impacts of climate change. I can quote the exact purpose of that Act or find that for the Minister if he wishes, but the consistency with amendment Acts and the primary piece of legislation is inherently important, and I would like an explanation as to how this fits in with that primary piece of legislation that it is amending.

The second question I have is in relation to clause 4, which follows directly on and inserts a new section 271, which is the statutory bar on tort liability. Now, if we first look at 271(1), it lists the applicability of this bill, and it says it’s to a person, which I think we can all assume at this stage is a legal person, so corporations as well—I think famously this Act applies to their activities—and it talks in 271(1) about a situation where there is an emission. The question that I have for the Minister is how does this interact with 271(2), which states that a person has no climate liability for the emissions.

Obviously, where there is an agreed emission, which is not contested, I can see how that would work, but the question I have is: where there is a dispute as to the fact of the emissions or the extent of the emissions, does that person—and we know that includes corporations, but the Minister’s happy to be corrected if that’s not his understanding—or corporation have liability where that is disputed? It appears to me that to be exempt from liability, you have to have an agreed emission, as outlined in 271(1).

I want to acknowledge that sometimes those aspects are contested. Sometimes there is a challenge of emissions being made, and there is not an agreement on behalf of that alleged emitter that that particular activity is occurring. I think this is a really important point, because many businesses looking at this will think, “OK, I don’t need to worry about tort liability anymore; I can do whatever I want, if that creates emissions or it doesn’t.” Actually, if they dispute their emissions, I’m not clear that they will be covered from the fact of the tort. The other thing that I want to know is it says tort liability. Does that mean the fact of a tort existing can be found without liability being also established?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:32): I’m concerned that we could easily get into a debate about the adequacy or not—or the appropriateness or not—of the current law in relation to climate change response. The point I’d make is the Government is not changing the framework of our climate change response, which is laid out in this legislation. The expectations and requirements on businesses to reduce emissions have not changed; all sectors are expected to play their part in reducing emissions to meet our targets.

The system set up under the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is unchanged by this decision. The ETS works by increasing the cost of emission and reducing the cost of removal. That is not being changed. Members can quite rightly argue, if they want to, that we should do it differently, and our ETS system should do this, or do that. That’s fine, but that’s not what we’re talking about with this legislation.

What we’re talking about is Parliament moving to put a statutory bar in the way of tort—setting up a parallel and potentially contradictory regime that would work alongside the regime that Parliament has set up. That’s what we’re trying to deal with. In terms of the question about arguments about whether or not there is an actual emission, my advice is that both actual or potential emissions are covered by this.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (10:34): I’d like to follow on from a related question that my colleague Camilla Belich has made, but it’s going down a different track. She’s asked about the emissions relating to climate change, but I want to ask, what if a climate-changing emission particle has a both a climate-changing effect but also a physical effect? For example, we know that methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are gases that change the atmosphere, but they can also cause physical harm. Let me give an example. If there’s a waste dump, or if there’s some sort of organics collection facility, or a methane-generating plant, for example, that captures biogas and turns it into electricity—we know that methane has been defined as an emission-related climate change effect. But if that factory were to have a leak, for example, and the methane spilled over into a local community or polluted the earth, because that methane is creating climate change—it’s a climate-changing gas—does the fact of its exclusion from sections 271 and 272, where it seems like if a particle has a climate-changing effect, mean it automatically gets excluded from the tort liability regime? Obviously, the climate-changing impact of that is excluded, but what about the physical effects of that methane particle, for example, or the potential health effects that methane exposure might cause to an atmosphere?

The same goes for other climate-changing gases, which obviously do have climate-changing effects that are excluded from this regime. Does the exclusion of climate-changing particles mean that they’re excluded from the other harms they might potentially cause? Or does the tort limitation apply purely to the climate-changing effects? If it is only intended to limit to the climate-changing effects of it, how can the Minister reconcile that with section 272(2), which seems to broaden the potential limitations to not just climate-changing effects?

For example, “(b) endangering or impairing the life, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public: (c) interfering with, or obstructing, the public in the exercise or enjoyment of public rights: (d) harm, impairment, or loss, or a conception (including, without limitation, a tikanga … conception) of harm, impairment, or loss, that is neither physical nor economic”. I accept that it’s the Government’s policy intention to exclude climate change effects from this legislation. I disagree—everyone on this side of the House disagrees with it. But my concern, to the Chair, and to the Minister, is that—is this legislation drafted so that it’s potentially also connected in a way to exclude the harms that might come from climate-changing particles, that have physical and other effects if they get loose in the community in sufficient concentrations, or is there another section of this legislation which explicitly distinguishes between them? If there is a distinction between them, how does this legislation distinguish between the climate-changing effects of it and the actual physical effects of that particular climate-changing particle?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:39): The bar applies to climate change harm caused or contributed to by greenhouse gas emissions. Other forms of tort liability for other types of damage are not affected. For example, matters such as odour or discharge may still be subject to private nuisance claims if they meet the relevant thresholds for liability in common law.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (10:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I have what I think’s quite an important question, and that’s whether any Treaty analysis was done on this amendment bill. There’s reference in the new section 272(2)(d), inserted by clause 4, that actually explicitly excludes any claim for harm, including, without limitation, a tikanga Māori conception of harm. Smith v Fonterra, the claim that this bill extinguishes, was, in part, a claim for harm to te ao Māori, to things that are precious to Māori. If we look at the Treaty of Waitangi in article 2, the very thing which was guaranteed there was taonga katoa, inaccurately translated as lands, forests, and fisheries, but in fact, it means all things precious to Māori. Mr Smith’s claim is a claim for damage to things which are precious to Māori, including the wider environment, the degradation of biodiversity, and so on and so forth.

What we have here is a bill which actually expressly excludes a claim for harm under a tikanga Māori conception of harm. If you’re going to do that, whilst the Crown in 1840 promised to give tino rangatiratanga over taonga katoa, then I’m assuming that the Minister thought very carefully about the interplay of those two things. In saying you can’t claim for harm to your treasured possessions, when the Treaty of Waitangi says that you have full control and protection of your treasured possessions, those two things don’t match, and so here we have a substantial problem.

It’s not just the problem of retrospectivity or extinguishing a live action; it’s a problem of someone seeking to assert rights which the Crown has promised to protect and to not infringe, and yet this bill here seems to be explicitly—not just by a side wind but explicitly—overriding a claim which is premised on the very things the Crown is bound to protect.

Now, we’re well aware of the Government’s approach to the Treaty, and the fact that it’s seeking to change aspects of the law relating to it, but there has been no suggestion that this Government doesn’t acknowledge that the Treaty exists and that it does confer rights and that the Government remains committed to honouring the promises made in the Treaty. The Treaty principles bill failed in this House, so the principles which are widely accepted, which include the protection of Māori by the Crown, would seem to still adhere.

Here we have the opposite of protection. We have someone bringing a claim that perhaps is a difficult argument to make in the courts, but we have the Crown removing the right of Māori to assert their rights to the protection of their taonga, their precious and treasured things. I want to know, Minister, did the ministry itself, your officials, undertake Treaty analysis and did you go out and ask iwi what they thought of this bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:44): The intention is that the bar excludes any harm that may potentially be subject of a claim in tort. Tikanga-based conceptions of harm are included because that is an element of the existing Smith v Fonterra case, including tikanga. This is simply for the avoidance of doubt. It’s not meant to imply that tikanga-based conceptions of harm are or would be recognised in tort.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. I mean, it is important to also remind the House that what we’re looking at here is a bill that fundamentally changes one of the key tenets of Aotearoa’s legal system when it comes to tort. When we’re looking at tort, essentially what we’re looking at is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, which is remedied by way of an action.

But in this case, I want to specifically focus on new section 271(1), inserted by clause 4. There are a couple of components to this because one of the things, when we’re looking at it in terms of what tort does and some of the common denominators of Aotearoa’s, and, indeed, Westminster’s tort system, is looking at damage and loss against protected interests. In this case, personal interest, property interest, real property, personal property, financial position, privacy—all of those fall under the auspices of tort.

The issue that we have here then, particularly when we’re looking at new section 271(1)(b), is the breadth that this could cover when it comes to claiming loss of damage to a person’s real property that is not on a contractual basis as a result of emissions that caused or contributed to emissions-related climate change effects. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Excuse me. Could people on that side just keep it down a bit.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: One of the things that we are seeing is an increase in climate-charged extreme weather events. Now, those things are not necessarily contract in basis, but has there been any modelling done, which I cannot see in the regulatory impact statement by the Ministry of Justice on what impact this will have? Let’s say rain then causes a landslide or a mudslide, which then washes away a person’s real property, which may not be wholly covered by contract law through, let’s say, insurance, or insurance is no longer willing to cover because it’s an existing risk. How would those people, in terms of real property, be able to hold anyone accountable for climate-charged extreme weather events under this piece of legislation?

That being one of my questions, but also by kind of absolving, I guess, in the civil law sense when it comes to tort liability for climate, what cost has the Government forecast for the potentially increased number of cases being now brought against the Government because they can’t do it under civil law anymore under this legislation? Has that been forecasted in terms of an increase in number of litigations against the Government?

I think the question that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb raised regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi is crucial, and I particularly note, in the regulatory impact statement, in paragraph 67 on page 17—this is option two, which is the Minister’s preferred option—it may be perceived as not being consistent with Treaty obligations. My third question to the Minister is what consultation has the Minister done with Te Puni Kōkiri, particularly with the Minister for Māori-Crown Relations?

I want to just finish with one final question for this particular bit, noting that on the table, on page 15, that international implications was withheld. I note that the Minister has consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around our international obligations, but I’m just signalling to you that depending on the Minister’s response to my question, I will have follow-up questions on the implications this will have for our New Zealand-European Union Free Trade Agreement and New Zealand-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:49): I think it’s obvious to everybody tuning into this debate that climate change is a thing that affects the whole globe and New Zealand’s contribution to the broader issue is relatively small compared with other parts of the globe, but you can’t separate it from the overall situation. Governments all around the world—well, some are; some aren’t—are attempting, in their various ways to respond to that and, ultimately, to reduce our climate change emissions as a globe in order to respond to the problem that we find.

The point is that, in the New Zealand context, Parliament has decided to pass the climate change response legislation, which is Parliament’s consideration of how best we, as a country, can make our contribution to responding to what is a global problem. We all recognise that we can’t solve the problem on our own; it is part of a broader global response. That is all unchanged by this legislation; that carries on. New Zealand emitters’ responsibilities under the emissions trading system and the regime that we’ve set up carries on. What we’re talking about here is a novel approach being requested around tort liability, which we are ruling out through this legislation.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start off where the Minister of Justice stopped, with the international implications of this and the ecosystem implications. I read commentary on this decision, which was a unanimous decision of our Supreme Court, and I’d point out that that is an indigenous court; it’s not what we used to have with the Privy Council. It’s our people making reasoned decisions after complex evidence has been heard. One of the things I’ve read is that, in fact, it’s a really important case internationally because it impacts on places like Africa and the Pacific, where there are similar settings and issues. I wondered whether the Minister had a comment, or had sought advice, on the ramifications of something that was already impacting on the way people saw their duties, particularly emitters, and whether that had been taken into account.

Then I wanted to ask about the distinction between some of those torts that we have seen—and they are not novel—like public nuisance and like negligence, and the novel tort. I was thinking about the issues around negligence. Negligence is a wholly established tort, and it involves a level of proximity. The test actually involves it being pretty much an anticipation that you are causing somebody harm, etc. There’s a balance already in the law there. The things that would have come in here under that tort are already subject to some quite deep legal thinking about where that line is crossed. I wanted to know whether the Minister had put some thought to, or sought advice about, letting those tort actions go forward, rather than looking at the new novel one. There’s been a lot of focus on the novel one, which I accept is a novel duty and so it’s quite different in kind. Had he considered allowing the ordinary law to be pursued in a way that would still incorporate the harm done to people in this country by negligent climate responses? That was one of the questions I had.

I was also interested in whether he had considered a higher threshold as an answer here. I actually accept that Parliament, eventually, is supreme; it’s a good thing that Parliament is supreme. Had he considered a higher threshold in these situations, rather than an out-and-out ban on something like this, particularly when we’re dealing with new torts like privacy? There’s a reluctance to extend into those areas already. Also, it’s something that Parliament could insist upon. In a way, that makes more sense to me than an out-and-out ban on these things. I was struck by the comments made by my friend Dr Duncan Webb about the potential for other actions. As we know, where there’s injustice and harm, one of the best things about our laws is that people get creative and they find a response. There are other ways that I can see this happen. He said that his colleagues might text him with a few other ideas. I mean, one of those ideas I thought about was unjust enrichment—equitable responses here to this situation. What is going to happen? Are we going to be back here talking about other areas of the law, or does he want them to play out?

Then I wanted to talk about what happens to people who take actions like this. Mr Smith takes this action—it’s very expensive; there’s lawyers working on it night and day. It’s not a cheap thing to do, and it gets cut off at the knees after the leave application has been heard and it has been found that there is a legitimate issue here. When that happens, there’s a chilling impact, because if you take litigation, and it’s expensive, what happens when it gets struck down in the middle of the battle? We don’t really get the advantage, as a society, of finding out what the answers are or fleshing this out. I appreciate that the Minister talked about these things happening in a campaign. Well, with respect, we all know that’s an extremely limited place to find out these answers. I’d love to know what he thinks about that chilling effect, and if he took advice.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:56): Thank you. We’ve heard this raised a number of times now, around whether this is cutting something off midstream. The point that we make is that there is no existing common law climate change tort, and no one has acted on the basis of there being a climate change tort. The transition applied to bar the Smith v Fonterra case, because the Supreme Court refused to strike out the claim. The case is at a preliminary stage, with substantive hearings scheduled for April 2027. It will have the effect of removing Mr Smith’s expectation of continuing this proceeding. To the extent that this expectation could be seen as a right, it’s a limited right to go to court to argue for the development of a common law that doesn’t yet exist, so we don’t regard that as retrospective.

In terms of whether we took into account African interest in the Supreme Court ruling, no, I didn’t take that into account. Our focus has been on the New Zealand legal setting, and having one clear regime in place—which Parliament has passed—to deal with our climate change emissions.

In terms of a chilling effect, of course, yes, that applies in both directions. We’re very conscious of the fact that uncertainty about whether a company could absolutely be operating within the rules of the legislation that Parliament has passed but still potentially be liable for something beyond that, and potentially contradictory to that—we were concerned that would have a chilling impact on investment decisions over time, which, ultimately, will have consequences for broader living standards in this country, because all economic growth ultimately depends on investment.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:58): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. To the point you just made, Minister, it’s your view that it didn’t have a retrospective nature—that was not the view of the Ministry of Justice, was it? It says in the regulatory impact statement—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I invite the member to direct his comments through the Chair. Don’t use “you”.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me, Mr Chair. The Minister’s assertion that there was not a retrospective nature was not the view of the Ministry of Justice, who stated that the retrospective statutory bar will like not outweigh the costs of intervening in active litigation and the resulting impact on confidence in regulatory stability.

Furthermore, to the Minister’s earlier suggestion that one pathway to solving this problem for our side of the House would be to campaign against it and overturn it, what was the ministry’s advice on the downsides to that level of regulatory instability, should the legislation not endure across changes of Government—noting that a statutory bar, in the view of the ministry, may adversely impact businesses’ reputations if the law was seen as shielding them from what would otherwise be actionable behaviour?

Indeed, a highly contested statutory bar may create doubts about its longevity across future Governments. If the legal framework regarding tortious liability for greenhouse gas emissions shifts over time, this would have the effect of making the law less clear for businesses and the general public. Minister, what did you think of that advice, and to what extent did you take it into account—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just a reminder: you’re using “you” again.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me. I wonder what the Minister considered of that advice, and to what extent he took it into account when making the decision to proceed with this legislation.

Another question I have is in regard to new Part 8, section 271, inserted by clause 4. The Minister has made the point that we are a small contributor to climate change on a global scale; it is a planetary problem that is a poly-crisis. Is there not a risk, or what is the risk, in extinguishing tort as a pathway for addressing climate change, given it is, indeed, tort law that has found the core principle that, no matter how little you contribute to a problem, you are still liable for that problem? For centuries, even proceeding the existence of “New Zealand”, common law established that, if a group of people were tried for the murder of somebody and each of them had dropped but one drop of poison in a glass but the 10 drops that they placed added up to a poisonous mix, they could not use the defence that they only placed one drop and that that single drop was not poisonous in itself—not sufficient to kill the person who died. That was exactly the principle established in common law, through tort, that your small contribution, no matter how multifarious the sources of pollution are—no single polluter is exempt from liability for the combined effect. In the striking out of this option in relation to climate change, what effect does the bill have on the general principle of liability for one’s part, even if it is only small, in the overall effect?

Another point that has been raised by my colleague Duncan Webb is the question of Māori consultation or Māori consideration? It is also very clear, from the regulatory impact statement, that there was no Māori consultation. Equally concerning, there has been no consultation with the other party affected by the striking out of this right—namely Mr Smith. We know—because it has been well documented in the media now, and because there has been an Ombudsman report on it—that Fonterra was effectively engaged directly with the Government on this matter. What actions did the Minister consider were his obligations to consult the most impacted party in this legislation—i.e., Mr Smith—when he was aware that his Government had been liaising with Fonterra, who were directly asking for the extinguishment of Mr Smith’s tort right?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:04): There was a large number of questions in that previous contribution. One of them was around whether, as Minister, I took into account—and whether the Government of the day took into account—the advice from the Ministry of Justice. The answer to that is yes; we always take into account their advice.

In terms of my suggestions around campaigning, that was in reference to whether people were not satisfied with the broad climate change Act response that we have under way in the emissions trading scheme system, and what it applies to and what it doesn’t apply to. That is the natural territory of disagreements between parties that are sorted out, in the way that we get support from the general public for our particular view. Some people have referred to agricultural emissions not being part of that, and that’s something that any future Government could campaign on or not. That’s the natural flow of discussion and debate within out parliamentary context, but the framework for it is the legislation, which is, we believe, the appropriate place for decisions to be made in this context.

In terms of consultation, this bill has been done in a timely fashion, but, of course, everybody has had the opportunity, Māori and non-Māori alike, to contribute through the select committee process. Ministers: yes, there were discussions with parties involved in this, and it is my understanding that Mike Smith also met with two Ministers—the Minister of Climate Change and the Minister for Māori Development—as well. Now, I don’t know exactly what was discussed there, but he certainly met with two Ministers, as well.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (11:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a relatively procedural point around the litigation, and I do think that this legislation should actually refer, in its title, to the case that it’s extinguishing.

This bill extinguishes the litigation that Mike Smith has brought, and he has managed, since 2019, through numerous interlocutory actions, strike-out applications, and appeals, to get to the point where the Supreme Court said, “You’re allowed to argue it, and we’ll set it down for next year.” That’s not cheap, and this Government, in some of its legislation going through this House, has been very clear that, where it deprives a citizen of something, the depriving authority should provide regulatory relief, right? Mike Smith didn’t manage to get to the point where an award was made by the courts—that’s being taken away—but he certainly has invested many thousands of hours and dollars into this.

My question is procedural because it’s about costs. Given that the Government has made a policy decision to deprive Mr Smith of his right to pursue this further, he now has the problem of wasted costs. The thing that is prohibited is tort liability. Court costs are not tort liability, but we’ve got a problem in that we’ve got a statutory bar to bringing and further pursuing actions. My question is actually relatively simple: is Mr Mike Smith barred from seeking to recover the costs of his claim from Fonterra and the other litigants? Those other litigants, as is normal for super, massive corporate interests, have opposed him procedurally at every possible step of the way. Litigation, by exhaustion, is a pretty well-established tactic of big corporates—and they’ve been proved wrong. They’ve been shown that, in fact, Mike Smith does have an arguable case and, in any usual proceeding, the court would award costs to the successful litigant of these interlocutory steps. In fact, the court, if it found those steps to be intentionally obstructive and without merit, can award increased costs or even actual costs.

That’s a genuine part of the legal system, and so the question is a fair one, because the lawyer involved, and the out-of-pocket expenses for filing documents and evidence, and all of those things don’t come cheap. The question’s a pretty simple one, and it’s one I’m very hopeful that the Minister could answer. If he could respond to that, I’m sure the committee and Mike Smith—if the answer is in the affirmative—would be very pleased.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s obviously a lot to consider in this bill, and I do have a few questions following from the Minister of Justice’s previous answers.

The first one is in relation to the Ministry of Justice. The Minister stated that he did take into account the Ministry of Justice’s advice. However, he did not listen to it in that he stated that the Ministry of Justice’s clearly stated preferred option in the regulatory impact statement is “no regulatory intervention at this time”. That is the advice of his expert officials who are advising him at the Ministry of Justice. Although he said he took it into account, I think it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why he decided to ignore that advice from his specialist ministry and pursue this case, this bill, against Mike Smith—it almost is like a case.

I think there are also some really fundamental aspects of this bill, and I think it’s important to clarify what the Minister’s view is on them. The first point is, I believe I heard the Minister state that this was not retrospective in an earlier contribution. Now, how can this be correct? Going back to the clause we’re looking at—I understand we’re still looking at clause 4. If we look at section 271(3)(c) in clause 4, we see that the emissions as defined in this bill are “all or any of the activity, the related activity, the emissions, and the effects occurred (in whole or in part) before, at, or after the commencement of this Part”. “Before” and “at”—those are words that state that this bill is retrospective, so I think it’s important that the Minister clarifies. That is what is stated in this bill, and it is clearly—from the words of this bill, drafted by the Minister who is responsible for this bill—what it indicates.

I also think it’s really important to establish whether there is a current claim. I want to walk through this a wee bit, if I may. It beggars belief that a bill would be brought to this House to extinguish a claim that does not exist or does not have the potential of existing at all, and that seems to be what the Minister is saying. The answer, surely, has to be—and I’d like the Minister to respond to this—that the Supreme Court has found that this claim may exist.

To take that a step further, if Mr Smith was allowed to proceed with his trial—which we know this Government has denied him through this bill, or intends to deny him that right—then the finding that the Supreme Court, or the High Court, in fact, because his case would be referred back down, would need to find would be that there is an existing common law right. The High Court cannot simply be directed by the Supreme Court to consider a claim and then make a finding, either for Mr Smith or against Mr Smith, with nothing there. The right that the Minister is extinguishing is the common law right that the High Court may find currently exists. In that sense, does the Minister accept that there is, if potentially—because we can’t say for certain because he’s intervened against the advice of the Ministry of Justice in the middle of court proceedings—an existing common law right to bring a claim of emissions-related tort?

I think those are really important initial questions to clarify based on the Minister’s comments and also as they relate to the clear retrospectivity in section 271(3). I do have some further questions on that, but I’ll leave the Minister to explain.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:14): Of course, they’re not preliminary questions; they’re questions I’ve been asked already, and I’ve answered several times already. In terms of—

Camilla Belich: Well, you said something that was wrong, so clarify yourself.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In terms of the question of Mr Webb, in terms of entitlement to compensation, I refer him to clause 54 of the Schedule, which says there is no entitlement to compensation.

In terms of the question in terms of whether I or the Government did not—well, I think I’ve heard the word “ignored” the ministry’s advice, and I’ve heard “not listened” to the ministry’s advice: the Government, of course, did neither of those two things. We did hear the advice. We didn’t ignore it; we didn’t agree with it—that was the difference. Our view is that New Zealand’s regulatory approach to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change harm should be managed by Parliament and the executive. That is our view. Now, the officials may not agree with it, by they are not accountable to the people to the same degree that we are.

In terms of retrospectivity—again, I’ve outlined this, and I’m repeating myself. The bill contains a prospective statutory bar on tort liability. This is not retrospective because there is no existing common law climate change tort, and no one has acted on the basis of there being a climate change tort. What it does do is the transitional provisions will have the effect of removing Mr Smith’s expectations of continuing this proceeding. To the extent that this expectation could be seen as a right, it’s a limited right to go to court to argue for the development, in the common law, that does not yet exist.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions to the Minister. I want to first pick up on what the Minister has said, and this reflects one of the questions I asked before, which is: if it is up to the executive of Government to be responsible for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, does that mean that we’re going to be seeing more cases being brought against the executive and the Government as a result of this legislation, and what are some of the forecast costs for that?

I hear the Minister’s response to my earlier question, but what I was specifically asking for is around our trade agreement obligations—not our international obligations; not in terms of Aotearoa New Zealand’s role within the global climate justice and crisis space. What I’m specifically asking for is would this violate certain clauses in our existing New Zealand - United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement. Now, the NZ - EU FTA has specific clauses around the fact that a party to that agreement cannot reduce their climate obligations. This could be argued as a way of reducing some of the accountability measures. What conversations, then, have there been with our EU counterpart regarding our continued alignment in terms of our free-trade agreement? That being by first question.

My second question is, as we see at the beginning of this year, as of 1 January 2026, we see CBAM—the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism—being in full force. We are also a part of that and, in terms of some of the conversations we had with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that is something that is being made aware and being worked through within our domestic exporters on how some of that carbon tax could potentially develop and evolve. What would this potentially affect, in terms of the EU’s tightening around emissions and regulations of their emissions as well?

One of the things I specifically want to draw attention to in terms of the section 27(3)(a), inserted by clause 4, is around the fact that it does not matter if any of these activities, the related activities, the emissions, and the effect occurred in or outside of New Zealand. What it doesn’t state, for example, is whether the person that this particular part applies to needs to be in or outside of New Zealand. That’s a question: does the person—i.e., the legal person, by this definition—need to be in or outside of New Zealand? Because it specifies activity, not just simply the effect.

What domestic jurisdiction do we have then internationally when it is a legal person outside of New Zealand contributing to effects outside of New Zealand—why does that even need to be in this piece of legislation in the first place, if the Minister wouldn’t mind giving an example?

My final question is, if you’re looking at page 9 of the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 25, it says that there is “no engagement with business”. What business or economic confidence are we talking about if there is no engagement? The Minister stated that there is engagement with Fonterra—I’m assuming that Fonterra is a business, yet it’s not in the regulatory impact statement. I just find that perplexing that on one hand you say that there has been business engagement, on the other hand the regulatory impact statement states there has not been any business engagement. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying, or is lobbying not considered engagement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:21): The first question was in relation to whether there would be an increase in the litigation against the Government. Of course, I can’t predict the future on that, and so time will tell. In terms of international trade obligations, I can inform the committee that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was consulted in the development of this bill and gave us advice. The exact details of that advice are, however, legally privileged.

In terms of whether activities are covered overseas: the bill covers activities, emissions, and climate change effects both in and outside of New Zealand. It means that no one could be liable in tort in New Zealand, regardless of where the activity or emissions take place, which is obvious, given the fact that this is a global issue that we’re dealing with.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, I just wanted to acknowledge that there has been new material that has come up, but there is some repetition. I wanted to acknowledge that the Minister has addressed the question around the policy intention around, for example, the preference to option two in the regulatory impact statement. So if I could ask members to focus on new material, and it is also helpful to focus on the specific clauses as well. I’ll go to Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:22): Thank you, Mr Chair—noted. I do have some specific new questions for the Minister in relation to clause 4, inserting new section 272, which looks at the meaning of climate change effects. The parts of this that I wanted to focus on are new section 272(2), which defines the types of damage, interference, loss, obstruction, and wrong. Now, from my reading of this, this is quite a substantive and all-encompassing provision, but I wanted to ask a few specific questions to the Minister around the particular definitions of this, and also the points that he raised around noise and smell potentially being able to be included.

If we look at new section 272(2)(b), inserted by clause 4, we see that the definition of damage, harm, etc., also includes “comfort”. I just wanted to ask him, when he says that noise and smell possibly associated with climate change torts may be able to continue, did he receive specific advice that he is satisfied with that does not allow that to come under new section 272(2)(b)? Because it appears arguable that it may. So I think that it’s important to consider that.

Additionally, in new section 272(2)(f), we see that “comfort or health”—I suppose noise might impact health—is also included in this definition. So just any advice on the reasoning around those particular things—his confidence in those not being excluded.

The other question I have around this particular section is the idea and the concept of where there’s a right there is a remedy. Many of these examples put in place codified, existing public rights. For example, property rights, safety rights, the right to public exercise and enjoyment of public rights—these are existing. Not all of these listed—I’m not arguing that they’re all existing public rights, but arguably many of them are existing public rights. So the question is: when there is a climate-related—and I think this is an important point, and the objection to this could not merely be because of the emissions; it could be associated with emissions. So it could be discomfort, it could be damage, it could be things impacting on one’s enjoyment of public rights. The main objection to that would be: “My public enjoyment of my rights has been impacted.”, not “I’m concerned that this person released greenhouse gas as a climate emitter.” What right do the people who may be subject to these kinds of impacts on their private property have in the future?

Because we know, at the moment, that we are experiencing the impacts of climate change, and unless something is done dramatically, these are likely to increase in the future. So the situation that I’m sure the Minister would agree needs to be avoided is when these types of impacts by third parties due to things associated with climate change but perhaps the immediate concern is not the climate change—it’s actually the damage to the property or it’s the damage to the public enjoyment or it’s the noise or the smell or whatever it is—that their right to take action when that type of damage occurs is not inadvertently prevented by this legislation. That is because, also, I would expect that the Minister would think that some of these quite key public rights are impacted, that there should be an ability to take action, because it’s annoying when your public comfort of the public and your health and life and safety are impacted.

The other thing I just wanted to ask, while I still have this call, is, when we talk about harm, do we also include death in that?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:27): The bill defines emission-related climate change harm broadly in terms of the types of harm covered. It includes climate change as defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in new section 272(1)(b), inserted by clause 4: “any damage, harm, interference, loss, obstruction, or wrong, in or outside New Zealand, to the extent that it … may have been, … caused … by climate change.” The list of harms is not necessarily based on the harms that are recognised harms in tort; they’re based on the tort claims from the Smith v Fonterra case and the elements of the criminal nuisance in the Crimes Act. The intention is that any harm that may be said to be caused by greenhouse gas emissions and their contribution to climate change should be excluded from tort liability.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (11:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a relatively short call, I think, but it’s on, essentially, legislative quality, because this House passed, of course, the Regulatory Standards Act late last year—an Act that is now fully in force. It sets out in the Act, principles of good lawmaking. One of those principles that has been touched on is that a law should not affect the rights and interests or liberties of a person retrospectively. I think this committee accepts that this is retrospective legislation. But then further down in section 9 of that Act, it talks about principles of good lawmaking. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether he turned his mind to the principles of good lawmaking.

The second principle is the importance of carefully evaluating the issue concerned. I mean, that’s essentially: “What is the problem and does this address it?” Now, I guess I’m interested in the Minister’s thinking around this, because there actually isn’t a problem. The court has not made any finding about the existence of any tort in respect of climate change. In terms of defining the problem, it’s hard to justify coming to this House, where the problem is that the courts might make a decision which makes the Climate Change Response Act less workable, because it simply hasn’t happened and you are legislating on a hypothetical. If this legislature was to intervene every time a hypothetical problem arose, we’d be very busy indeed.

Of course, the other key principle is the importance of consulting the personal representative of the person that is going to be affected by the legislation. It appears the only people that were genuinely consulted were consulted by the Prime Minister’s office in secret, and that was the litigants to this action. Now, I’m just kind of perplexed as to how the Minister can say that this has been properly consulted on after all of the policy decisions have been made. This is being done very quickly through a truncated process, and the Minister stands up and says, “Well, everyone’s had their say.” We know that, if you think there’s a problem, the next step is to frame what the possible range of solutions might be to it and then to consult on a range of possibilities. So to come to select committee and say, “OK, here’s the problem and the solution. Have you got any minor tweaks?” is not genuine consultation at all.

There’s a whole lot of other principles of good lawmaking in there that also could be scrutinised, but these are the two I’d really like to understand, and particularly that consultation principle, because it does appear that not only was there no consultation but the consultation that did exist was wildly uneven. One person got to have a secret meeting to identify the problem and design the solution, and then the rest of us have to turn up to select committee with a fait accompli.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:32): A select committee, of course, is not a fait accompli, and many changes are made in the course of a select committee in legislation before this House. I can assure the member that I did turn my mind to the principles of good lawmaking, and we gave that very careful consideration. I do find there’s a slight contradiction between his continual reference to it only being a hypothetical problem, but at the same time arguing that it’s a retrospective change. Which one is it? Is it hypothetical or is it retrospective?

I’ve answered the question around retrospectivity about three times now, so I’m not going to go over there again. I’ve also answered the question around consultation two or three times, and I won’t go through that again.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague Camilla Belich’s questions about the definition of harm, I want to ask the Minister about why there is not a paragraph (g) which references those taonga tuku iho that are protected by article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I’ll read him the leading authority from Justice Chilwell—it’s a 1987 case, Huakina, which he will be familiar with—so that I can ask him the question better.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just interrupt the member—I’m just catching up with this debate.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I’m on new section 272(2)(f), (d), and hypothetical (g). Justice Chilwell writes, “There can be no doubt that the Treaty is part of the fabric of New Zealand society. It follows that it is part of the context in which legislation which impinges upon its principles is to be interpreted when it is proper, in accordance with the principles of statutory interpretation, to have resort to extrinsic material.” What he’s saying there is—and he gave rise to a series of cases that established—that if legislation like this, at new section 272(2), doesn’t explicitly have a reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, then you should read it in.

I’m asking the Minister whether he took advice on whether he could have a new paragraph (g) that excluded harm to those things which are protected in article 2 under Te Tiriti o Waitangi or whether he deliberately excluded it. Generally, the principles of legislative interpretation would say that he did deliberately exclude it—making out that harm, under a tortious claim, that related to things which are protected under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is allowed.

The reason I ask him about that is because the line of cases which followed Huakina are about developing that reference to other statutes, even though they’re not directly referenced in any given statute. Cases that relate to that are things like Māori broadcast spectrum and the Manukau Harbour cases, which established that if it wasn’t explicitly excluded, then in making out a claim—either from a public law perspective or through the law of tort or through a civil claim—you could bring in things which are protected for Māori by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, like access to the broadcast spectrum or like access to planning decisions about the Manukau Harbour.

My question is, he hasn’t excluded here a sort of conception of harm to taonga tuku iho that are protected under article 2. He’s simply gone with the limitation around tikanga Māori, which we’ll return to soon. Those two things are different under the case law that, throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s—it wasn’t available to pursue harm that was related to a tikanga Māori perception. That follows the Takamori case that did not rely on Te Tiriti o Waitangi or article 2 predictions. Before that, all of the law set out was about establishing a link to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and he’s not excluded that.

So are those lines of case law, which were developed around, say, natural resources, access to the broadcast spectrum, the use of planning instruments, forests, and NZ Māori Council v The Attorney-General—is all of that still able to be made out under a conception of harm through tort liability if it relates to those things which are protected by the constitution? I would say that they are, but it would be useful if he could clarify that.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (11:37): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I can see, since I’ve been here, that the first part of Part 1 has been thoroughly interrogated. I think it’s time we moved forward.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (11:37): Madam Chair, thank you. The first part, including new section 272?

Arena Williams: Yes.

STEVE ABEL: OK—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Including new section 272? I can see that there’s been quite a lot of debate around that particular part.

STEVE ABEL: All right, I will move beyond that, but if you’ll suffer me to ask one final question, I would appreciate it, Madam Chair. It’s regarding the property section of new section 272(2)(b). I wonder if the Minister might elucidate for us whether, where there’s an effective extinguishment of the right of somebody to make a claim against harm to their property, it is a removal of a property right. Given that there has, according to the regulatory impact statement, been no engagement with business, how does he disabuse the public or the wider community of the perception that this action very specifically protects the property of the six companies engaged in the Smith v Fonterra litigation, while sacrificing the property rights of everybody else—and, indeed, where he has asserted that the purpose of the legislation is to give certainty to business, yet there is no identified evidence that the ongoing court proceedings have had any measurable impact on business confidence?

Does the Minister have some evidence available that he can present to the House that shows that there is a risk to business or property from the case proceeding? Because he has made that assertion. My question is around the extinguishment of the broader property right of the public, including Mike Smith, versus the protection of the property rights of those engaged in the Smith v Fonterra case—those six companies, corporations, or cooperatives.

Moving on to clause 273. In terms of emissions of greenhouse gases—actually what I might do is I might come back to that. I’ll leave it there and come back to 273 later.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:40): Just very quickly on this one, Madam Chair. Of course, there are no fruits of the litigation because the tort itself, the substantive question, hasn’t been determined. This legislation prevents a climate tort from being created in a parallel system, so no property rights exist that can be extinguished. So that question is adequately answered.

There was a question around any evidence available of risk to business and property if the case proceeds or if the case proceeds as the litigant wanted it to proceed, it would arguably create a massive amount of retrospective liability, which would overlap and disrupt with the existing legislative framework which deals with climate change, which is the emissions trading scheme (ETS). So insofar as there are property rights engaged, they are covered by the ETS, and I would point the member to the submissions made by many businesses and affected parties about the impact of such a climate tort if it were to proceed, not least of which it would contradict the existing statutory scheme that has been in place for well over 20 years now.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:41): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I too will move on to clause 273, but I just wanted to pick up on a point that the Minister made around the existence of this tort not currently existing and to be created by the courts. Well, as a former lawyer, I’m sure the Minister will recognise that what the courts do is not create things but recognise existing rights. It is not actually the creation of the new tort, which this bill is preventing; it’s actually the recognition of the existence of that tort. I think it’s an important distinction. That is why Dr Duncan Webb is right, in that the recognition of it is hypothetical, but the retrospectivity, if it does exist, is also correct to argue as well. So I don’t think there’s any argument about those being mutually exclusive.

In relation to clause 273, I do have some questions, and I want to start with my colleague Steve Abel, who has discussed the definitions of “greenhouse gas” and “emissions”; I want to look at the definition of “person”. We did cover earlier parts of that, in terms of companies been covered, and so I think that’s accepted and I won’t ask any more questions on it, but I do want to ask: why has the Minister decided, and why has the Government decided, to exempt themselves for liability in relation to future tort? What is the Government afraid of, in terms of its actions, that may be used to establish a tort, that currently exists, in relation to climate change admissions?

Now, at select committee, and in all of the rhetoric that we’ve heard around this bill, we heard the purpose of this bill is to provide certainty to business. It’s to provide certainty so that companies, like those who we now know approach the Prime Minister’s office with concerns around this cause of action, are protected from court cases being taken against them. And although I don’t think that is right, I accept that that is the purpose of this bill. What I don’t accept, and I don’t think has been fully explained or engaged with it all, is, as the Government of New Zealand, why have we excluded this Government and future Governments from liability in relation to climate related torts? Surely, the one legal person that should be subject to this, if we accept the arguments around business certainty and business confidence, which I personally don’t accept, surely, there still should be a place for citizens to be able to challenge their Government on the effectiveness of the emissions trading regime, on the effectiveness of the climate change bill, on the effectiveness of whether these actions are actually reducing or creating this huge list of harm that we’ve gone through already.

The public deserves the right to hold the State accountable for failures that create harm in their public property, in their private property, to their health, all of those things which are listed earlier in this same section. But the Government has decided to exclude liability for that. And I want to know the reasoning for that because we’ve heard about businesses, we haven’t heard about the Government. So I think that is a really important point that the Minister answers.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:45): Just on the Crown liability point, it’s a commonly understood and accepted principle that the Crown is, you know, barring a few exceptions under the Crown Proceedings Act, generally not liable under tort. So it’s a continuation of that relatively accepted and commonly held principle.

And just in terms of the very first question around this being the role of the courts or the courts don’t create law; they just recognise existing rights—well, that’s a legal philosophy argument that’s been tossed around for years and years and years. And some could make the argument that the idea that the courts just suddenly discovering what the law has always been is a little bit of a legal fiction, because, of course, once they discover what the law has always been, they can retrospectively apply that law and their liabilities that adhere to it, back as far as they would like. That’s probably more a discussion for a professorial lecture, maybe in December—

Hon Member: We have a professor here.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: —yeah, by some professors—but that’s that.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the point of public liability in relation to his new definition of “tort liability” as applies to climate emissions and harm to indigenous rights. The context for this question is that Mr Smith is a kaumātua of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu, and his claim relates to not only his property at Wainui Bay but also his cultural interests there. As I told you, it relates both tikanga Māori conceptions of harm but also to harm to things that Mr Smith, personally, is guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

His enjoyment of those taonga tuku iho, which are passed down to him, that are being affected now as warm waters rise around the pā sites and the urupā at Wainui Bay, the fisheries of his traditional harvest are affected by that as well, and where the wāhi tapu at Wainui Bay will, and is currently, being flooded.

So my question there is that real harm exists and that has been excluded from a tikanga Māori conception of harm, so he’s not able to make out a case of tortious liability caused by climate change because, in his view, his spiritual connection with those sites is undermined, but it seems that he is allowed to make a claim because those things are guaranteed under article 2 of the Treaty—and the Minister didn’t dispute that.

So my question, then, about Crown liability is: is it only taxpayers that are on the hook for that kind of damage? Because what hasn’t been excluded here is the very long-established public nuisance and negligence claims that could be made for damage to those sites when they arise under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Because what is being damaged here is physical and it is guaranteed to him; his rights of fisheries harvests have a value that is monetary and that is that is guaranteed not only to him, personally, but to his descendants.

Is it the case that the Crown, in this amendment, has excluded public nuisance and negligence for everything else, but that those things that are guaranteed to Mr Smith, that have a monetary value, the Crown is still on the hook for? I also want to ask whether claims that arise because of this damage can continue to be sought because, in effect, they are, because often the sort of Crown agency who would deal with things like fisheries access in a small area like Wainui Bay, is not represented by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, it happens at a local level, and that these disputes are resolved not necessarily monetarily, but through negotiations. That is still an exercise of public power that arises from a Treaty relationship that the Crown owes to Māori, but it actually happens by exercise of public power at some of the most grassroots level.

So I want to ask the Minister: does Mike Smith still have a claim? He can’t go out on the beach and harvest fish anymore—that is guaranteed to him by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Public negligence was available to him before, is it still available now?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:50): In terms of claims around nuisance and negligence, the member will know that there are requirements in those actions to prove causation. One of the reasons why the courts have dipped their toe into a potential climate tort is because causation would be incredibly difficult to prove because you actually have to prove harm caused by the actions. It is very difficult when you’ve got such a long way and no nexus, because you could, in theory, take that argument to the extreme, where each one of us expressing carbon in this Chamber could be on the hook for causing that harm.

That’s the problem with nuisance and negligence claims, and that’s why the courts looked at a climate tort. It’s also why we have a statutory system to deal with the effects of emissions in New Zealand, which is the emissions trading scheme, and we’ve had this for 20 years. We have a statutory scheme which has been generally agreed upon across Parliament for over 20 years, and it is the scheme and the system which we think is the best way to deal with the impacts and the effects of climate emissions and the costs that they impose on people, and how you reduce those emissions over time. We don’t think that having a court-mandated, parallel system which could be potentially open-ended and could impose retrospective liability is the right way to do it, and that’s why we are passing this law today.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (11:51): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there is one section that hasn’t been touched yet, and so I am going to invite a little bit more debate.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (11:51): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I know exactly the section you’re talking about. It’s in the Schedule—which is part of this part, I understand—and it relates to the definition of “proceedings”. My colleague Arena Williams has just talked about Treaty breaches, and it strikes me that the definition of “proceedings” does not capture any proceedings before a commission of inquiry. Of course, it strikes me that, therefore, the only place that this claim can go perhaps, as a tort claim, is before the Waitangi Tribunal, and I just want to make sure that that, in fact, is not barred.

Now, the claim would have to be reformulated, but, as I understand it, there’s a narrow band of cases—and I suspect that this Minister knows this area of the law better than me—where binding orders can be made—

Arena Williams: Forests.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —by the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of forests—yes, thank you. My colleague is very knowledgeable in this area of the law; I clearly am not. It strikes me that if we reframed this as a failure by Government to properly regulate by, for example, subsidising highly emitting cement producers and not following up on the free units that they have been getting since time immemorial, or at least since the conception of this legislation, then that could be brought before the tribunal.

In fact, this piece of legislation itself is another matter that could be brought before the tribunal, because it’s called the Waitangi Tribunal, but if you read the Act, as I understand it, it’s actually not a tribunal at all; it’s a permanent commission of inquiry. So I just want to make it clear that the Government’s intention and the meaning of “proceedings” there does not bar proceedings before a commission of inquiry.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:54): This bill is about tort liability. It’s not about other proceedings, and commissions of inquiry don’t determine tort liability.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Fran, Fernando—Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (11:54): That’s all right—thank you, Madam Chair. It’s all right. Every Speaker has done it, except, of course, my colleague Teanau Tuiono, because he’s in the same party as me, and so I could get him kicked out if he did do that!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I couldn’t, actually, but thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to take a call to respond to what the Minister in the chair has said, and to also go over—as you say, Madam Chair—the Schedule, which has had very little discussion so far. But before I move on to that, I wanted to bring up the point that the Minister in the chair has made, which was that the Government doesn’t want to see a parallel regime set up, and he said that the emissions trading scheme is the Government’s primary tool to deal with the climate change issue. I’m not sure if the Minister is aware of this, but New Zealand already had a parallel regime in the sense that agricultural emissions are not actually in the emissions trading scheme, and that was partly what Mr Smith’s lawsuit was about. There is already a parallel regime in that agricultural emissions are not covered under the emissions trading scheme, and so the claim that the system will set up a parallel regime doesn’t actually recognise the current reality of there being an existing parallel regime.

Before I turn to the Schedule, I wanted to ask a question to clarify the definition of “climate change” from the Minister, and to check my understanding on whether emissions that change and potentially harm the ozone layer are included in the climate change tort that this bill excludes, not only in the Schedule but also in the earlier parts of this legislation. It is important to get the definition right for “climate change”, because it potentially creates a loophole around the ozone layer issues.

I accept that “climate change” is defined in new section 273 in clause 4, and if we look at new section 273, it says that “ ‘climate change’ has the meaning given to it in article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention”. If we look at article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it says that “ ‘Climate change’ means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

My question to the Minister is: does that include the ozone layer, because some of the emissions—which include refrigerants, some of which have a very high global warming potential harm, not just in terms of emissions, but they also potentially create ozone layer effects. Now, is the ozone layer covered under the definition of “climate change”, and will that exclude torts that relate to the harmful effects of refrigerants in terms of the ozone layer?

My second question is around this, and I’m moving on now to the Schedule. I would really like the Minister to consider one of the amendments that I’ve drafted around the new Part 7 being inserted into Schedule 1AA of the Climate Change Response Act by the Schedule for the bill. That amendment makes a reference to what the Minister in the chair referred to in his second reading speech, which was the establishment of the accident compensation scheme. We know that when the ACC scheme was established, the existing tort regime around personal injury was changed around that, and so my proposal is to potentially create a system which compensates people who have had their rights extinguished under this claim.

I propose two different ways in which it might be done. The first is by using a calculation around the previous emissions trading scheme auction, which links it to the price of the New Zealand Unit, and so the previous auction which cleared that will be the price of the compensation around the claim it is seeking. The second potential regime is around the idea of the social cost of carbon. Now, the social cost of carbon is a figure that some people calculate, but Treasury also publishes a calculation of it, and so using one of those two figures, we can establish a regime that compensates people whose rights have been extinguished under this scheme, which I hope that the Minister does consider under the Schedule. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:59): Taking the questions in reverse order from the member formerly known as Fran, but is Francisco Hernandez: no, we won’t be taking up that suggestion because no rights have crystallised. This bill prevents the creation of a tort of climate, and so, therefore, no rights exist.

The second was around ozone that I’m sure the officials can provide some clarity on because I don’t know the convention particularly well. But the first one was around a parallel regime already existing. Well, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a part of the Climate Response Act, which is the regulatory framework, and, of course, within the Climate Change Response Act and the ETS settings, Governments and parliaments are entitled to make changes to include or exclude sectors as they please.

The previous Government did that. They brought agriculture into the system, which would have decimated most of our sheep and beef sector and caused significant price increases to food and caused severe hardship for food around the country and the world, so this Government decided to change those settings and remove agriculture from the ETS; but all of that was done within the existing statutory framework, which is the appropriate place to make those decisions. The appropriate place would be through the Parliament, not through the courts through the creation of a climate tort, which is what this bill is seeking to stop.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. One discrete question on clause 274, which I don’t think has been asked about, is: when clause 274 talks about the statutory bar being unaffected by other applicable legislation, what types of action—I have read through this a few times and I’m not sure what types of action this is talking about. I wondered if the Minister for Hunting and Fishing could answer that.

I also just wanted to now go to the Schedule, which is the last area in this part, and just ask the Minister, in relation to clause 52 and clause 53: these changes that are made in Part 7 to the primary piece of legislation—sorry, in clause 52, specifically—is clause 52 duplicating the actions of this amendment bill? It just seems like this has already been repeated previously in the Act.

I specifically want to talk about clause 53, because this is when we talk about Mike Smith, and also clause 54. I mean, I think it’s important the House pauses and just sees how extraordinary it is to see actual proceedings listed—current proceedings—in a clause that says, “any other proceedings commenced, and not finally determined (including any appeal or rehearing), before the commencement:”. I mean that is just—I’d be surprised of Parliamentary Counsel Office actually had many examples of similar clauses that they’d used, but that is truly an extraordinary thing to see: clause 53 of the Schedule, all of an existing litigation has been totally quashed by this Act.

That relates to my question in clause 54, which is: we heard from the Minister earlier that he was not thinking about compensation, and in clause 54, it says that no person is entitled to compensation in this Act of any kind. I just wonder, did he think—considering he’s been so specific about Mike Smith in clause 53, specifically naming the person whose rights to have his day in court heard this Government is taking away, and his specific decision that Mike Smith not be entitled to compensation despite this citizen of New Zealand, this person who is a tangata whenua of this country, bringing a claim, spending thousands of dollars to have this heard in court, and the Government not even wanting to provide him compensation for the costs and the time that he and his legal team have already incurred. That is simply extraordinary.

We did hear from another Minister acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice that a comparable example for an extinguishment in tort like this case was the Accident Compensation Corporation. However, the key thing about the Accident Compensation Corporation is that there is compensation involved in it too. I said to that previous Minister acting on the behalf of the Minister that I didn’t think that was a good example. I’m happy if the Minister wants to reflect on whether he agrees with that. Specifically, my outstanding questions are in relation to clause 274 and when that applies, and the specific reason why the Minister decided not to include Mike Smith in the compensation exclusion clause, which is clause 54, the last part of the Schedule.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (12:05): Yes, I do acknowledge this is unusual to be having particular court cases named, but it is necessary, and we didn’t give thought to using a particular name in clause 54.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am definitely looking for new material.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:05): Just a clarifying question, Madam Chair: the value of clause 54 in the Schedule, I’m asking the Minister of Justice whether he knows the dollar figure of the cost that was accrued by the named litigant, Mr Smith, that he has effectively lost because of the effect of clause 54, and what it cost Fonterra to get clause 54.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (12:06): The answer is no, I don’t know that figure.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (12:06): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to delete clause 3 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4 is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 new section 271(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 271(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 271(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 271(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(1)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert new section 271(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 Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert new section 271(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 Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert new section 271(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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 271(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(2) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 271(2A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(2) is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(3)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(3)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 271(3)(d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 271A is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 272(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 272(1)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 4 new section 272(2) inserting paragraph (g) 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert new section 272(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 272(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 273(a) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 273(b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete new section 273(c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 274A 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): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 5 is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Consequential amendment

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 6 and 7: a consequential amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, we all note that Part 2 is a more minor section of the bill compared to the more substantive part in Part 1, which we’ve discussed, but I do have two distinct questions around the operation of this part of the bill. This specifically relates to the Resource Management Act, and so I wanted to first ask a question of the Minister in the chair in relation to the operation of this part. I have looked at the Resource Management Act and seen the section to which clause 7 relates, in inserting a new section 23(4), and it appears to me to be just adding in that the content of the Resource Management Act would not impact on this particular bill. I wanted to ask if he could comment on the operation of that and say whether that is, in fact, correct.

The second question I have is in relation to the current bills before the House at the moment in relation to the repeal of the Resource Management Act. The Minister will be aware that his Government is progressing with two bills in order to repeal the Resource Management Act, which, in fact, I note that the current Government brought back in at the beginning of this term. So, once again at the end of a parliamentary term, we are looking at the repeal of that particular legislation which is the subject of Part 2.

That raises some practical questions in relation to this bill. I know that the Government’s purpose and intention for this bill, from what I can see on the Order Paper, is to pass this bill either today or shortly thereafter on the next sitting day, and depending on where we get to today—which, considering we don’t have that much more to go, may be later this afternoon. The intention, as I’m aware, in relation to the two bills which are replacing the Resource Management Act is also that they be passed before the election, meaning that almost as soon as this bill is passed, it may need to be amended because it makes a change to the Resource Management Act.

Now, I guess there is one of two options in relation to that, and it would be great if the Minister could clarify. Either these particular provisions, once the repeal of the Resource Management Act occurs, will sit ineffective, and so, essentially, what we’re discussing in Part 2 is something that may be force for a few weeks and it just sits there on the statute book—so that’s option one. Option two would be this. Will there be a late amendment to—and colleagues may be able to assist me with the names of the bills—is it the Planning Bill and the—

Arena Williams: The Natural Environment Bill.

CAMILLA BELICH: —Natural Environment Bill? Will there be a subsequent amendment at this late stage to both of those bills or one of those bills that will be brought to the House, considering that this bill is likely to be in place before those bills’ committee stage—which we haven’t got to yet, have we?

Arena Williams: No.

CAMILLA BELICH: That’s right, and so we’re at the second reading for them. I think that that’s a fair question because I think that that would perhaps be—you know, we don’t agree with this bill, but we also don’t want to have lots of inept provisions sitting on the statute book. Also, with the fact that it, essentially, could be put into the Resource Management Act repeal bills anyway, I think it’s a fair question as to how that’s going to be addressed by the Government in terms of just the late stage at which this bill has been brought to the House.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:29): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m reliably informed—to give the member Camilla Belich some guidance for her questions—that the amendment to the Resource Management Act (RMA) is included because the Resource Management Act is still in force. New section 23(4) in clause 7 avoids any doubt that the rest of section 23 of the RMA could operate to prevent a statutory bar from applying. To follow up on her second question, officials are aware of this, and they will work to determine whether any amendment to those two bills—i.e., the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill—is needed.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:30): Just a quick question for the Minister around clause 7 of Part 2. I want to ask him, in new Part 8 of the Climate Change Response Act, the limitation on tort liability there is in some ways a lot more defined than what he has done in this amendment bill. Basically, the policy decision going on here with a large part of tort law in New Zealand is about, say, a neighbour who has, say, flooding on one property that affects the property of the other neighbour. The policy decision in the Climate Change Response Act reflects that there is no limitation to bringing tortious claims against a neighbour for flooding impacts.

However, the amendment is a bit broader than that—that if your neighbour has done something which is either negligent or a nuisance which has caused damage to your property which is related to climate change, the amendment is much blunter. So I’m asking him whether it’s the limitation that’s created by his—I understand that he’s said here very clearly that it doesn’t limit Part 8, but does it also then expand it? Because the Climate Change Response Act, if you read it alongside what the Minister has proposed here in his broader brush limitation, where it could apply to any flooding situation, that will, effectively, act as a bar against any tortious claim. My question is really, in simple language: how does this amendment interact with the Climate Change Response Act and does it expand the meaning in Part 8?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, just following on from the previous speaker, Arena Williams, this is quite important, because what we’re seeing in this particular part of the RMA—the Resource Management Act—is around certain limitations and exemptions. I just want to check, by this bill and particularly this part around the Resource Management Act not limiting any sort of considerations under this bill, it raises the questions of how then would anything that has the potential to cause harm—let’s say, if you’re looking at what we considered before in terms of meaning of “emissions-related climate change effect”—come into conflict with the core purpose under section 5 of the Resource Management Act.

Would that mean that you get your situation, particularly when it comes to civil litigation, where anything anyone—in the examples that Arena Williams just mentioned in terms of even something as simple as neighbour disputes, or even when it comes to consent for certain building projects—could claim is related to anything that we see here, the emission-related climate change effect that we previously considered, then it cannot be considered under the court of law? Particularly when you’re looking at the Resource Management Act, because of the fact that there’s this incredible carve-out which is incredibly broad.

In a lot of the examples that have been suggested, we just really want to know: what are the limitations? What is the scope for someone to be able to use this bill now as a potential form of exemption and defence in civil litigation, particularly when it comes to any form of nuisance or negligence with relating to the Resource Management Act? Presumably what Camilla Belich also mentioned before that there will presumably be some sort of update in either the Natural Environment Bill or the Planning Bill that also considers similar exemption clauses. So it would be really good to hear some of the scope that we’re looking at here when it comes to the carve-out.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. No, to answer the member’s questions, clause 7 does not expand Part 8. The bar is on emissions-related climate change harm. Clause 7—I’m reliantly informed—simply, for the avoidance of doubt, does not impact other types of claims.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:35): Just a really quick question, following on from my earlier question. The Minister said that officials would take advice on whether an amendment needs to be made. It kind of beggars belief that this hasn’t been considered earlier. So can the Minister not give us more accurate information on whether we’re being asked to support a law that will be in place indefinitely or whether this will be repealed by that bill. Surely there has been planning done by the various highly skilled officials on this bill to create either an amendment that will be tabled in the House or that this will simply be left in place. This is by design that these two bills have come to the House at the same time. It would be good and, I think, right, if there is any more information, for the Minister to be able to give a more specific answer, rather than “This will be looked at as appropriate.”

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. So just following on from the Minister’s helpful answer: I think that’s right, but just testing with him. So the more blunt formulation of the tortious bar in his amendments doesn’t apply, I think he said—and correct me if I’m wrong, Minister—to other sorts of claims. To give him an example of this: so if my neighbour drives their truck through the pipes on their property and causes those pipes to be busted and to not take water away from their property in the usual way to the council’s pipes but floods on to my property, under the Climate Change Response Act, there’s no tortious bar, but under his amendment, there might be. He’s saying that I can still bring a claim under the normal negligence tort, which I think he’s right about. So that clarifies.

So does Mr Smith still have a claim in relation to the harm that is caused by neighbouring properties? Say if Fonterra was to have a Fonterra farm that was next to his farm, would the neighbouring farm still be something that he could have an actionable harm against? I guess the question is really, has he made a policy decision where, in his amendment, the problem that he’s trying to solve is proof, whereby Mr Smith might not be able to prove that climate change generally is caused by Fonterra, but if he can prove that flooding is caused by his neighbour, Fonterra, then a tortious claim is still open to him on those second grounds?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:38): I think I’d point the member back to the legislative statement that was read by the Hon Paul Goldsmith. The bar will not affect traditional tort liability that has already been established under common law, such as nuisance claims in respect of odours or residue, for example, on neighbouring property.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (12:38): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 52 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 Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 52(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 52(d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting clause 53 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting clause 53 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 54 is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 54, allowing compensation at the clearing price of New Zealand Units 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing clause 54, allowing compensation at the social cost of carbon 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 the Schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Schedule agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. We do have some suggestions around title and commencement. I think sometimes there is a tendency to gloss over the importance of these sections. But I do think it is important for clarity to have a title which truly represents the nature of the bill. So I’ve got some suggestions of possible amendments that the Minister of Justice may want to take up that I think would increase the clarity of what the bill actually does. I think sometimes amendments are struck out because they are not a serious attempt to change the bill, and what I want to suggest today is not something that I think would fall within those categories.

So a few suggestions I have in relation to clause 1 is that the title be changed to the “Climate Change Response (Prevention of Tort Liability) Amendment Act”. The reason I suggest that is because if you were to read the title of that bill, I think the natural response would be to think that there would be tort liability for climate change, and that is in fact the opposite of what is happening in this case. So I think that just simply adding “Prevention of”—those two words inside the brackets—would mean that anyone who is going through the statute book would clearly see the purpose of the Act, and I think it is, in that sense, not a title that is suggested in jest or to make fun of this particular bill, but in fact a reflection of what the bill actually does. So that's my first suggestion that the Minister may want to take into account. I'm happy to provide a written amendment along those lines as well.

The second suggestion that I would have in relation to title is really to acknowledge the fact that not only is this a prevention of tort liability but it is the extinguishment of a series of pieces of litigation that are currently ongoing. As we've discussed in this committee stage, it is novel and unusual to have existing legislation be extinguished. So that’s not in dispute, but what is, is the fact that that’s not represented in the title. So a further suggestion for much greater clarity, I think, would be to change the title to—and I’m going to incorporate my previous suggestion because I think that's still relevant. The bill, which will be the Act once it's passed, is the “Climate Change Response (Prevention of Tort Liability and Extinguishment of Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd Litigation)”. So that would be my suggestion as to a more accurate description of the bill.

Now, I have had suggestions that—and I believe there are some tabled amendments around the title which might talk specifically about Mike Smith. I think that amending the title in that way, with two options, one more expansive and one more limited, are serious options that could be considered that would truly reflect the nature of this bill.

Now, I do have a further point on titles, and I just want to indicate to the chair that I would like to make a contribution on the commencement. I haven’t got to that yet, but my final point on the title is that this bill amends the Climate Change Response Act. I’ve had a look at the Climate Change Response Act. I had a look at the purpose of it, and I don’t think my question in relation to purpose was addressed previously when I asked the Minister about it, but I do think that it is worth the Minister addressing the committee in relation to the purpose in section 3 of this bill, of the Climate Change Response Act, and whether that, in fact, the entire Act, which is encompassed by its title, is consistent with the purposes of that particular bill.

That question, I think, can be related to the title. It’s left outstanding; I would appreciate an answer from the Minister. And just to note, that there are comments I’d like to make on the commencement.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make some suggestions on the title as well.

One thing that we discovered through our interrogation of the Minister during the Committee of the whole House is the clear elucidation, as it happened by James Meager when he was filling the chair, of the fact that the emissions trading scheme, which is the current regime purported to be dealing with our climate change challenges, exempts agricultural emissions. Which is to say, the assertion of the bill that the Government doesn’t want parallel regimes is nonsensical insofar as there is no regime for methane and nitrous oxide, biogenic methane, and nitrous oxide. So already they have no liability upon them.

Now, another thing we discovered in the course of the passage of this legislation is the direct efforts made by one of those parties, who are liable toSmith v Fonterra—Fonterra in this instance, but also Z Energy. Direct efforts by them to ask the Government to intervene to stop the procession of this court case. So it’s very clear to us, because it’s the extinguishment of the right of Mike Smith, that the beneficiary of that extinguishment is Fonterra et al.—Fonterra and the other five of New Zealand’s biggest polluters, our dirtiest companies—who are in the Smith v Fonterra case.

I think it would be a reasonable title that clarifies what the actual effect of this legislation is, to change the title of the bill to the “Climate Change Response (Fonterra Citizen Rights Extinguishment) Bill” because that clarifies for whom the Act has been passed—Fonterra—and to whom the Act is having a negative effect, i.e., not just Mike Smith, but all citizens of New Zealand. Because, in fact, the Act extinguishes the option of tort pathways to us addressing the harm caused by climate change, not just Mike Smith’s pathway, but the pathway of every New Zealand citizen.

A final note on that. I think it is interesting that this Government has recently stated that it wants businesses to behave more like adults, but here is an exquisite instance of the biggest, most powerful and dirtiest businesses in our country coming cap in hand to the Government and pleading with the Government that they intervene in a court case—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the title and commencement please, Mr Abel.

STEVE ABEL: —to protect them. This is exactly about the title.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Get to it.

STEVE ABEL: They come and they intervene to protect them from that case because they are afraid that they cannot beat Mr Smith in court fair and square. That’s why I proposed that it be the “Climate Change Response (Fonterra Citizen Rights Extinguishment) Bill”, because it is Fonterra who are the beneficiaries, and they are the ones pleading with the Government to please protect us from Mr Mike Smith because we don’t reckon we can win this court case.

That is a very problematic intervention in the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, but it is an intervention with very specific beneficiaries—Fonterra and the other five companies—and very specific losers, shall we say—i.e., all New Zealand citizens.

So I seek the Minister’s response to my proposal, which would be the “Climate Change Response (Fonterra Citizen Rights Extinguishment) Act 2026”. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I have to report progress. I’m sorry, we just couldn’t quite fit them all in.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. Mr Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.