Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 16 September 2026

09:00

Mr Chairman, look, thank you very much. I’ve had a couple last night—interesting numbers in the House here over this piece of legislation. We are supporting it, but the title—the point was made last night, and it might seem somewhat frivolous, but it actually does go to the truth of this piece of legislation, which is amending the customs Act and amending the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The question of whether the Minister had thought about a different title for the bill—and then, of course, we have later on the splitting of the bill.

Effectively, this first bill is amendments to existing legislation, and the second is setting up the quota management system for all the areas of apples, of kiwifruit, of honey that we have negotiated through this agreement. So it’s two separate bills; the one of the title that is in part covering both bills, and I’m not quite sure what the Minister will call the second bill. Maybe he could explain whether the bill could have been renamed and more appropriately be named “Amendment to Customs and Excise and Amendment to Dairy Industry Restructuring Bill”.

Steve Abel—wakey wakey, folks.

09:01

I thought my colleagues from New Zealand First might take a call on this one. I think the most notable factor of this bill, which has been somewhat touched on but for which we’ve had no satisfactory response from the Minister, frankly, is that in weighing up the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, one has to determine whether what New Zealand gets from the bill is greater than what we potentially lose through the deal. The most glaring component of that is the $35 billion price tag over 15 years for whatever we’re supposed to get from this free-trade agreement.

I want to note that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates of what New Zealand will gain by 2037—after 10 years of this free-trade agreement being in force—is an expectation that the tariff cuts that will have come into force by then will be just 0.7 percent of our GDP, or $401 million relative to the non - free trade agreement baseline. In 15 years’ time, we will have had to invest in India $35 billion. Anyone who does maths on those numbers—$401 million versus $35 billion—has got to be asking, “What are we signing up to here?”.

My proposal for the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill is a new title that I’m happy to make up on the spot. I’m going to call it the “India Free Ride Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill”, because when our negotiators sat down at the table to say, “We want access to your markets, we want you to lift your tariffs.”—India to lift its tariffs—India said back to New Zealand, no doubt, “Well, what do we get in terms of what you’re going to make way for?”. New Zealand has already got rid of nearly all of its tariffs. We forfeited them under an ideological view of neoliberalism. We long ago gave up tariff barriers to trade. Nigh on no products into our country have tariffs, and they’re mostly under 5 percent. So what did New Zealand have to offer?

India rightly, and sensibly, put the pressure on us and said, “Well, New Zealand can only offer a huge investment in India.”, not only in the form of the $35 billion, but also in the form of intellectual property (IP) and investment through our germplasm of kiwifruit and apples and our knowhow on how to produce those products. The very products that we are seeking to get tariff relief on are the products that we are making India more capable of competing with us on.

I think, on balance, the public should be alerted to the fact that this is not a good deal for New Zealand. This is a great deal for India but it is not a good deal for New Zealand, and that’s why I propose that new title for the bill. Thank you.

09:05

I think I wasn’t in the Chamber at the time when you got some advice after the question that I asked yesterday, which was, essentially, what is going to be the effect on the free trade agreement (FTA)? I’m told there’s no effect on the FTA itself—the FTA is the FTA, it’s been approved by the executive rather than being approved by this House. What will be the effect on the operation, the making operational of the FTA, if this bill were not to pass? That’s the question I wanted to ask.

My understanding of what’s happened is that we’ve got an FTA which has been approved by the executive—effectively, it’s had a first reading in this House where we could allude to the bill and whether we agreed with it or didn’t agree with it. Obviously, there’s been an agreement to disagree right from the FTA being able to be read by anybody. New Zealand First has certainly said we don’t agree with the FTA as it came out, so we’ve made that very, very clear.

It’s gone through the executive process—at least, that’s my understanding; it’s a question I asked yesterday. New Zealand First has said no, we don’t agree with that, and we’re told now that we can’t change things, but I am interested in what the impact of this bill—if this bill were to fail, the impact this bill would be on the FTA itself.

I also just wanted to just follow up on Steve Abel’s comments, because in all of these FTAs, essentially we have virtually no tariffs, so we’ve got very little to bargain with in terms of saying “We would like your tariffs to come down”—in this case it’s India, it could be any other country. We have, essentially, no tariffs to give up, so what is it that they will come and say, “Well, we’re giving you a reduction in tariffs; what are you giving us in return?”. What we’ve got is a mix of a migration and study arrangement. We’ve got investing up to $35 billion over the next—or best endeavours, $35 billion over the next 15 years in India, and then, also, we’ve got the transfer of intellectual property (IP).

If I was to look at potential names for this bill, we could have the “India FTA Agreed By Most of the Executive Rather than the Parliament Bill”; we could have the “India FTA Requirement for New Zealand Businesses to, Best Endeavours, Invest $35 Billion in India Over the Next 15 Years When New Zealand Needs that Investment at Least as Much Bill”; or we could have, possibly, the “India FTA Transfer of Valued New Zealand IP and Future Undermining of Our Own Agricultural Industries Bill”.

I just want to make clear, obviously, New Zealand First said right from the outset that we agree there is a need for FTAs. We think FTAs are important, but we don’t think that this is a good deal. The reasons for that not being a good deal I’ve already mentioned, which is the transfer of IP, the best endeavours need to transfer $35 billion of investment into another economy rather than investing it in our own economy, and then there are all the issues around migration, the jobs that go with migration and study, and the impact of that on, particularly, our young people. We’re obviously not commending this bill to the House, but I will be very appreciative of some answers to those questions. Thank you.

09:09

Mr Chair, thank you very much. Damien O’Connor asked what would happen to the bill’s names when they’re split; of course, the splitting of the bill is signalled very early and I’ll move that motion at an appropriate time, but the division of the bill was outlined at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (MFAT) initial briefing to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Any member who was there at the time of the briefing would have been aware of that. The division of the bill was also included in the general policy statement of the introduced bill and the legislative statements presented to the House at the bill’s first reading, so any member that was in the House at the time or had an opportunity to read those documents would be aware of it.

It was recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO), and PCO advised that, with a split bill, the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill—currently Parts 1 to 3 of the bill—will do its work and effectively fall away. The Act—that is currently Part 4—will come into force without including all the amendments of the other legislation. This is done for clarity for the public and for others. Indeed, the second bill will become the India Export Quotas (Apples, Kiwifruit, and Mānuka Honey) Act, and so it will treat that separately than other components.

There have been a lot of questions about whether we consider changing the name of the bill, but the first thing I want to address is why we’re here having this debate today. It is not a result of the executive making a decision; it is a result of there being a very large majority at first reading in this Parliament—a majority of 92 votes to 20-odd—for it to go to a committee, and it was returned from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with a majority in recommendations for a change. At its second reading, it was the House’s desire for it to go on to the next stage. Therefore, every time we have a debate, there is a vote, and if the majority of members are in favour, then it continues through. What happens if it doesn’t pass? Well, that’s hypothetical.

But, very clearly, if the India – New Zealand free-trade agreement was not to enter into force, then the promises that Mark Patterson made to sheep growers and wool farmers all around the country when he travelled on the taxpayer resource to India to promote wool under the free-trade agreement and said the wonderful thing that there will be carpets for everybody because of the sheep wool that’s grown in New Zealand—well, they wouldn’t get those benefits. To the kiwifruit growers who will have the world’s only tariff-free quota into India of kiwifruit, and outside of that very substantial quota worth $125 million to New Zealand over the next few years in reduction of duty, plus a halving of the tariff right outside of the quota—well, they wouldn’t get those benefits. I suppose our kiwifruit exports to India would not increase in the way they have to every other country where we have a free-trade agreement, including China where, last year, we sold 1 billion kiwifruit to China, a significant return for growers in New Zealand that, in turn, spend it in the provinces and in our communities so that they create jobs.

New Zealand First objected to that too.

That is the point that I was coming to. It is fair that, in this House, different parties will have challenges with trade agreements. Some have supported every single one, some have supported the odd one, and some have supported none. But the China free-trade agreement was not supported by a majority of Government parties at the time, and the Opposition—my party—had to provide support to pass it into law so it could take effect just before an election in that year, not so different to this.

This year, we will export $23 billion worth of goods to China under a free-trade agreement. China has more than a billion people, is larger than New Zealand, and that free-trade agreement has done nothing but create opportunities and jobs and higher incomes for men and women throughout the country over the last 20 years. The India free-trade agreement will do the same.

We haven’t looked at changing the name of it because it is a free-trade agreement. It will deliver for all New Zealanders. I could think up just as many smart comments about positions others take in the House and put them into the bill, but what I’d prefer to do is focus on the substance of the significant opportunity for New Zealand exporters into that market. All over the country, New Zealand businesses, and the people that are working for them, are getting ready to sell more to 1.4 billion people, and with that in mind, I will be commending the bill to the House. The National Party, along with ACT in Government, will be supporting it because trade is in the best interest of New Zealand. I’m yet to see a perfect trade deal, but this one is one of the best that’s ever been negotiated with India.

09:14

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Trade and Investment for that very thorough explanation of the value of the agreement. I think, probably, the question on everyone’s minds as we head towards this last stage of debating the bill is when it will come into force, so the commencement date, which comes into force with Order of Council. Now, that’s not unusual. We’ve seen that occur in relation to other free-trade agreements, and rather beautifully in relation to some, they have come into force on the day in which the international agreement also comes into force. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is one example of that, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is another. No doubt the Minister is currently having conversations behind the scenes with Chinese counterparts—

Indian.

—sorry, Indian counterparts; my mind was stuck on the other agreement—with Indian counterparts, and I’m just wondering when we can expect the legislation to come into force and whether he envisages that there will be synchronicity and that will come into force with the agreement.

The other question I had was in relation to the title, and if the Minister bears with me, there’s a slight segue, but I do think it’s important and I propose a name like the “Indian Free-Trade Agreement and the Bill of Unusual Search and Seizure Powers”. The reason I do that is because, when we were debating Part 4 yesterday, a very small amount of time was spent on what I thought was quite a significant issue, and that was the change that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee made removing the non-warranted search powers.

I understand that there are other comparable powers in relation to dairy and other free-trade agreements where you have both warranted and non-warranted search powers. I was just wanting the Minister’s view of the framework in this bill, whether it’s appropriate, and whether, in his view, there’s a need for us to think in the future about a search regime that allows for things like a duty of production and inspection powers that doesn’t lean on Part 4 of the Search and Seizure Act, which, in my view, is built for criminal proceedings. I know it’s a slight stretch, but I do think we were pressed for time yesterday and we didn’t manage to get to that important issue.

09:16

Well, I don’t think we were pressed for time yesterday. We probably spent five or six hours debating this part, which is a very good use of the House’s time because it allows it to make sure that the bill that will allow New Zealand to deliver commitments, and for New Zealanders to receive the benefits of the free-trade agreement, will work as intended. In as far as the obligations we’re taking on, or what this bill does when it enters into force, the way it always works as a trade agreement is that if the Parliament should adopt this and vote it into law, at a given point of time, it goes to the Governor-General who will sign it off; but, actually, the commitments we make, such as, for example, tariff rates coming down to zero, only take effect when the free-trade agreement (FTA) enters into force.

If that was not to be the case, then Indian exporters could benefit with a lower tariff rate into New Zealand before the FTA comes into force because this is the legal way that we lower the tariff rate. It adds India to another Act where tariff rates will come to zero, but only on the day that the free-trade agreement enters into force. The agreement talks about that, but the exact date will need to be agreed with India when they are also able to show that they can meet their obligations to New Zealand and New Zealand exporters under the free-trade agreement. In respect of the member’s question, no, I haven’t considered changing the name of the bill to the one she suggested.

09:18

Thank you, Mr Chair. While we’re on the subject of the title and commencement, I would like to propose an amendment to the title of this Act to the “India Free-Trade Agreement (Offshoring) Legislation Amendment Act”. I propose that because of, as already discussed, the requirement incentives, depending on which side of the debate you’re listening to and whether you’re listening to the Indian Government or the New Zealand Government, on the requirement for private sector investment into India to the tune of US$20 billion. That’s very concerning from our point of view because, ideally, the investment should be going to New Zealand instead of India.

Now, I say this not because I’m not of an internationalist-minded streak, but because I do think that the people and the Government of India are very capable of investing in their own people and in their own industries rather than relying on offshore investment. I just looked at the latest defence spending statistics. I think, in the last year, India spent something like US$93 billion on defence spending.

I don’t think anyone can disagree that, instead of spending money on military weapons and on militarisation, perhaps that money could be better spent on investing in the needs of people in India, rather than relying on New Zealanders to be investing in that to the tune of US$20 billion. I do say the word “offshoring” because, if a New Zealand company chooses to make private investments—for example, if they have a company over here in New Zealand and they choose to invest over in India by starting a call centre or a hub for manufacturing, or something—that would be counted in that US$20 billion threshold. Clearly, we can see that this free-trade agreement (FTA), which this legislation amendment bill helps to enable, is something that will contribute, potentially in a very strong way, to the loss of jobs in New Zealand, at a time when we’re already losing a lot of critical jobs in the regions.

In the electorate of Dunedin, which I am based in, we’ve seen this loss, in terms of the Gregg’s factory near the university. We’re seeing losses like that right across the country, at a time when our own regions and our own industries in New Zealand need the active support of investment here in New Zealand. Why are we enabling, through this free-trade agreement, US$20 billion—which is, I believe, about NZ$35 billion—to be offshored into another country? This is a country which is more than capable. India is an emerging superpower with its own space programme, with its own substantial investments in the defence industries, and with its own foreign aid programme. It really doesn’t make sense that this legislation is encouraging investment into a country which is already relatively prosperous and is relatively capable of looking after itself.

My second point is around the commencement date. It comes into force on a single date by Order in Council. I think the Minister for Trade and Investment already said that, in a previous Parliament, the big New Zealand - China FTA came into force after the election. Well, obviously, we’re two months away from an election—

Before the election.

Before the election, sorry. I meant: before the election. Now, we’re two months away from the next general election, and three or four parties here in this Parliament, depending on whether you count the Te Tai Tokerau party, do oppose this legislation. So, if you count the number of parties, as opposed to the number of MPs they have in the House, you could argue that a majority of the parties in this Parliament actually oppose the New Zealand - India FTA. We should, arguably, delay it till after the election. Thank you.

09:23

Just on that last point, I think it’s very, very important to underline that the House is based on individual members. Each member of this House can vote any way they want—unless their party tells them they’re not allowed to and they might throw them out or put them down on the list as a result—and so, ultimately, if we were to go in the direction the member Francisco Hernandez has just proposed for this House, you may end up with 122 parties here, as opposed to the very loose number he has given at the moment. Probably a more reliable definition of democracy is the one that this Parliament has inherited from Westminster, which is the number of votes, so I think what we will do is see what the final vote will be on the third reading of this bill. If a majority of members are in favour of the free-trade agreement called the Indian - New Zealand free-trade agreement—this bill, which is the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill—that will be the name, and exporters all over the country will benefit.

I did want to make just one final point about forecasts of growth and delivery for the economy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) analysis is, rightly, always extremely cautious about how free-trade agreements will perform. As an example, for the European Union free-trade agreement, whose rights and obligations are very similar to this—in fact, the bill we’re putting through this Parliament now is very similar to the one that enacted the European Union free-trade agreement—MFAT’s analysis was that, over five or six or seven years, we might see an increase of $2 billion worth of exports. In fact, that happened in the first two years—many, many years sooner than they modelled in their forecast. I actually prefer them to be cautious in their modelling rather than overstating, because it is about opportunity.

What free-trade agreements do, when you first negotiate their entry into force, is they talk about tariff savings based upon the amount of exports and trade you have at that time. As an example, when the Chinese free-trade agreement entered into force, with a very large majority of support in this Parliament—although I think New Zealand First probably at the time didn’t support it—ultimately our two-way trade was a couple of billion dollars. This year, we will export $23 billion to them, and we will sell China more than we import from them—a $43 billion two-way trade. If you had looked at the modelling at the time, I’m sure you would have found it was very, very small, but, actually, a quick working out of what our GDP was at the time, compared to the $23 billion we exported this year, it is 12 percent growth annually of GDP on that day. And that was over a 20-year-period.

Now, I’m not saying that we achieve that in the same way, but, with every free-trade agreement New Zealand signs, our exports go up. We sell them more, but we also import more. If we take the example of kiwifruit: with 5 million people in New Zealand, if everyone in New Zealand eats one kiwifruit this year, we sell 5 million kiwifruit. If they have 10, I guess that’s 50 million kiwifruit. Well, Zespri is responsible for $5 billion worth of sales around the world now annually, a new record, and we sold 1 billion kiwifruit to China as a result of the zero tariff rate in there. What trade agreements allow us to do is to produce more to sell to the world, which grows our economy. In effect, even if it was only a 1 percent increase in GDP as a result of this FTA—and I believe it will be much more over time—that’s about $4 billion extra for the economy.

To replace $4 billion, you could have a capital gains tax, you could have a wealth tax, you could have a land tax, or we could back New Zealand businesses to produce more and sell more. We have to remember, when companies in New Zealand export, they earn more for the country, on average they pay their workers more, and they employ more women. I know those opposing the bill are not doing it for that reason, but, actually, New Zealand workers should earn more through being productive. We have an opportunity to sell much more of what we produce to 1.4 billion people. That’s 5 million people working hard to feed 1.4 billion people. New Zealand is a winner under this agreement.

Well done, we’re all hungry for kiwifruit right now! Before I take the next call, I have noted that members are using this as an opportunity to summarise—that’s what many people use the title and commencement debate for—but, if you’re going to continue to summarise, you’re not summarising; that’s just a thesis. If you’ve got specific questions focused on the title and commencement, those are welcome, but I would encourage members not to disappear down a philosophical path.

09:28

Thank you very much for that guidance, Mr Chair. It is around the commencement date, and I’ve asked the Minister for Trade and Investment this before. I haven’t had a clear answer. The commencement date will be laid out through an Order in Council. It is important, and I think there were questions from my colleague Vanushi Walters about whether it should be aligned, as normally occurs with the introduction of a free-trade agreement (FTA), or for some other reason, should it be another date? I guess the question is: will it be before the election or not, ensuring that Parliament still has the mandate and the authority to bring this into play? Questions around that are really important.

This is a unique trade agreement, and the Minister talks it up. I support his ambition, but I’m also realistic around it as well—that is, the increasing risk that goes with this trade agreement every year that we move down the path towards a 15-year deadline. There is an obligation to promote the investment of US$20 billion. Actually, New Zealand First pointed out yesterday that it was NZ$33 billion; it’s now NZ$35 billion because the coalition Government has mismanaged this economy and driven down the value of the dollar. Thanks very much, New Zealand First. Yes, that bill is going up; the liability is going up.

The commencement date is quite important, because I’m guessing that the Indian Government will be monitoring this agreement from the day that it begins through to that 15-year period. So the question to the Minister is about when he intends to or if he has a date in mind.

The other point I’d like to make around the title of the bill—and my colleague pointed it out—is that maybe it should have been the “Liberation Day Unintended Consequences Bill”, because we have President Trump to thank, in part, for this trade agreement.

Liberation Day.

Liberation Day—yes, that’s right. Liberation Day was his idea. I acknowledge the Minister—I think he seized upon the opportunity when President Trump turned the world of trade on its ear and imposed sanctions on India, like other countries, that were completely ridiculous, and I think we should state that on the record. I think we should be brave enough to say that what the US has done to international trade is just abhorrent. The stability and peace across the globe that has been improved through trade agreements has now been reversed by decisions made in Washington.

I come back to the opportunity that the Minister took up. I guess that India has sought value in driving forward with more trade agreements with more countries, and one of them with New Zealand, and that is great. I think that over time we can seize the opportunities from that whilst mindful—to come back to my first point—that the clock will be ticking on our promotion of trade into India and, I guess, the question of whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be committed to promoting that investment—because the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Sorry—Foreign Affairs; yes. He’s in charge of the overall budget for Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so I’m not convinced—and neither will the Indians be, given New Zealand First’s stance on this trade agreement—that he will commit the resources to promote investment into India, given what we’ve heard from New Zealand First.

So we are facing a bit dilemma, and exporters should be fully aware that in taking up the opportunities through greater access into this market—which are huge and are beneficial, as the Minister said, to our country—there’s also a little cloud on the horizon that they should be mindful of. I’ve certainly, as I’ve said before, had discussions with them at this point. There’s not a huge commitment to a huge amount of investment into India. I hope that will grow over time. It will be through partnerships that we actually consolidate the value of this trade agreement over time, but the commencement date, which is a question for the Minister, is quite critical to those calculations.

09:33

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just, Mr Chair, would ask you to note, further to your point about final summaries, that the Minister for Trade and Investment has taken a couple of what I think are quite useful calls; his last two calls, where he’s—

They’ve all been useful.

Just to be very clear about this, the Minister has expanded on the case for the free-trade agreement, and, in a sense, what he’s done in his last two calls is what we would have liked to have done more substantively, which is probably argue it and hear the case for it.

To acknowledge the Minister, I note that he has worked very hard for this agreement, and it’s not an easy thing to achieve. He’s spent many hours, and he’s travelled across to the other side of the globe, and not spent time with his family, and he’s tried to get this thing across the line. And he should, as much as any of us, have a chance in the fullness of this debating chamber to hear the case for and to hear the case against. I’ve appreciated his recent comments on making the case for the free-trade agreement itself.

One of the specific things that he raised was the value of the China free-trade agreement, which is $23 billion, I believe he said, in terms of export value to New Zealand. I have a very specific question on that, as he has sought to use that as a comparator with this free-trade agreement before us. What is the foreign direct investment commitment in the China free-trade agreement, Minister? Given that you’re arguing that we’re going to get a great return from this India free-trade agreement, the major concern that has been expressed by the parties in this House that are not supporting the current formulation of this agreement is around that foreign direct investment commitment over 15 years of up to $35 billion or more, depending on what the foreign exchange rate is doing to the American dollar. Because, of course, it’s down as $20 billion in US dollars, which could be NZ$35 billion or more or less.

What is the foreign direct investment commitment that New Zealand signed up to in the China free-trade agreement? Because only then can we understand whether the $23 billion of value that we get from our exports to China is greater than the amount that we are expected to invest in China in terms of foreign direct investment. And that is a greater comparator of what we are getting or what we are risking in this India free-trade agreement.

09:36

I rise to speak on the title and the commencement date. Just picking up on the points that Steve Abel made, the title of the bill does not reflect what we’re discussing here or what would like to have been discussing here—the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It is far more than a free-trade deal. New Zealand First is all for a free-trade deal with India. It’s in our coalition agreement. We’ve supported other free-trade deals that have gone through in this Parliament. So we are absolutely on board with the free-trade deal.

Stop digging.

Well, the Labour Party should have read this a bit more carefully too, because there are wide implications in this bill, far beyond anything that we’ve ever signed up to with another free-trade deal in the past. This is not the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill; it is the “India Free Trade, IP Concession, Immigration Relaxing, Outward Investment Amendment Bill” and it should be known as such, and I would propose that it is because there are vast elements to this bill that do not in any way just relate to the tariff reductions, which, obviously, we are supportive of.

We are supportive of trade with India. It’s a big opportunity for us, but what is in this for New Zealand? What are we trading away? We have had very little opportunity to go through some of those immigration settings we’ve got particularly with that community. There has been migrant exploitation—we won’t shy away from that. That community has a track record of exploiting its own. What are the protections in here for student visas with an uncapped 25 hours, currently, in work rights? How are they going to be protected? What is the pastoral care that sits around that?

In terms of the intellectual property (IP), we know that in China Zespri took a court case over there and won on IP. In this deal, it appears that you could drive a bus through the Indian IP arrangements. We could be giving away our G3 kiwifruit variety. We could be giving away our Envy apples and mānuka honey. We really haven’t had the chance to explore that through this debate. Their domestic IP laws are much, much weaker than ours are in terms of plant varieties in the sense that you can, for your own use, use some of these varieties when they are over there. So long before we’ve got 100,000 hectares of G3 growing somewhere in India? Have we got control over those things? We did have control in the China free-trade agreement and in other jurisdictions where we’ve signed up for free trade, but it is not clear to New Zealand First that we are actually not giving away some of our most valuable plant variety IP rights. On the outward investment, there has been crickets on how the $35 billion—as of the exchange rate of yesterday, it was $34.75 billion—that we’re obligated or aspirational—well, it’s not aspirational to me; my aspiration is to have that money invested in New Zealand, and it’s New Zealand First’s aspiration. But we’re on such a preposterous number—it is a preposterous number—and we’ve almost admitted as such; that its aspirational, and “nod, nod, wink, wink”, we’re not actually going to do it.

But that’s not what Prime Minister Modi said on three occasions when he was in this very country. That’s their expectation. We’re signing a deal. We’re going to be asked to vote on a deal shortly that commits New Zealand to $35 billion in outward expenditure into the Indian economy. And there are parties in this Chamber that are prepared to wave that away and not even ask questions about it. That is outrageous. I can’t believe the Labour Party, who have, kind of, made some weak suggestions, saying “Oh, that looks a bit concerning”, have not held their feet to the floor. You had the chance, the Labour Party. New Zealand First has taken a principled stand here; you could have taken a principled stand, but no.

So I will suggest those amendments to the bill’s name because it is not a free-trade agreement.

09:41

Thank you, Mr Chairman. As an ex-contract fencer to an ex-farmer, I’ve got to take the shovel away from you to stop digging; you’re going further and further into the hole.

Regarding the commencement and the amendment that New Zealand First indicated it could table here, I just want to speak to that because the member who’s just previously spoken may have forgotten that his leader is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, sits at the Cabinet table with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Todd McClay, and was fully aware of the process of negotiating this agreement all the way through—the Labour Party was not. So all of the conditions that the Government agreed to, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had the ability, at the Cabinet table, to have input into.

We read it.

Absolutely.

Trade agreements are never perfect. I agree with the Minister. We know that they’re always a compromise. And on the balance, what is the greater good? Do you sign it or not? The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the New Zealand First Party had the ability to input into and change and adjust and negotiate this trade agreement. And having done so, they now want to step back. But now, in the committee, want to step forward and say, “Oh, no, but we’d like a trade agreement with India.” Well, make up your mind. It will never be perfect. This is not the trade agreement that Labour Party would have negotiated. We accept that it’s the one that the Government has negotiated. We’ve looked at it, we’ve gone through.

The member from New Zealand First makes reference to migrant exploitation—he’s been in a Government that has dumbed down and reduced resources to the Department of Labour that we negotiated to increase again as part of our support for this trade agreement. You can’t have it both ways. Agree to dumb down the oversight of migrant workers in this country through Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—because that’s what you did; you agreed to that, to take resources from it to pay for tax cuts—and then bleat about the potential for that to occur in our country. We have never for a moment believed—because we looked at the agreement—that we would be flooded by migrant workers, as New Zealand First said would be. Actually, we appreciate, in the commencement, which is really important—

Come back to the title and commencement.

I appreciate that, but I’m kind of speaking to what was indicated might be an amendment tabled in the Chamber around the change of the title to the bill from New Zealand First. So I’m just trying to clarify some of the logic to that and get a response to it, because, in my view, it seems that it’s absolute hypocrisy—absolute hypocrisy. And now, New Zealand First has realised that this is a trade agreement, while not perfect, there has potential and, indeed, has opportunities for exporters across our country. And I acknowledge the Minister for that. That’s why Labour supporting it. It’s maybe not quite as good as he says, but, you know, it’s a good solid agreement that we have to—New Zealand First are stuck out on a limb, not supporting it. Stupid—stupid and hypocrisy to come into this Chamber and then go on about what they care about, when, in fact, they’ve been in the Government that has actually opened up the opportunity for exploitation, unfortunately.

We appreciate the wonderful Indian people who have come into this country, are working in healthcare, are working in services, and in small businesses across our country. They have given vitality, vibrancy, and opportunity for many thousands of Kiwis because of their presence here. That’s why we support the agreement. That’s why we say that this agreement is an opportunity to build stronger relationships and partnerships between India and New Zealand. And the commencement date, which is the part that we’re debating, of course, is still a question for the Minister as to when he thinks this might actually come into force.

OK, I’m going to put the question. I think we’re there, folks.

09:47

I move Amendment Paper 791 dividing the bill.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment and divided into the following bills: India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and the India Export Quotas (Apples, Kiwifruit, and Mānuka Honey) Bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Those bills are set down for third reading immediately.

09:49

I present a legislative statement on the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and the India Export Quotas (Apples, Kiwifruit, and Mānuka Honey) Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

09:50

I move, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and the India Export Quotas (Apples, Kiwifruit, and Mānuka Honey) Bill be now read a third time.

This is the culmination of a journey that began more than 16 years ago when first discussions were held with India around starting free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiations. The Government made it a priority, recommitted to negotiations, and worked at pace with India to secure an agreement that delivers for New Zealand exporters, workers, growers, farmers, businesses, consumers, and all New Zealanders.

India is the world’s fastest growing economy. It is home to 1.4 billion people and is on track to become one of the world’s largest consumer markets. For too long, New Zealand exporters have faced significant barriers in India while competitors benefited from preferential access. This agreement changes that. It will open up significant new opportunities for New Zealand businesses already trading in India and will also help level the playing field with our competitors. The FTA will reduce or eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of current exports to India, and with the FTA our exporters will get the boost they need to sell competitively in India. The benefits are substantial, and they are immediate.

New Zealand apple exporters will be able to export 32,500 tonnes next season, increasing to 35,000 tonnes if we can get the agreement ratified this year. The current 50 percent tariff will be cut in half to 25 percent, within the quota. Industry estimates tariff savings of up to $25 million per year—money directly into the pockets of New Zealand apple growers.

Kiwifruit will receive tariff-free access for a quota that grows to 15,000 tonnes over the next six years—four times more than we’ve ever sold India in a year—plus a 50 percent tariff reduction for any out-of-quota trade exports to India.

Our exporters of sheep meat, wool, coal, and almost all forest goods will see tariffs immediately drop to zero from entry into force.

Fish and seafood exporters will see the current 33 percent tariff eliminated on most goods over seven years. Mānuka honey tariffs will reduce from a whopping 66 percent to 16.5 percent over five years.

These are real commercial gains for New Zealanders. They mean more exports, more sales, more jobs, and more income flowing back into the New Zealand economy and into New Zealand communities. They mean greater returns at the farm gate, pack-houses, processing plants, ports, and businesses across the whole of New Zealand. This agreement positions New Zealand for the future. It will boost the businesses of those who are already selling in India and open up new opportunities for those interested in expanding into the Indian market and having access to 1.4 billion people.

The FTA references several international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was first included in the New Zealand - UK FTA and then the New Zealand - EU FTA. However, the inclusion of reference to UNDRIP in the India free-trade agreement does not impose and is not intended to impose any obligation on New Zealand law or Government policy, and we reaffirm the reservations that were made by the New Zealand Government to the United Nations in 2010.

The strong support we have seen for the bills from across Parliament demonstrates our shared understanding of the importance of expanding New Zealand’s international opportunities. It has enabled us to progress quickly through our ratification process. This means that we’re able to bring the agreements into force this year, bringing the benefits to our exporters as fast as possible. Of course, because it is entering into force this year, the second round of tariff reduction or quota increases will take place on 1 January, rather than our exporters having to wait an additional year. It’s a great result for New Zealand businesses and New Zealand consumers more generally. From here, we will continue to engage with the business community to make sure they are poised to take full advantage of the agreement and all the benefits that it brings.

The India FTA is a significant achievement that advances New Zealand’s interests; it strengthens our international connections, and it supports the people and businesses who drive our economy. New Zealand is a trading nation; one in four jobs depends on our exports. Our future prosperity depends on our ability to compete, grow, and succeed in international markets. This agreement achieves exactly that. I will deliver real opportunities for our exporters to compete on a more level playing field, create new opportunities for growth, and lift incomes and living standards for New Zealand.

Today, we demonstrate our ambition and determination to pursue opportunities that will benefit New Zealanders for decades to come. This landmark agreement is good for our economy, good for our exporters, and good for New Zealand. I thank all those who have contributed to bringing us to this point, I thank the Labour Party for their support, and I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

09:56

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is not the agreement that Labour would have negotiated, but it is an agreement and a big step forward for our country in terms of our connection with the world’s most populous country.

We unfortunately have to acknowledge “Liberation Day” and President Trump for tipping the world of trade on its ear and making countries like New Zealand and India appreciate the value of trade agreements and formal connections. Can I acknowledge the Government that picked up the opportunity—a relationship that had been built, as the Minister for Trade and Investment said, over 16 or many more long years with the Indian people and with that country.

We had certainly visited, while in Government, on a number of occasions—as had the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Winston Peters—to build the partnerships that India indicated were the way forward. Not a free-trade agreement (FTA); at that time, they saw that as a risk to their economy—an economy that they were trying to build as an export nation, not one that wanted to import. We in New Zealand, as a dairy-exporting nation, were seen as a threat to India.

It is unfortunate that we don’t have many opportunities for the dairy industry in this trade agreement; albumins, which are water-soluble proteins that go into infant formula and other high-value products, have got through the door, but it’s a very, very small part of our total dairy export portfolio. While there may be potential to build that over time, if I was in the dairy industry, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for massive opportunities. Nonetheless, what has been negotiation—quotas for kiwifruit, for mānuka honey, and for apples—is certainly valuable. Along with the services through tourism and through education, there is potential to a strong trading relationship with India.

There are, of course, some risks. It has been pointed out in the House by New Zealand First, and I’m right to say that the commitment to promote US$20 billion of investment into India is indeed ambitious—very, very ambitious. I’m not sure that we will come anywhere close to achieving that target, but if the Indian Government is convinced that we are promoting that, then maybe we will meet their expectations. Prime Minister Modi certainly indicated, on a number of occasions, that that’s what they’re looking for from this trade agreement, and we accept that. Exporters moving into this market, building greater export volumes and opportunities, must be mindful of that risk, which is the point we make as the Labour Party about this being a unique trade agreement. There’s not one that I can recall that actually has a growing risk over time rather than declining risks or removal of barriers.

Nonetheless, on balance, Labour—when we finally got access to the information; we weren’t included in the negotiation process, and even being updated was not part of it. We were told that an agreement had been reached and that we would get access to the information at some point. That was at the end of January; we got access to the documents; we looked over them in confidence; we went through them and asked for more information to try to clarify points, because we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying that this was a terrible agreement, and because it wasn’t going to be supported by a coalition partner. So we had to ask on behalf of those people who were confused. One coalition partner was saying this is the best thing since sliced bread, and the other coalition partner—New Zealand First—was saying that this is a terrible agreement for New Zealand.”

Labour took the responsible approach. We looked at the agreement. We went over it very, very carefully and weighed up the downsides. I’ll point to another one, around biosecurity: there being no disputes settlement process. If a call is made on a biosecurity risk, by either country, unfortunately we don’t have a process by which to settle that. We’ve faced one of those barriers in the past, with our log exports to India, and we had to work through the issue of methyl bromide—the alternative treatment processes—to assure the Indians that there was no biosecurity threat. Fair enough, but the absence of a disputes settlement process is one of the downsides to this agreement, which Labour would not have negotiated. None the less, it is what we have on the table.

In moving forward, we said, “Yes, on balance, we will support this agreement”, but we wanted to do a couple of things to ensure that the claims made by New Zealand First about mass migration and migrant exploitation could be addressed. The coalition Government had dumbed down and reduced resources to the labour inspectorate. That’s the organisation that runs around the country and tries to expose and prevent any migrant exploitation. Indeed, in spite of assurances by the Government that this doesn’t happen—that we don’t have abuse—it is occurring on a regular basis, and we need to ensure that the labour inspectorate is up to scratch. We negotiated with the Government and said we would support the agreement on the basis of an increased number of labour inspectors, and the Government has indicated that it is moving in that direction.

We also said that we wanted to progress the modern slavery legislation. It’s a requirement, in most OECD countries, that we have a piece of legislation in place that prevents, and indeed makes illegal, any migrant worker exploitation that might be deemed to be called “modern slavery”. Indeed, we have exposed that in our country on a semi-regular basis, so it’s no good pretending that it doesn’t occur. We said that we wanted legislation in place.

It does. We’re trying to stop it.

I look forward to New Zealand First supporting that legislation through the House. Indeed, the Government has again been a bit slow in moving that forward. I say, in the Chamber of this House, that the Government committed to the passage of modern slavery legislation for our support for this trade agreement. We want to see that progress, as we did with the labour inspectorate.

The other thing that we asked for was an assurance, because the Indian Government and diaspora in this country have been somewhat confused by a coalition Government that, on the one hand, says this a good trade agreement and, on the other hand, says it’s terrible. They don’t know where things might go into the future. We said to the Government: to ensure bipartisan support for this, Labour would like to be at the events that promote the opportunities from this free-trade agreement. The Government has been OK, but I have to say they have dropped the ball on occasions. I’d like to say in this House that we want to be part of those events, not just for political purposes but actually to ensure that there is support for this across the House. As the other major party, being eliminated from those is, in fact, somewhat insulting and may be not reassuring to the Indian people of this country.

On balance, Labour will support this piece of legislation that enables the free-trade agreement to be brought into place. It makes some adjustments to legislation across the dairy industry, which is quite critical—across customs and excise, to ensure that we can monitor the inward and outward flow of goods to and from India—and it brings in a quota management system for the goods that we’ve negotiated to get into India: apples, mānuka honey, and kiwifruit. Where there is potential, the volumes are still small—let’s not overplay that—but they do have the potential to grow if you’re selling into a market of 1.4 billion people. Labour has always supported trade negotiations and agreements—good quality agreements. We have negotiated many of them, going back to the India free-trade agreement that Phil Goff in Government did, and the value from that has flowed from that. There’s the EU agreement, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are agreements that the major parties have supported and that New Zealand has benefited from.

Can I acknowledge—and I know the Minister for Trade and Investment has—the good work of the officials. This is tough work, and the officials, I know—given, I guess, the speed of this process—did have to commit to many trips to India. It’s not always easy for them over there, but they did a great job—the best they could. Labour supports the India - New Zealand free-trade agreement, and we will work with exporters and importers to build the relationship between our two countries.

10:06

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Green Party will not be supporting this free-trade agreement. I want to make it clear that the Minister for Trade and Investment likes to say we never support free-trade agreements, but, in fact, we did support the European Union free-trade agreement. There were some key components in that agreement that made it an appropriate one to support, one of the obvious ones being there being climate and environmental obligations placed on both parties to that agreement. There are no such equivalent obligations in this agreement, at but one point.

One of the most radical things this Government has done, as the most radically anti-environmental and anti-climate Government in a generation, is actually threaten the integrity of that very agreement, because it has backed down on the calibre of the stance we are taking in regard to the climate and the environment and is actually undermining the integrity of that EU trade agreement. Our ability to fulfil the agreement that is before us is going to be threatened by this absolutely preposterous—in the words of my colleague Mark Patterson: “preposterous”—commitment that we shall endeavour to invest $35 billion over 15 years in foreign direct investment (FDI).

I asked the Minister for Trade and Investment, when he was elucidating or expounding the value of the China free-trade agreement—$23 billion currently—to let us know what the foreign direct investment commitment was that New Zealand made to China in that China free-trade agreement. He refused to answer, because the answer is that there is no FDI agreement. There is no foreign direct investment component in the China free-trade agreement. This is an exceptional and novel precedent set here with India that I believe will come back to bite us, in a way that future Governments will be standing in this Parliament and lamenting, including the purple coalition that we’ve got today between Labour and National.

A wise man once observed that New Zealand First and the Greens have something in common, which is that we are both economic nationalists. We are not racial nationalists in the Green Party, however, and we’re not militarists. Economic nationalism has a very important lineage, and I believe, as my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to, in this new Trumpian world—where the rule of law has been abandoned, where we’re back to “might is right”—we will quickly find out that our willingness to protect our economic sovereignty, our ability to produce for ourselves and process for ourselves and manufacture for ourselves, is all the more vital. Our globalised world becomes less stable once it is back to “might is right”, once we lose the rule of law, which has been rapidly abandoned by that very dangerous man occupying the White House right now.

That’s why we should be much more cautious about these sorts of agreements. One of the consequences of us being expected to invest $35 billion in India is that we thereby weaken our own chronic current account deficit because we’re exporting such massive amounts of capital that we should be better investing right here in New Zealand. Part of the problem with our current account deficit is we’re already outflowing profits from foreign companies owned in New Zealand and we have loss of sovereignty over our own economy.

In regard to the question of food production, this is very acutely brought into stark relief by what has occurred in this term of Government. We are seeing deindustrialisation of New Zealand, in part by an energy crisis, in part driven by a unilateral attack on Iran by the United States—again, Trump—but also by the fact that the likes of Heinz-Watties and Gregg’s and McCain are owned by overseas companies that are not as committed to upholding the ability of New Zealanders to produce and process our own food as a New Zealand - owned entity would be, as a locally owned cooperative or company would be.

If we are to try and recompense for some of the supposed investment we’re going to make to India, it might be by trying to get India to invest in New Zealand, but that actually exacerbates that problem. You actually then create another situation where you get more New Zealand companies and more of the New Zealand economy owned by an overseas economy. When are we going to have that honest conversation about the fact we haven’t thought very deeply about that part of the consequence of the last 40 years of neoliberalism?

When people on the other side of the House say if you like farmers, then you’ll support this free-trade agreement, that sort of glib, shallow thinking doesn’t take account of the fact that the growers down in the Hawke’s Bay right now have no one to sell their peas to because they don’t have processing capability. It takes no account of the effect of the impact on actual growers and producers because we’ve been outcompeted by cheaper overseas products and we don’t have our local commitment to buying New Zealand - made and New Zealand - produced and we’re losing the capability to even retain that.

It is not a zero-sum game. The question of loss of ownership and economic sovereignty and our means of production and processing and manufacturing is intimately tied up with the nature of this sort of agreement.

Are you finished?

I haven’t. I’m just having a little think about what I want to say next.

Get on with it.

I could do that if you like. There’s another component to this that the Greens are not happy with—the lack of a decent Treaty commitment. This Government, we know, has gone to great lengths to undermine the Māori-Crown relationship, to both pick a fight with Māori directly but also to undermine Treaty obligations. What we see in this agreement undermines the indigenous rights of both New Zealand Māori but also the indigenous people of India, because their rights are not recognised in India either by this fair-trade agreement—free-trade agreement. I wish it was a fair-trade agreement. That is another thing that we’re not happy with.

I want to finish by pointing out that the nature of that commitment of $35 billion or $20 billion American dollars is so far from what we are currently investing in foreign direct investment (FDI) overseas. I pointed out in the first reading that our current foreign direct investment, if you add it up over the last 10 years, is well short of what this $35 billion is. I’m just trying to find the figure now. The idea that we’re somehow going to rapidly increase our FDI is not consistent with the track record we currently have. In fact, over 10 years, we’ve had an average of minus $28 million. It was a net disinvestment. Our total FDI in 2025 was $1.46 billion and we’re going to ramp that up by thirtyfold. It’s not credible—it is not credible. It is the duty of this House to sign our country up and our future generations up to deals that are actually going to be fulfilled. More than anything, I would be concerned that if we know we can’t do that, we should not have made that commitment to India. That is not a reasonable commitment for us to make.

The final component I’ll speak to is it seems extraordinary that we’re getting tariff deals on export apples and kiwifruit in return for us agreeing to develop an action plan designed to enhance India’s production and quality of those very products and hence enable them to compete with us on the products we’re trying to export to them at a tariff discount. It makes no sense, and that is why the Green Party will be voting against this particular free-trade agreement with India.

10:16

I rise in support of the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Trade has generally had a very bipartisan approach across New Zealand over many years and it has led to a hell of a lot of the success that this country has in that we approach it looking to make it fairer and better for our exporters around the world. Now, we’re getting to a point where we have done a lot of deals and we are a very open economy. We don’t put many barriers on anyone coming to it, and you’ve got to ask the question: what is in it for some of these other countries? This does mean that we do get some of the concerns we have raised here but have been answered by the Minister for Trade and Investment and by the Opposition spokesperson as well around these concerns have been raised. We are not signing ourselves up to “we must do this”; it is an ambition.

But I do want to point to the fact that, as the Minister mentioned, there are a number of benefits here in this agreement, particularly for our lamb meat exports. I believe we have faced a 33 percent tariff into India. The Australians used to be on something similar. We had good trade into there. They got a reduction. They basically cut our lunch. This enables our sheep meat exporters to get back on a level playing field with the Australians. We’re the first country ever to secure a preferential access for apples, and, as has been mentioned, kiwifruit and mānuka honey. These are important sectors in New Zealand and we will get better access from that.

As a proud dairy farmer, I do want to touch on the fact that we’re not getting a lot of dairy access, but that’s probably no surprise to anyone in the dairy industry. I recall being at the 2019 World Dairy Summit, where the chairperson of Amul Dairy, Dr Sodhi, was speaking on a topic around South Asian trade or something like that. Completely out of the blue he decided to tell all 1,000 audience members that there will never be a free-trade deal with New Zealand for dairy access. It was pretty clear. We had just beaten India in the World Test Championship; that may have played into his reason to put the boot into New Zealand at that point in time, but we’re always going to be up against it.

But I guess the point I want to make is dairy is our largest—

Thank you, Donald Trump.

Blame Donald—yep. Dairy is our largest industry here in New Zealand, and yes, it’s been particularly tough. We haven’t had great access through the India free-trade agreement (FTA), and previous to that the EU FTA. Excellent access through the UK FTA—the one praise that I’ll offer to the former trade Minister. That’s sort of a benchmark that we should aspire to in the future, quite frankly. But going forward, we do need to ensure that where we can we break down barriers for our dairy industry and open up access. We’ve got to be stronger on that because it is our biggest industry. We do need to make sure we are creating more access to more markets for it. It’s very important. But I do want to say we do support this bill and I commend it to the House.

10:19

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this free-trade agreement. Just at this particular time, I would just like to take some grace from the House to remember the Hon Jim Peters MNZM, a true gentleman and a scholar, and his beautiful wife Robyn, who have tributed so much to New Zealand First. He was very acute and very astute.

A key question, what I reflected on overnight: is this agreement in our national interest? I think this Parliament owes it to New Zealanders to actually answer that question.

The national interest test is interesting. The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan yesterday was eager to point out that some people here are racist and xenophobic. It’s very interesting, because the Hon Phil Twyford was part of the process that led to the national interest test because he dared to question Chinese nationals buying houses and raising the prices in Auckland, and that kicked off the agreement between our leader and David Parker to come up with a national interest test. Well, I’ve got to say it’s just as well we’ve got one, because as a new member, and there are plenty of members here who have been here a lot longer than me and have a lot of experience in this House—it seems a shame to me that the Minister has left the room, but it’s very important for New Zealand to actually consider this. The process is one that troubles me.

We had a first reading, whereby the agreement had already been decided. It then went to a select committee, whereby the agreement had already been decided. We had a second reading where, in both of those occasions, we had an opportunity to say and voice our reasons around why we disagree with this FTA. Now we’re at third reading. Where was the debate on the agreement itself? Don’t we owe it to New Zealanders to have that debate? Where and when were we, as New Zealand First, given the opportunity to contribute to shaping this FTA?

We are a nationalist economic party, as the member from the Green Party said, and we hold the line on national interest, which is why we were so keen to get it in the place for us. My reflection on this is that at this point in our journey as New Zealand, we’ve got an awfully big job ahead of us to rebuild our economy and to add value here so that we’re not stuck in a constant primary produce export nation; that we will move towards more value-added exports and employ people on higher wages, which are all things that we as New Zealand First really, really want for our country.

Let me say this about free trade. This one doesn’t seem “free” to me—this one seems more expensive to me—but, yes, absolutely: opening up the opportunity to trade with the rest of the world is fundamental to this country’s success. However, we need the ability to trade, and we don’t want to trade away our competitive advantages. What we are playing with here are three crucial competitive advantages that New Zealand has in the world through horticulture, agriculture, and, of course, honey. These things are really important to us, so there is reason for us to take some care around what we do with this free-trade agreement.

Now, the one that has come up in debate and drawn a lot of heat is this outward investment of $35 billion to India. What has not come up is the fact that that investment is made on behalf of New Zealand by this Parliament for the private sector to invest. I’d like to know where they are—I’d like to know where they are. Have we lined that up? Have we questioned them? Have we talked to them about how we’re going to achieve this? Or have we just made this agreement up as we’re going along? There are a number of things here that we are still not happy with, and we feel, as others do, that we needed the chance to actually participate in the development of this FTA.

Immigration is being traversed quite a lot here. The investment that we just talked about, the $35 billion—what about the trade imbalance? We’re dealing with a country that is 280 times our size. Do you think those two previous things add up in light of that, and the rising middle class in India? It is huge. They will swamp us if we are not sure about how we deal with this agreement. And, yes, I agree with the Minister and he has worked extremely hard and I agree with him on the Chinese FTA. That is a true reflection of us taking on one of the biggest nations in the world and coming out with a good deal, right? It’s worked for us, and we agree with that. However, this trade imbalance is really concerning for us. We know what we’re dealing with here, and there are a number of things around it.

Let me just take the albumins, for example, reflecting what I’ve just said. Albumins go into value-added products, so we’re exporting them. So, come on, why would we do that? Why would we not keep those important ingredients, along with all the others—the bioactives around mānuka honey and the bioactives, actually, and biofunctional foods around kiwifruit, for example; our apples; the list goes on. Why aren’t we investing that money in our own industry so that we can export those value-added products and take the benefit here for higher-cost, higher-wage jobs? It’s so, so important to us. The rules of origin—we didn’t cover much about that, but, essentially, those ingredients go into other products and other nations will be interested in them. How are we going to keep track of the rules of origin of our exports in that process? Good luck with that.

The agricultural cooperation quotas done through the agreements and the action plans that we have in place—now, do you think that that’s not important? Actually, I do think that’s important that we’re going to be training India how to grow apples and grow kiwifruit. I do actually think that’s a bit of an issue for us. We may have missed that article 9.10 allows India to impose proportionate remedial measures to rebalance the concessions given to New Zealand under its tariff schedule if India determines that New Zealand has not fulfilled its commitment to investing $35 billion in their economy.

There’s so much more here. I’ll jump down to financial systems. We’re jumping into bed with one of the most advanced countries in the world in terms of technology, and we are looking at sharing our cooperation on digital payments, on unified payments interface integration, fintechs, digital currencies, central bank digital currencies, data governance and sovereign data, scams, privacy, and financial sovereignty. We haven’t resolved those things ourselves, and yet here we are. It’s in the free-trade agreement. We’re just going to go right ahead and join up to what’s happening with India and see if we can manage ourselves through that process. Those are huge things. Blockchain is coming at us like there’s no tomorrow. Do you think that we need to be concerned and involved in those processes with our new partner? Why is it even here? Why is it even in this agreement?

We understand that our coalition partners want to usher this through, and we can see the opportunity, as well—but as this is already agreed and we have had little chance to influence the outcome, were it not for the Labour Party agreeing to this FTA, it could not be called a Government bill. We’ve got a problem here right from the start, and this debate opened up yesterday, as well.

Suffice to say, we believe that New Zealanders deserve to know that our national interests are uppermost in our considerations. New Zealand First, our party and our party’s members and its constituents, are not convinced, and we believe that many of the citizens and voters that support the parties in Parliament here are also in that place supporting them, similarly concerned. So we’re going ask New Zealanders: do you believe this is a good deal?

The member’s time has expired. I’ll just use the opportunity to point out to members that this is a debate not on the free-trade agreement but on the enabling legislation, and, also, to the member Dr David Wilson, it is inappropriate to mention the names of people who may or may not be in the House.

10:30

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Seeing as this is the third reading, I just want to reflect a little bit on the debate and processes that we followed.

I think there is something to be said about the reality that, throughout history, trade has been a backbone of development of all peoples, in exchanges of cultures, goods, and ideas that have led to innovation. But as we evolve, and our societies become more connected, in my view trade deals should first and foremost benefit the working people of both nations involved in it. The legislation enabling it should work towards that as well.

When I look at the legislation enabling this free-trade agreement, and the rhetoric, I think, that has been thrown in this debate more broadly, a reflection that I wanted to make—particularly in the contributions from other speakers, including from the Government side—has been a lack of commentary on, for example, whether this legislation which enables a trade agreement, furthers or protects labour rights. In the legislation, I don’t see anything that, for example, enables binding language in relationship to labour rights. It’s not covered in the dispute settlement chapter either. I think this is something that is really amiss, because we should be concerned about the fact that our trade agreements are not enhancing labour rights amongst both nations. Or, in the legislation that we’ve seen here, and submitters touched on this in the select committee process—so reflecting on some of our supporters’ concerns on this, I do think that the non-binding language on labour rights is particularly concerning due to the fact that India does have, unfortunately, a poor track record when it comes to labour rights. There are many workers in India who unfortunately still experience very little to no labour rights.

I think our contribution, both in the process in this legislation and more broadly whenever we design trade deals, should be seeking to enhance the wellbeing of working-class people across the globe. So I think this is particularly concerning. I know that, through this debate, while not explicitly in the legislation enabling the trade agreement, immigration has nonetheless still been a component of the debate, including within this legislation because of the rhetoric that ties to it. I would encourage any members that would have raised concerns throughout this debate on the immigration components of the deal to reflect on whether their concerns are actually coming from a place of wanting to enhance labour rights across the board or whether they come from just more broadly scapegoating.

We do share, though, our concerns with New Zealand First on the ability to genuinely enact some of the obligations on foreign investment, and actually being able to meet them; and echo the risks that exist of the unilateral ability for India to call back some of the tariff cuts if these are not met. I think this is something that particularly concerns us, because we have not seen the evidence that we’ll be able to meet those commitments. Therefore, the sort of merit off this legislation which enables a trade deal should then be questioned, as a result. I particularly questioned the timing of this legislation to enable the trade agreement due to the reality that I think New Zealanders deserve a robust public debate on the merits of this trade deal. It should not be dangled as a sort of “election win” or sort of “election cycle win” by the Government members. I want to make sure that New Zealanders remain confident that the trade agreements that Governments are signing us up to genuinely are to the benefit of everyday working people. I regret that this debate, and this process, has not enabled this to be the case.

I also welcome and want to reflect on the committee of the whole House process that we underwent in this House. It was definitely unusual to see New Zealand First members blocking closure motions, and I welcome them onto scrutinising Government bills a bit more. Like, I think this actually is a good thing, where there are differences in Government parties, that we actually do enable Government parties to voice their differences and actually adequately try to scrutinise this. This is something the Green Party in the previous two terms we were in Government actually took really seriously. I would welcome this as actually a healthy part of our democratic processes. I think it’s good practice for members who may have not had the opportunity to perhaps scrutinise Government bills to partake in these.

I think the more we’re able to have legislation that follows due processes, that engages with the broader public, the committee of the whole House, they just actually will be a lot richer and will be able to reflect those contributions. I do not think this legislation or the trade deal process has actually brought the public on board with enough information and engagement.

10:35

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take a call here on the final reading of this bill. It’s a good piece of legislation that gives effect to an agreement that will be very valuable and meaningful for New Zealand. It’s a shame the last couple of speakers have demonstrated a lack of understanding about the agreement and what is included; and, indeed, have not spent anytime focusing on the legislation itself.

We made some pretty straight forward changes around the quota management process, to ensure that it was efficient, and reduced red tape where possible. We also put in stronger oversight for the Minister around the audit process; ensured that the Ministry for Primary Industries was accountable, like other quota managers; and shortened up the appeal process time frame. So all succinct things that I am confident will deliver a better outcome for us. So I commend it to the House.

10:36

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleague, the Hon Damien O’Connor, I rise to speak in favour of the India fair-trade agreement bills—what are now two bills before us—at this third reading. As my colleague has pointed out, it isn’t the agreement that Labour would have negotiated, it’s not the legislation that precisely we would be bringing to the House, but it is a step in the right direction. One that allows us the opportunity to grow and develop the relationship between the two countries over the 15-year horizon.

I know, Madam Speaker, as you’ve pointed out, we’re not speaking about the agreement but rather the legislation specifically. There is, of course, the important tether between the two, which is the commencement date. As the Minister spoke to in the chair earlier, the finalisation of the agreement itself is very much waiting for this legislation to pass, and then the agreement will come into force as well. So with the Speaker’s permission, I did just want to acknowledge not only the Minister who’s concluded the agreement but also my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—last term—for her work, which I’ll speak to briefly in a moment. But also to thank Vangelis Vitalis, our chief negotiator; Richard Griffin, who was the lead on the legal team; and the broader Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff, who played both a role in the agreement but also the drafting of the legislation, and who were in front of us at select committee answering many, many questions.

The agreement itself runs into 20 chapters that cover a range of issues that I won’t speak about, because I feel like, for me, the important thing in terms of what it’s doing is opening lanes. Both lanes in terms of relationships across academia and trade and people-to-people contact, and really ensuring that New Zealanders into the future are fluent in both worlds. So from an internationalist’s perspective, my view is that this is not only appropriate, but so important in changing times. Others have referenced Liberation Day in the context of a changing world. That is important for the legislation that we’re bringing to the House; it is important for timing and making sure that we’re making the most of opportunities not only for us but for the young people coming out of university who are looking for those job opportunities. The Minister mentioned that one in every four jobs are connected directly to trade. Those are direct connections. There is so much opportunity ahead that the legislation—that, hopefully, we will be passing today—will present for young people, as well.

If I could also recognise the role of the Indian community, who have rallied around the agreement, and the legislation to give effect to the agreement, including the New Zealand Indian Central Association under the president Veer Khar, who’s welcomed the agreement publicly and pushed for cross-party support. And the India New Zealand Business Council, led by the chief executive Sunil Kaushal, who called the signing of the agreement “a momentous occasion”. I know those community leaders have been watching this legislation pass through the House, and will be welcoming the passage today.

As I mentioned earlier, getting to the signing or to passage of legislation, often requires work across parties for a number of years. Certainly, that has happened in this case; beginning, in many ways, in February 2020 with Labour’s India - New Zealand 2025 plan that talked about the development of the relationship to this point.

And that focused on things like strengthening our PhD programmes with the University of Auckland, growing diplomatic relationships, and opening technical dialogue on how cyber-relationships could develop and evolve. I mention this because we had some critique from New Zealand First members about how we were going to engage in the cyber-technology space. That work has been done over the last several years and it replicates some of our agreement with the EU and the UK as well. So this isn’t a piece of legislation that has arrived in the House without that work being done in the background. I do think members ought to be confident and that there has been that cross-party support for years and for years.

Now, in terms of getting to this legislation being in the House, Labour was privy to some discussions in the lead up to the legislation being presented to the House. We were very firm on our view that there was a need for protections and the labour space to match this legislation being brought to the House. So capacity for the labour inspectorate, but also legal advice being provided to those individuals who were coming to New Zealand, to ensure that we didn’t end up with a problem where we would have an escalation in terms of individuals who were being exploited through entering New Zealand on those visas. We will continue to monitor that as this legislation passes and is enforced.

I would caution the House on the irresponsible use of language in terms of those visas. I spoke to this at the second reading of the bill yesterday in that the settings when you look at them—and you just need to read through the settings of the visas—do not stretch our commitments to India in a grandiose, new, novel way. They reflect the visas that we already have under New Zealand law. They continue to allow for the Minister’s discretion in terms of policy settings, much like the other visas that we have as well. Indeed when you look at the student visa settings, they are lower in terms of the guarantee of employment. I do think that once this legislation passes, I would just caution members of the House to be responsible with their language in regards to what this legislation does and what it does not.

Likewise, in terms of the investment commitments that multiple members have spoken about today and yesterday in the House, this is a duty to promote and it is not one where benefits in terms of tariff reduction can be clawed back retrospectively. So at the 15-year point, if a determination is made by India that we have not met that promotion obligation, the businesses, the exporters who have benefited over that 15-year period time of time cannot have those benefits removed from them. It is very much forward-looking.

Yesterday, in committee of the whole House, the Minister was questioned by New Zealand First members about the investment provisions into New Zealand, and the Minister made the very good point that those investment provisions in this legislation are a cut and paste of the provisions that are offered under other agreements as well. So there isn’t preferential treatment. There is nothing new here, and if New Zealand First members are objecting to the investment provisions internally in relation to this agreement and this legislation, then one would think that they would also object to the identical provisions in the EU agreement, which they did not disagree with. That is the point of discrimination that I spoke to earlier as well. So again, for those members, if they are validly concerned, that needs to be a line that they hold across agreements, and it is simply not, in this case.

New Zealand First members also lamented many times that they hadn’t had sufficient say in this agreement, and asked when New Zealand First had. They had it in Cabinet. They had more of a say than many parties in this House and there was certainly an opportunity if their intention was to change or alter the agreement and the legislation in any way, to do it in that scenario. As a member of the Government, in terms of committing to this legislation, what should have happened at the stage that Cabinet agreed as a whole was that there should have been a commitment from the Foreign Minister to give effect to the promotion clause of that agreement, which must now be worked on. There must be a commitment going forward.

Politics is politics, but we must remember that this is one in four jobs we’re talking about in terms of export. There is an opportunity here for New Zealand to begin a relationship that we can certainly develop and improve on in the coming decade-plus, and we would hope that members across the House can continue to work on this in the coming years ahead. I commend this bill to the House.

10:45

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to be a small part of this bill and to support it. For those naysayers in the House over yesterday and today, I think the mantra, with time, will become true; that success has many fathers and failure will be an orphan. And I think those orphans will become fathers very quickly. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. The Hon Dr Phil Twyford—oh, sorry, the Hon Phil Twyford.

10:46

Thank you, Madam Speaker for that temporary elevation. I want to just add a few comments—actually, three key points to those that have been made by my colleagues in this debate.

As has been said a number of times, this agreement is far from perfect. It’s not the agreement that Labour believes that it would have negotiated, but on balance—and this is the important point—we believe that this agreement is in New Zealand’s national interest, and that’s why Labour is supporting it.

The key elements, I think, are significant reductions in tariffs for a list of key New Zealand exports. That will make a difference. That will create jobs and generate wealth that our country needs.

The argument about immigration and labour mobility in this agreement has been revealing in many ways. I want to echo Vanushi Walters’ comments that the immigration provisions in this bill do not open the floodgates, as some people have been arguing in this House and outside. They are actually quite constrained and quite modest and fit well within New Zealand’s existing policy settings.

The third and hotly debated issue has been the question of the commitment that New Zealand makes in this agreement to promote up to $33 billion of investment from New Zealand into India over 15 years. And we’ve raised questions about that from the beginning of this process. Questioning its credibility and how wise, how prudent it is to have that kind of commitment in this agreement. Ultimately, it is about best endeavours. It’s a commitment to promote, and the agreement does contain mechanisms for India, over time, to be able to review and assess whether or not New Zealand has met its commitment in this regard. I guess it’s our hope that New Zealand exporters will price in and will factor in any risk associated with that clause. And by the time that the Indian Government does come to assess whether or not we’ve met our commitments, that in fact so much shared value will have been created through this agreement that that particular provision will pale into insignificance.

I want to say, in relation to New Zealand First and Green Party colleagues in this debate, that it is always OK, I believe, to be debating economic policy and policy considerations around trade agreements, whether you’re coming from an economic nationalist perspective or other perspectives. And to David Wilson, I would say that I don’t believe anybody, certainly on this side of the House, has suggested that New Zealand First’s opposition to this bill or its conduct in this debate is in any way racist. I don’t think it is. But, actually, when New Zealand First’s leaders in this House routinely denigrate people on the basis of their ethnicity or country of origin in this House and in the community and use anti-immigration and anti-migrant rhetoric, that ramps up a hostile and abusive climate towards people who have come to this country as migrants at some time in the past, that is racist and is highly regrettable.

I want to make the final point that the geopolitical environment really is critically important in this, and Vanushi Walters made, I thought, some excellent comments on this. The direction of US foreign policy under the Trump administration, really, removing the United States as any kind of reliable ally, whether it’s in trade or security or anything else, has meant that under New Zealand’s independent foreign policy—which, hopefully, will become a lot more independent after the coming election—we have to look at other partners and other relationships. India is the most populous country in the world, well on the way to becoming a great power. We must develop and deepen our bilateral relationship with India and other friends in Asia, including ASEAN. This trade agreement is an important way that we can do that, and so I’m glad to commend this bill to the House.

10:51 · to the doubters and the haters

the doubters that thought we wouldn’t get this done in a term, and yet here we are, and to the haters who think this is not going to make a difference, it will. It’s going to make a massive difference for the people of Hawke’s Bay and for New Zealand. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This legislation, as many of us in this House have said, is enabling legislation. It brings the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement, which has already been signed, into effect. It does a bunch of things: it amends the Tariff Act 1988, and, basically, it makes changes to allow for preferential tariff rates that have been agreed through the free-trade agreement (FTA). That is good.

As many of my colleagues on this side of the House have already said, while this is by no means a perfect FTA, and it is not one that Labour would have necessarily landed on—and I will touch upon some of that in a short while—it does for the first time give us preferential access for New Zealand honey, for example. That has a 66 percent tariff that will be cut to about three-quarters of that over a five-year period, and this amendment to the Tariff Act allows for this to happen. New Zealand wine: a 150 percent tariff going down to at least 50 percent, or perhaps a quarter—25 percent—over 10 years, and further reductions that will match improvements that are granted to future FTA partners, as well. This part of the legislation goes towards allowing for the tariff reductions.

There is also a part of this legislation that goes towards investment screening, and so it amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 to lift the consent threshold for non-Government Indian investors in significant business assets from $100 million to $200 million. On the point of the investment clause, though, that is a risk that Labour has repeatedly raised with the Government. It is a risk of the necessity for effort towards NZ$33 billion being invested in India, but, again, there are a number of companies that asked for bipartisan support for the FTA and they, ultimately, will have to wear the risk if, at the end of the 15-year period, India unilaterally decides that New Zealand hasn’t put enough effort into progressing that $33 billion of investment.

That is one aspect of it that we didn’t agree with. But, on balance, as many others have said, we have supported the agreement and, therefore, we support the enabling legislation that we are debating in the House today, as well.

Of course, this legislation also allows quota management systems for apples, for kiwifruit, and for mānuka honey to be established through regulation. An Amendment Paper that was already debated in the committee stage has split the bill in two, which brings me to a point around the process of this legislation, given that it is enabling the FTA off that, as well.

The Government knew that they didn’t have the numbers to pass this legislation and that they would need Labour’s support to bring the FTA into force. Astonishingly, they chose to exclude us from the negotiation phase of it, from the early briefings, and from any copy of unredacted advice at any point of this, and that is not how enduring trade policy is made. That is not how you treat the other major party in Parliament who you will need to rely on to rescue your legislation.

What did you do when you were in Government? Not an invite, not a single shared briefing.

Well, the Minister for Trade and Investment said, “What did we do in Government?” We didn’t have a split Government that was fighting amongst themselves where one part of the Government wouldn’t support what the other part of the Government was doing, where the Foreign Minister exited the chat, and—

What about the CPTPP?

If we’d relied on the other major party in this House, we wouldn’t have treated Parliament as an afterthought. We would have included the other major party right at the start of that process.

This is a shoddy process from the Government, and I will also then make the point that while the previous speaker Katie Nimon, who resumed her seat before I spoke, said that there were many doubters who claimed that this Government wouldn’t be able to negotiate within one term, implying that it was all down to this Government’s negotiation skills. It wasn’t.

That’s right—got it done.

It wasn’t, Tom Rutherford. That’s not right, because it was very clear from the Indian side that geopolitical changes had meant that while New Zealand also had to look to diversify our trade, so did India. India has been actively negotiating 10 trade agreements in this time, whereas they had not been quite so inclined to be supportive of bilateral trade agreements prior to the US administration.

While members opposite may quibble about this, it is very clear from the Indian side that it wasn’t down to just the power of negotiation by this Government. Of course, there was a huge amount of work that was done before by the former Labour Government—by Nanaia Mahuta, by David Parker, and by Damien O’Connor—to strengthen the foreign relationship between the two countries that led to this, as well, but the major point there is the shift in geopolitical necessities, or the US administration, basically, requiring India to look differently.

The other point that I wanted to touch on in terms of what I said I would come back to previously with regard to the fact that Labour would have done this differently is our focus on our trade-for-all policy agenda. That was developed by David Parker in the previous administration to ensure that trade delivers broad, equitable benefits across communities while also upholding Te Tiriti obligations and environmental standards, none of which, of course, is taken seriously by the current Government in terms of their focus on negotiating trade agreements.

I will also quickly touch on some of Labour’s caveats. When we agreed to support the FTA—and now the enabling legislation, as well, which brings that agreement into force—we were very clear that we would also want to ensure that we strengthen protections against migrant exploitation in this country and that the Government then needs to expand the labour inspectorate to fund at least 14 additional staff that are focused on addressing migrant worker exploitation, serious and complex immigration offending, and a few other things around faster visa changes and progressing the Modern Slavery Bill, all of which the Government has agreed to in principle but must also deliver in full, including progressing the Modern Slavery Bill. Of course, the previous Government had done a fair bit of work on that, and all this Government needs to do is to progress that work.

I also want to touch briefly on the reason why certain other parties like New Zealand First have stated quite clearly that they won’t support either the FTA or this enabling legislation, and that is the narrative around immigration. I agree absolutely with what my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford has said. I know that David Wilson in his contribution specifically pointed to what I have said in the second reading.

To underscore or to highlight what Phil Twyford said in response, which is absolutely correct, I was not referring to any New Zealand First members’ contributions in the House on this legislation. What I was referring to were comments made by the leadership of New Zealand First, by senior Cabinet Ministers, who have continually subjected Indian New Zealanders to a rhetoric that paints them as a problem rather than a community to be valued, where through their claims of “unfettered migration”—I won’t repeat the supposed hyperbole by some of their senior Cabinet Ministers where they paint Indian migration to be something that is out of control, a narrative that others an entire group of New Zealanders, that has led to a barrage of vile and hateful comments online, graffiti outside an Auckland school that a number of Indian children attend, graffiti that calls for violence against Indians. That is hateful, racist, and xenophobic. We all know that online violence can translate into physical violence in real life as well, and therein lies the irresponsibility of the Foreign Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers to stoke division and hate and to make a group of people feel less safe and like they don’t belong, simply because they may have a different skin colour or have been born somewhere else. The Prime Minister, who did absolutely nothing, called it out as racist but refused to act on it. For a party that talks about being tough on consequences, there were no consequences here, and that is wrong.

11:01

Thank you. Madam Speaker. I’m thrilled to be able to take this call on the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Primary Production Committee and as a farmer and grower myself, this piece of legislation is going to make a huge difference to the primary producers in New Zealand. I think it’s a disgrace that some parties are scaremongering to justify their opposition to this bill. With that, I’d just like to commend the bill to the House.

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker.

Hamish Campbell—Hamish Campbell clearly was up first.

He hadn’t sat down; he hadn’t finished.

No, I’ve made the call.

Point of order.

I’ve got a point of order from the Hon Rachel Brooking. I hope it’s not questioning my judgment. I have got very good peripheral vision, and if it’s a point of order about something else, I will take it.

11:02

It’s a clarification, Madam Speaker, and that is that the member who had been making this speech, Miles Anderson, had not finished when the next member was standing up next to him. He was standing up before me—I’m not disputing that question. Is the ruling now that you can stand up whilst a person is still taking their call and that that counts?

No, it’s not, but Miles Anderson had clearly suggested he was signing off, at which point Hamish Campbell stood. You both stood up really quickly, but Hamish Campbell was first.

11:03

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great honour to stand up and speak in support of the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation agreement that gives our exporters amazing access to 1.4 billion customers and an economy which is soon going be the third biggest in the world. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.

11:06

Kia orana, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for identifying the fairly late landing of those two Amendment Papers. My first question is just seeking some clarity to help us move through this as swiftly as we can but also in a logical form. The two Amendment Papers from the Minister of Local Government—the most recent ones—I take it that 803 is dealt with in Part 1, and his other one is dealt with in Part 2, but, perhaps, the Minister can assist the committee in terms of clarifying that.

I’ll move on to couple of the issues that I have in terms of wanting to raise them with the Minister. The first is clause 4. I’m just signalling that—certainly as Labour’s local government spokesperson—it is my intention to move through these matters in a chronological clause order, and as I dispense with things, I’ll just move on to the next one, rather than jumping all around the place. If we start with clause 4, this is the amended purpose for the piece of legislation. What it is seeking to do—and this was clarified in the in the select committee in terms of a starting point—is to, effectively, remove a broader approach in terms of what the purpose of local government is.

Now, what we see there is a little bit of a change in terms of the ordering of the language that is there. But my question to the Minister is: why is it the case that the Government intends to simply remove a reference to local government, given they are decision makers and representatives, just like every single person in this Parliament is, of the local community? Why is it that there is a need to remove that reference of, effectively, councils and decision makers playing what is a clear broader role in terms of meeting the needs of local communities and replacing it with what is a much more narrow definition in terms of that focus on infrastructure? This is not to say that infrastructure needs are not being addressed by local government, perhaps, in terms of their consideration. There are other conversations around revenue around that and what the prioritisation might be, but this is fundamentally around what the purpose of local government is in terms of its existence. So my first question is really around why that broad nature of the role has been removed and a pure narrow focus on the issue of infrastructure, on services, and on the regulatory functions that councils undertake.

11:09

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will follow Tangi Utikere’s lead in terms of how we’re working through this, but I do very much encourage the Minister of Local Government to engage with us on these late Amendment Papers and where he sees those fitting into the debates—it’s just a very basic process question there. But my question on clause 4, which is “Section 3 amended (Purpose)” is that, as we’ve just heard, there’s now this focus on things—so that is infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. And I’m looking at the bill, rather than one of the Minister’s Amendment Papers. So noting that there is this big Amendment Paper 565, and that appears to be the whole bill, but in the Amendment Paper form, and then there are these two newer Amendment Papers released yesterday, and they are 803 and 755, so we might have a bit of jumping around. I’m looking just at the bill as it was reported back from select committee.

As I was saying, the purpose moves on to things, and those things are infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. When I looked back at the Local Government Act 2002, there doesn’t appear to be any definitions for “infrastructure” or “public services” or “performance of regulatory functions”. I couldn’t see one in either what is reported back from the select committee or when I’ve been looking at the Minister’s amendments. Could he please comment on whether he expects that there will be interpretations or definitions for them somewhere, that I’ve misplaced, and if there are no definitions for them, then what does he see them in?

In terms of infrastructure, we’ve just had a lot of discussion in the resource management replacement bills about infrastructure and whether or not this can include, say, green infrastructure—so it might be trees that are going to soak up the rain and prevent flooding, can they be considered as infrastructure? That’s a real question.

We’ve had the Aotearoa Circle do a lot of work on the importance of nature-based solutions. Does that fit into the definition of “infrastructure”. Then we’ve got public services, and I note there’s other changes that we’ll get to that talk a bit more about what might be public services. Does the Minister think that a public service would be putting on a Matariki festival. Is that a public service? Or does he see public services as being more about the libraries and the swimming pools? Where are the public services?

I think the simplest one in that list of three is the performance of regulatory functions. I take that to mean—but I’m interested in the Minister’s comment as well—that those are the functions that, at the moment, councils have under the Resource Management Act, that they have under the Dog Control Act, that they have under the reserve management Act, that they have under the Waste Minimisation Act, and under the Litter Act—and all the other pieces of legislation from this House that require councils, and local authorities, to undertake regulatory functions. That one is much more simple, and I’m just looking for the Minister to say “Yes, yes, Rachel Brooking, you’re quite correct. The performance of regulatory functions are those that are required by legislation that comes from this place.”; if not, if it’s anything wider than that.

The second questions relate to those definitions of “infrastructure”—how narrow or wide does the Minister expect it to be? And public services again—how narrow and wide? Are these terms defined anywhere, or does he expect them to be interpreted in relation to the definitions that are found in some other pieces of legislation?

My first question was, again, if he can take us through his Amendment Papers and what parts of the debate he expects those to be covered in.

11:14

Thank you, Madam Chair. Like my colleagues, I too want to work through this one clause by clause and also get some clarification exactly where the new Amendment Papers sit in this debate we’re having at the moment.

I do also want to start on clause 4, the amended purpose, which is, obviously, changing section 3(d), which is around the broad role in promoting social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing, and obviously that’s been changed to focusing on infrastructure, public service, and the performance of regulatory functions.

My question is actually whereabouts environmental enhancement and protection sits within that scope, which is obviously quite an important remit that councils have had for a long time, and to remove that visibility from the purposes is concerning. I do have an Amendment Paper that is time stamped 16 September 2026, 09.07, which just adds one wee extra point to this clause, so there will be a (d)(iv) “environmental enhancement and protection”.

I think it’s really an important addition to the purpose, because it does ensure it’s in plain sight, that roles of council will be to look after their environment, because the environment is actually really important in many aspects, including the waterways, wetlands, reserves, that also act as a kind of infrastructure. I know my colleague talked about the definition of “infrastructure”, so it’s important that we do consider what that looks like, but the actual role of councils in environmental enhancement and protection I think is also required into this purpose, to ensure that they have the ability to clearly be outlined with the role of the local government, that that is a core component of the purpose of local government.

My question is: will the Minister accept my tabled amendment around including environmental enhancement and protection, and if not, why not? Thank you.

11:16

Thanks, colleagues, for questions, and I will do my best to engage regularly in regards to the back and forth on the questions I’m being asked in regards to this bill.

In regards to the questions asked around the Amendment Papers (APs) from my perspective, Amendment Paper 755 amends both parts of the bill, and Amendment Paper 803 deals specifically with Part 1.

From a point around definition, the definitions included—

Point of Order. Can the Minister put up his microphone? And can you repeat what you said about the second Amendment Paper? You said something; I couldn’t catch it. Thank you.

Amendment Paper 803, which is in regards to development contributions, it does not amend the bill as reported back, it is all new in that context. It is related to Part 1 from my assessment. Obviously, the Clerk may have a differing view but I’m just giving you my view.

Can I just suggest that the Schedule 2 that is in that AP is in Part 2.

OK, we’re all on the same page on that?

Point of Order. Sorry, I also couldn’t hear the very first amendment, so—

I’ll repeat again. Thanks, colleagues, I was just giving you all some kudos, engaging in saying we’ll do so proactively. In regards to AP 803, that Amendment Paper will relate to Part 1. In regards to Amendment Paper 755, that amends both parts of the bill.

In regards to the questions around definitions, I refer the member to section 197, which does include a number of definitions regarded, that was actually some of the feedback from the select committee process, to have more defined terms as part of the legislation.

There was a question in regard to community facilities asked by the member, and the definition of that. The core services are services that the public generally accept as being core council business. In regards to core services related to community facilities—which was an area that the select committee requested to be added to the bill, which we accepted—would include aspects such as libraries, museums, reserves, and other community and recreational facilities.

11:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take part in this committee stage on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. I just had a few questions around the initial clauses for 4, 5, and 6, which, if I may surmise to say that they are looking at, essentially, what the Minister or the Government is amending the purpose of the local government system to be.

The reason I wanted to take a call on this—and I know colleagues have had some very specific questions about this—is to ask the Minister of Local Government this. I stand here as an MP from Auckland and I know that the Minister is also from Auckland, and I reflect on the comments that the Minister and his colleagues have made around the importance of localism over an extended period of time. I wanted to ask; how does the stated role of local authorities fit with the Minister’s—and I know we’re talking about the amendments in more detail today. But in terms of how they fit with the purpose, how does he see the local governments that are working within New Zealand—specifically speaking from an Auckland context—being able to meet the priorities that they establish for themselves and their communities when the Minister and his colleagues have consistently undermined that through making unilateral, unconsented decisions around the internal process that lead to decision making for their community?

Does the Minister think that local authorities—when we look at their purpose and when we look at how they must “play a broad role”, as it states in clause 4, “in meeting the current and future needs of their communities”, are they able to make independent decisions, as local representatives, about the types of views and perspectives that they take into account before setting their priorities? It’s all very well to say that local government must, as a purpose, meet the current and future needs of their communities, but how, Minister, are they meant to be able to do this when they have central government coming in and stating that the way that they choose to make their decisions and the people that they choose to be involved in what they determine is important for their local communities are unilaterally—according to central government—not good enough?

11:22

Thanks, Madam Chair. Well, firstly, I strongly refute the statements made by the member in regard to this Government. What we inherited as a Government was a situation around the purpose of local government that was “wellbeings”. Well, no one in this country can define the scope of wellbeing. It, basically, includes everything, and, as a result of that, we’ve got councils as monopolies spending local community and ratepayer money on everything. We’ve got so many examples, including if you go down the road in Wellington here, of just wasteful spending.

I make no apology for narrowing the definition in the purpose statement, in regard to new section 3(d) in clause 4, to say that they need to meet “the current and future needs of their communities for good-quality, cost-effective, and local—(i) infrastructure; and (ii) public services; and (iii) performance of regulatory functions.” I make no apology for being very specific on what local government should deliver and what it should not, and one of the challenges that we inherited was that the definition was so loose and wide that councils did not have clarity of what their core purpose was. The changes that we’ve made—which were recommended through the select committee process—in regard to clauses 4, 5, and 6 have defined that.

We should have “cost-effective,” in the definition. We should ensure that councils are delivering services to their community in a cost-effective manner. I mean, that sort of, for many, is common sense. I appreciate that many on my left don’t have that same common sense, but that is the reality and that’s what we’re doing.

11:24

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wondered if the Minister of Local Government would like to elucidate a little further on wasteful spending. Does he think wasteful spending includes buying the land and then the building for the Tākina conference centre, which is surely fundamental to economic wellbeing? Does he think wasteful spending in Wellington would include the support for Zealandia and for Predator Free? Or does he think that supporting World of Wearable Art, as an event that brings a huge number of people and a huge amount of positivity to the city, would be an example of wasteful spending? If not, does he think that local communities are incapable during consultation of saying what they think is important for a city or a district?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I infer from the Minister of Local Government’s most recent exchange—I was going to ask him what evidence there is around the previous definition there, basically, preventing councils from operating effectively. I infer from the Minister’s response that it’s because this definition of wellbeing is something that can’t be kind of measured. That’s what I’m hearing from the Minister, and so I’ll move on to my next question.

When we’re looking at the purpose, which we know is the overriding focus of local government and what it can, can’t, should, or shouldn’t do, the question for the Minister is: how does this suggested change outlined in clause 4 as the purpose provide any assistance to councils in the sector who are dealing with a whole range of issues that, on first glance, you may actually think are not perhaps covered? Some aspects of that are things like community safety and how councils are going to address issues of community safety outlined under the proposed purpose here. If it’s still possible, where would he see that fitting in?

Another example could be around the engagement of young people, or homelessness in terms of the approach that that might bring for councils—and I see the responsible Minister is just in the Chamber here today. How are these sorts of things going to be able to be undertaken by councils, given the change in definition?

We could go a little bit further and talk about climate adaptation. Yes, there are aspects of infrastructure there, but if councils are not either pre-emptively or responsively undertaking some infrastructure piece but are doing pieces of work to mitigate or to adapt, where does that fit in terms of the proposed change outlined in clause 4? It might be that maybe the Minister actually thinks that those are things that fall outside the purpose of local government, and so I think it is important to get some clarity around whether that is the case or not.

I would like to also just focus on economic growth, and Celia Wade-Brown has just touched on that. Where in clause 4 is the provision for councils to have, as their purpose, economic growth opportunities for their communities? Where there are communities where there is potential population decline, how are councils able to turn their minds to effectively doing work in that space, if at all?

Actually, it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister sees that there is a role for local government in that regional economic development space. If I think about my own community, our council, alongside our neighbouring Manawatū District Council, effectively funds the local economic development agency, CEDA—the Central Economic Development Agency. Where would those sorts of spending decisions or priorities fall within the purpose, because I think that there is an acceptance—certainly, in my community—that the work they do is really important in terms of generating opportunities. Where does economic development sit within the purpose? It would be helpful for the Minister to identify that.

11:28

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, going back to my question about definitions of infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory function, the Minister of Local Government mentioned in his answer to me before “section 197”, and I presume he means section 197 of the principal legislation, the Local Government Act 2002. That says, “In this subpart, and Schedule 13,—” and then it lists some definitions. I can’t see any amendments to section 197 in this bill, although they might be in an Amendment Paper that I haven’t picked up. But those definitions in section 197 are limited to that specific part of the Act, and that part of the Act has to do with things like development contributions.

Then, there’s more, because not only does that not apply to the purpose section; it also doesn’t use the same words. Some of the words are familiar. The word “infrastructure” is used, but only with the word “community” in front of it, and that “(a) means land, or development assets on land, owned or controlled by the territorial authority for the purpose of providing public amenities; and (b) includes land that the territorial authority will acquire for that purpose”. Because that definition is “community infrastructure”, and is what is applied to development contributions, it is different from infrastructure, which I presume would be wider. Maybe the Minister was saying, well, community infrastructure is a subset of infrastructure and infrastructure, in fact, includes much more than community infrastructure—because also defined at section 197 of the principal Act is “network infrastructure”, and that means “the provision of roads and other transport, water, wastewater, and stormwater collection and management”. But there are still many types of infrastructure that we can argue over that would not be included in either network infrastructure or community infrastructure.

I note, going back to these Resource Management Act debates that we’ve had recently, we’ve been told by every provider of everything that they are critical infrastructure and should be considered infrastructure. I think we even got to the level of private early childhood centres being infrastructure. So it is really important that we are clear about what this definition of “infrastructure” means in the purpose of the Local Government Act and if it is wide or narrow, because the Minister has told us that it’s important that we get rid of the wellbeings because they are not specific enough. He said, “We’re being very specific.” This definition is not very specific; it could mean a whole lot of things. And I have heard, I think, this Minister, or definitely other Ministers from his Government, say that a garden on the roof of a bus stop is terrible wasteful spending. Now, when I have seen gardens on top of bus stops, they have been stormwater infrastructure. There is a whole lot of science behind this, as well. They are there to slow down the water getting to the roads and causing flooding. Is that included in the definition of “infrastructure”? Sorry, his answer before gave me no help whatsoever.

And then, public services—they’re not defined in section 197 of the principal Act, either. Neither is the “performance of regulatory functions”. I know he went over the page to new section 11A, inserted by clause 7, where there is this change so that museums are specified—something else is specified; I can’t see it now—but that does not address my question of the definitions of these words. Do we look to other legislation? Is he saying that existing section 197 is it? Are there any other changes to section 197? Does he take my point that, if these are left undefined, then, in fact, he is undermining his own objective, which is to be very specific? By having these terms undefined, it’s not specific and, therefore, it will be important for the Hansard that he gives some indication of where he thinks they will go. And do those public services include the festivals that have now been mentioned a couple of times? The Minister has not answered that question.

11:33

Thank you for that. If I could just ask—if you could mention the clause that you’re referring to, it will help me to be more specific with my answer in regards to that. There are 22 clauses in this part, and I know that we’ve just focused on one so far.

The purpose question related to clause 4: the new purpose does not stop any councils from doing these things. The question was related to economic growth more broadly; however, the new purpose does force councils to prioritise on that purpose first and foremost. One of the aspects is obviously infrastructure, and infrastructure investment enables economic growth. We don’t want the legislation to try and legislate for every single activity that one can imagine and think of. We know that that is not practical nor going to be possible. Any legislation, including this, uses broader terms which are outlined very clearly in the clauses, which talk about community purpose, the cost-effective aspect of that, and the delivery of the public services. I’ll leave it there.

11:34

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to continue the conversation with the Minister of Local Government in relation to his Amendment Paper 755, amended clause 5(1A), when we’re talking about the clause that defines “cost-effective”. I think this is a very interesting intervention on behalf of the Government and I have a few questions for the Minister around this.

When we are looking at “cost-effective”—and I appreciate his comments that it’s not possible for the Government to legislate for every different type of activity that the local government may do; of course that’s the case. But what the Government has decided to do is to put a definition into a bill that governs the actions of local government and put that definition of “cost-effective” in, but it isn’t clear to me—and I’m interested in the Minister’s answer to this question—who is the arbiter of whether or not a decision is cost-effective, because there are a few things and, reading the clause, there are issues that the clause itself raises in terms of the types of functions that local government could be involved with—for example, infrastructure; for example, public services—that may have decisions that need to be made on the basis of common sense and the basis of knowledge of their community. It may be that there are infrastructure decisions that might be more expensive than the cheapest possible option, but that infrastructure is likely to last longer. That infrastructure is likely to require fewer repairs, therefore saving the ratepayer over the long term. Those types of decisions are a matter of judgment, and what we have seen with this Government and the attitude to local government is a refusal to allow local government a respectable level of autonomy to be able to make those types of judgments.

What I want to know is, when he talks about “cost-effective”, is it in his view what is cost-effective, or is it in the view of what the local council considers to be the most cost-effective, accepting that they are elected and they have the right to make decisions on behalf of their community and they may have more awareness than central government? Or is it an objective standard that some third party will be able to able to impose? Or, conversely, is it something that would only apply in situations where there is such a clear lack of compliance with this particular clause that that would be the only place or the only time that there would be a challenge in relation to the cost-effectiveness of local government? Or is this simply meant to be a directional instruction from central government, which we know delegates responsibility to local government to say, “Well, you should be cost-effective, but we’re actually not going to follow up on this.”?

There’s a lot in here, and there are a few examples that I think the Minister may want to think about. In Auckland, we know that we had devastating floods in relation to the Auckland floods in 2023. We know that the city wasn’t prepared for the amount of water that came down, and we had terrible consequences for the people who died in that tragedy, we had terrible consequences for homeowners, and we had terrible consequences for infrastructure. It was a tragic event and it was near to Cyclone Gabrielle, which also had impacts on Auckland, but it was generally a very, very disruptive and terrible chapter in relation to how our infrastructure was able to deal with the effects of climate change - induced severe weather events.

If the Auckland Council is making decisions that are more expensive but do provide greater resilience for their communities in relation to flood protection, will they be compliant with this clause 5(1A), which sets out the definition of “cost-effective”, or won’t they be, and who will be the judge of that? When we look at decisions that council makes that may be a choice, a judgment call, is the Minister saying with this clause that he’s going to be stepping in and involving himself in those judgment calls, or is he going to allow local government the respect to be able to make decisions in the best interests of the community that are cost-effective in the short or the long term?

11:40

I thank the member for the question in regards to clause 5(1A) on page 4. That clause actually includes the definition that the member is referring to it. So it is a defined term and it outlines, clearly, what we are referring to in regards to what is cost-effective. Again, the member can see that it’s also based on the definition of “public value” in the latest Government procurement rules. So we have taken that consistency. It is important to be clear and concise in regards to what we expect of local government to deliver, and, again, that is more helpful than something that is undefined and, therefore, is open to significant interpretation.

But the points that the member has raised in regards to infrastructure, such as waste water or stormwater, to prevent flooding, which I acknowledge to the member, and for many in the room, is a significant issue and concern for our communities. The definition clearly states that when these decisions are made, they need to be considered from a perspective of value for money. They need to be using resources effectively and economically and without waste, and taking into account the total costs and benefits. So I don’t think those are, again, at all unreasonable, but, at the moment, those checks and balances aren’t specified in a way in which we are intending they are here. As a result of that, local governments can proceed with decision making in a more robust manner than what they have been able to do in the past.

11:41

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move on to clause 5 now as well, which is the interpretation. I’m just wondering about community outcomes, which is defined, again, in relation to that infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory function. But what I’m interested in is the link between the outcomes that the local authority aims to achieve and meeting the current and future needs of communities for those infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. So just if the Minister of Local Government can clarify that those outcomes are quite different and if he could explain how it is that the outcomes are different from the underlying infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. Would an example be that you have infrastructure and the public service to provide public transport, but the outcome you are looking for is people using buses? Is that how he sees that link between the outcome and his listed three things that go to the purpose of local government?

And then a subsequent follow-up question from the definition discussion, if we can call it that. The performance of regulatory functions, does he consider that it includes biodiversity functions that are included in the Resource Management Act? That’s a specific question on that performance of regulatory functions that wasn’t in the list—well, I mentioned the Resource Management Act, but I was actually thinking more of the consenting functions under that Act, rather than the biodiversity—also biosecurity functions as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:43

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have some questions on clause 5(1A). They’re different questions to what we heard before around “cost-effective”. My questions relate to 5(1A)(a) and 5(1A)(b). The first one is where it talks about “using resources effectively, economically and without waste”. That’s actually a very strong term, “without waste”—“using resources effectively, economically and without waste”. I think it’s really important to establish what this actually means. Are we saying that cost-effective means that councils need to aim for zero waste in their delivery of infrastructure and public services, given those words “without waste”? Because, if that’s the case, that’s actually significant legislation. It’s very rigid, it’s not flexible—it’s rigid; it says “without waste”.

So it would be good to get some clarification on that, because the way that can be interpreted is that, actually, councils need to look at their projects and actually do them as zero waste projects, which is actually good, but it would be nice to know if that’s the case when he refers to “without waste”.

The other part of that is 5(1A)(b). Taking into account the total costs and benefits of decisions or actions, and, obviously, benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) are very topical in councils and especially transport projects. I’m curious if the Minister has any thoughts on: if you look at a transport project, is there a BCR in mind—a threshold—that a transport project should meet for it actually to be considered cost-effective? For example, maybe, two? That’s getting real value for money; if for every dollar you invest, you get benefits of two. So it’d be really good to know if there is, I guess, a threshold the Minister would recommend, and, actually, BCRs should meet, when councils take into consideration costs and benefits.

The other question I have around 5(1A)(b) is, I guess, the total cost. For clarity, do the total costs mentioned in this new definition refer to the total cost of the infrastructure of public services delivered over time or just in the short term, and what would that look like in practice for a new infrastructure project like a bridge?

So there’s three questions I’m asking around that definition of “cost-effectiveness”: one is around the definition of “without waste” and whether that means that councils need to be aiming for zero waste in their projects; the other one is around the BCRs, and does the Minister have in mind, when we’re looking at transport projects especially, a BCR threshold that councils need to meet for transport projects before they are considered cost-effective, which I think is, actually, a really important clarification to make so councils can actually know what to aim for when they’re doing their projects.

Lastly, is around the total cost and actually are we looking at total costs for short term? Are we looking long term over the span—especially infrastructure projects which are designed to last for four generations. So they’re my three questions around clause 5(1A)(a) and (b) around the interpretation of cost-effectiveness.

11:47

I thank the member Mike Davidson for his questions in regards to clause 5(1A)(a) and (b)—three questions there. The question in regards to total costs relates to the long-term view.

In regards to the questions around specific examples on the benefit-cost ratio for transport projects, it is not the intent of the legislation to be definitive around the specific threshold points in which is deemed appropriate. Those mechanisms in regards to assessment already exist within the transport arena. The purpose, here, is to ensure that there is consideration around any deployment of investment with those rigour, and, obviously, at the moment, some parts of our system already have that but other parts don’t. So this is to ensure we have consistency.

Lastly, the question in regards to “without waste”. That doesn’t mean zero waste, but it does imply and mean that councils, when making decisions in regards to investment decisions, that they should do so in a way in which is, obviously, minimising waste as much as possible. At the end of the day, the assessment or the mechanism—to the member’s point around who will judge—at the end of the day, that will be the ratepayer in the community that will have that assessment judgment. Again, the precedent here is to apply that that needs to be a consideration. I think some of the feedback that we’ve had from councils as is, you know, the ability to be quite specific around expectation, and having that within legislation, then ensures that through their processes and procedures that apply, that they have those questions as part of a formal decision-making process. And a result of that, the intent is that the finite amount of capital that is available to be deployed by councils to a wide range of projects, which communities want, will be best targeted or more efficiently targeted than the status quo.

11:49

Thank you. Minister, I have a question on clause 5, but just on clause 4, I do have an Amendment Paper 651 that the Minister of Local Government hasn’t indicated whether he supports it that not. So I’ll just park it with him. I also have an Amendment Paper relating to amending clause 5, which is Amendment Paper 652. It will seek to delete subclause (1) in its entirety. I think I know what the Minister’s view on that might be, but I’ll give him the chance to indicate that. But just in terms of clause 5, section 5 amended, when we’re looking at the definition of community outcomes, the word that’s used there on behalf of the local authority is where it “aims” to achieve something. Now, we all know that the definition of “aim” can be aspirational in many regards, from community to community. That does, obviously, depend on context. But I take on board the responses that the Minister has given around who makes these decisions. It sounds as though it’s a little bit up in the air there.

But I’m interested in his thoughts around the definition in clause 5, permitting or encouraging councils to, effectively, prioritise lower-cost options about anything—a whole range of different things—over what might be a higher-cost option but it could provide a more durable, longer-lasting solution to something. Now, we’ve already touched on climate adaptation, for example, where some of the costs could be perhaps not the lowest-cost option, but still could ensure longevity in that the investment is such that you’re actually saving money in the long run because you are mitigating against particular decisions that most of us know in this House will naturally happen over time.

So I guess it’s just from the Minister—and maybe the saving word is around “good-quality”, so maybe it is a qualitative view on a particular decision to be taken by a council, which financially, in terms of the raw dollar cost, might not be the cheapest option, but, in the greater scheme of things, might still be the better option for the community in the long run. So I just wanted to get some clarity that this is not going to fully constrain council’s democratic ability to make decisions in that particular sort of vein.

11:52

Thanks, Madam Chair. Just for the member Tangi Utikere’s feedback, I do apologise, but I won’t be accepting his Amendment Papers, nor for the member from the Greens either. They are not consistent with the Government policy.

In regards to the member’s question around cost-effectiveness and does this, in effect, mean lowest cost, the answer is no in that regard. This is about—as the definition notes—value for money. The clear definition in regards to effective and economic and in regards to the point around waste, it’s an “and, and, and” consideration. This is about value for money. Obviously, when we think about adaptation or, say, flood resilience projects, then the total cost and benefit across the project needs to be considered, including the fact is that investment going to be effective, economic, and reducing waste. So in that context, that is for the council to decide in terms of the appropriateness of deployment of that investment to meet the needs of the problem they’re trying to solve.

11:53

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from the Minister’s response to some of those questions, I thank the Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, for being engaged in this committee of the whole House stage.

Not with my questions.

Well, excepting that there are some questions on the table.

The answer that the Minister gave in relation to my previous questions on clause 5, amended section 5(1)(a), appeared to be that there will be no necessary way of checking or enforcing cost effectiveness, apart from the election that all local government representatives are subjected to anyway. I’m happy to be corrected, but that appeared to be his response to that question. So that, essentially, is the status quo, that members of the public are able to hold their elected representatives to account if they don’t like the spending decisions or the decisions that they make collectively for the community.

So I wanted to know what then is the purpose, apart from signalling that this is something that the Government thinks is good—which may be a legitimate policy or legislative flag—is there any other way that this is actually going to be effective? Because what he’s just described is what happens currently at the moment. There is a tiny fish-hook to that, which is when you put obligations in legislation, there is a much clearer pathway for individuals who may want to challenge the decisions of their locally elected authorities through mechanisms such as judicial review determinations to take those particular cases—they may not like a project, they may not want to wait until the next local body election in order to cast their vote for someone else, who stands for something different. So they may take matters into their own hands and they may say, “Council, you are acting inconsistent with clause 5, amended section 5(1)(a) of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. I am going to take a judicial review and I am going to get you to respond to that, because you’re not being held to account.”

So if we think about the use of public money and the Minister’s stated objective here of making sure that every cent of local government spending is used in the most cost-effective way possible, that outcome appears to be contradictory to that, because that would mean that local government is spending money justifying decisions that they’ve already made. The reason that they’re able to do that is partly empowered by the change that the Minister has put in place, which, essentially, allows, in his summation of the effectiveness, exactly the same procedure that currently exists in terms of holding democratic elected members to account. So just wondered, from the Minister, if I was correct.

11:56

Thanks to the member Camilla Belich for that question. I mean, look, the reality of what we are doing here is to set a very clear expectation through legislation around what the purpose is of local government. It is therefore the role of local government to take that on board and get on with it and deliver those services to their communities.

The Minister of Local Government, as the member will be aware, does have a range of powers to intervene in local government matters, as and where the threshold is met, which is generally a very high threshold for intervention. But there are powers that, from time to time, Ministers in this role across Governments do utilise where the governance mechanisms within council are not delivering upon their purpose and therefore there is intervention. I think that is the subtle balance that one is operating here. What we are doing here is being very clear and concise on what we require as the purpose of local government. As a result of that, that clearer definition around purpose ensures that what they do do will be delivering services that communities expect in a way in which delivers value for money. That versus the status quo is an important point of difference.

I’m just going to make a point before we carry on. Obviously, at the beginning of this committee stage, we talked about how a few hours before the House started sitting there were some Amendment Papers, so I’m not wanting to rush this section. I’m just wanting to say that we’ve spent quite a bit of time on clause 5, so if anyone wants to take a call if there’s anything to round up on clause 5, we could then move forward again, OK.

Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

Hon Rachel Brooking—oh, sorry, I know; I’ll come to you. I’m aware you want to take a call.

That’s OK. It’s a question.

Great, thank you.

11:58

Thank you. A small question on clause 6, section 10 replaced, which is the new purpose of local government, rather than the purpose of the Act, and then I’ll move on to clause 7.

On clause 6, at replacement section 10(c), I’m wondering if subsection (c) is just totally redundant or not, and if the Minister can explain why it’s not redundant. That is because of the use of the phrase “by fulfilling”. So subsection (c) is about supporting local economic growth and development—excellent. Then is says, “by fulfilling the purpose set out” above, which is the needs of the communities for infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. So is that use of the word “fulfilling” supposed to restrain the purpose of local government with regards to local economic growth and development? Because it’s only doing that growth and development where it’s carrying out its functions regarding infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions. Or are they able to do more than that as well? Is the use of the word “fulfilling” constraining the work supporting the local economic growth, or am I over-reading that? But if I’m not over-reading it, if it is constrained, then what is the point of that subsection (c)? It would seem redundant.

Now, moving on to clause 7, inserting new section 11A, and the Minister of Local Government was referring to it a little bit before. These are the core services, and the core services are listed at subsection (1)(a) through to (e), and I think it’s the same on the Amendment Paper—yes, it is—but what I’m interested in is how these new paragraphs (a) to (e) differ from subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of section 10, replaced by clause 6, that we’ve been talking about in the preceding clause. All the purpose language is about “infrastructure”, “public services”, and “regulatory functions”. Yet here the language is different and its “network infrastructure”—presumably, that is a subset of infrastructure—it is “public transport services”, etc., and I note that, “In performing its role, of local authority must have particular regard to [these] core services”.

Could the Minister explain to us why it is that those core services are chosen and how they differ from the infrastructure, public services, and performance of regulatory functions? And if the particular regard is just to say, “Oh, if you’re wondering whether or not something does fall under section 10(b)(i) to (iii)—‘infrastructure’, ‘public service’, or ‘regulatory functions’—and you’re not sure if it is, don’t worry because you can still have particular regard to it under new section 11A if it is a public transport service, for example.”, is that how it’s supposed to link? Or is it actually acting in totally the reverse, and is it meant to be a narrowing of those subparagraphs (i) to (iii) —“infrastructure”, “public services”, and “regulatory functions”? Is it saying, “Actually, when you’re performing your role, council, what we really want you to look at is just these core things, even though we’ve just told you that your purpose is wider than that”? My question is about that interaction, the systems interaction, between the purpose of the local government, which is for all infrastructure, versus the core services, which is not all infrastructure—it is restricted to network infrastructure—and then there’s other things that are listed. That is a sort of structural question.

Then I have one other question on this, and that is at new section 11A(1)(e), inserted by clause 7, where the Minister referred to the specification here of “libraries, museums, reserves and other community and recreational facilities.” I’m particularly interested in that word “facilities”, because that sounds like it must be a thing to be a facility. My question here is a specific one and that is: is subparagraph (e) only related to CapEx? Is that only capital development for the library, the museum, and the reserve, or is it also for the operational expenditure of those things; if so, should “facilities” include some other word like “functions” or “operations” as well?

12:03

Thanks, member, for the question. I refer the member to correspondence from the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Camilla Belich, on 17 November, which outlines all of the background on the questions of which the member is asking in regards to that. That is on public record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You did invite us to continue a little bit on clause 5, so I wanted to—

I’d rather the member didn’t, because I asked just before if anyone had any questions on clause 5 and we moved forward, so I’m not taking calls on clause 5.

Point of order. I agree that you did ask that, but we still had stuff we wanted to discuss on clause 5—

I asked that question at the time—

—and we stood up, but then a member stood up and went straight to clause 6, which didn’t give us that opportunity to—

No, no. On the point of order, there were about five people standing up and I said, “Does anyone have anything on clause 5?”, and no one indicated that that was the case, so we moved on, and I’m not taking—

Sorry, just speaking to the point of order.

No, I don’t want you to trifle with the Chair. I asked the question and nobody who was standing at the time gave me the indication that they had any more on clause 5, so we’ve moved forward. That is my ruling. We’re moving forward. Celia Wade-Brown, you’re welcome to take a call if it’s after clause 5.

I would be delighted to, thank you. I have to say I appreciate the Minister of Local Government trying to make it clear, but I actually find, even with the changes, that there is a lot of repetition. We’re talking about the purpose of local government to meet the current and future needs, and then in clause 7, it talks about “Core services to be considered”, and they’re almost the same, but they’re not quite the same. I think that this, whether it’s going to be a judicial review, whether it’s going to be debated at the council table, is going to be very difficult. I wondered if the Minister could give me some answers on two things.

How many mayors or councils or organisations like Local Government New Zealand or Taituarā actually supported the changes in clause 6 that replaces section 10, the “Purpose of local government”, which says it’s “to enable democratic local decision making”, which is awesome—that’s real localism—but how many submissions actually supported that? I would also like to find out a little bit more—it was touched on by my Labour colleague—about “local economic growth and development”. I do acknowledge that the Minister of Tourism has put out a very useful road map. I have great respect for her in that role, though not in every ministerial portfolio she holds, but she’s been very positive—

Well, go back to the purpose of the bill.

It says “local economic growth”—does that definitely include funding regional tourism organisations that are pretty critical to spreading our tourists out around the regions and supporting local economic growth? Or will some do it and some not? And will the Minister be likely to intervene in either case as to whether they should support regional tourism organisations or not?

I also wanted to ask, where you say to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality, cost-effective, and local public services—which might mean library assistance and lifeguards—does he have any view as to how requiring a council making their local decision to pay the living wage, both for social reasons but also because people who are paid enough not to have to work three jobs can actually participate, can support their children, and so on, does he feel that paying the living wage is a perfectly reasonable thing to do under good quality, cost-effective local public services?

12:08

Thanks, Madam Chair. I refer the member to when questions in regards to submissions were received, I mean that’s all outlined in the Governance and Administration Committee report back, so I’m not going to cover that. The other question I answered around libraries; I’ve provided responses already, so I’ll be replicating myself again in that. The question in regards to “Should councils be paying a living wage?”, well, first and foremost, we have a minimum wage, which is a legislative requirement in this country, and I expect councils to be complying with the law. I also expect that councils are delivering value for money for their ratepayers. The fact that they feel like they want to be spending more for whatever reasons needs to be on the basis that their ratepayers are of the view that that is value for money. I would expect, first and foremost, that they meet the requirements under the law, which is minimum wage, and at that point, over and above that, will be based on the performance deliveries of the functions of that council.

12:09

Thanks, Madam Chair. There are two areas I wanted to ask questions about, if I can, on this part. The first one of them is that we specifically identify there in the legislation—and that’s stayed there, I think, right the way through the select committee process—the “supporting local economic growth and development”, which are obviously two separate things. I’m really interested, because that’s specifically been identified as different to all the other ones about infrastructure, public services, and so on. Although, you could regard it as a public service. But I’m specifically interested in how that interfaces with—we’ve already had the question. I don’t think I heard an answer about RTOs—support of regional tourism organisations—but also how that interfaces with arrangements that might be between the Crown and local government in terms of regional deals, because there are going to be significant elements of that which are about economic development. I’m really interested to understand because that’s been specifically identified there so it doesn’t get lost. I can see separately we’ve got the rates-capping legislation. I would argue that they should have been together, but that might be one of the casualties. Councils could quite easily go, “How can we save some money? We’ll do it there.” I would take that the intention of having it identified here is that that doesn’t happen, and we’re saying, “Actually, that is important. It’s important that councils are involved in the economic development growth of their area.” So I’d really like some feedback on that as to what you’re anticipating there.

The second one is just in terms of the core services. Again, we’ve got the rates capping, and one of the issues that councils have brought up time and time again is the concern that rates capping could erode their ability to be able to manage core services and to maintain assets. We’ve got an issue across the board, and we know that the Crown is more guilty than local government in terms of asset management and maintaining hospitals, education facilities, and so on. We know that’s really, really important, so we’ve been driving towards that. The Infrastructure Commission has said that’s really, really important, and we’ve all said, “That’s great. That’s really important.”, but what I’m really interested in is: what does the core service mean in terms of the rates capping? If the council is rates capped at a certain level and it can’t manage to maintain those core services, those core assets, what happens and what gives? What is the penalty, effectively, for councils? What’s the regime that a Minister might say, “Well, actually, you’ve spent money on things which are not core services there; you’re not managing the core services.”? What is the regime going to be there, and is there an ability to make sure that councils are going to be able to manage those core services so we don’t end up with them being continued to be depreciated, which has happened not only in local government but also in central government over many years? I look forward to the answer. Thank you.

12:12

I thank the member Andy Foster for his questions. Obviously, you’ll be aware that the rates-capping legislation is in front of select committee, and so that is something that will be considered in that regard. But the interrelationship point around the definition is the point that the member is raising. The purpose of this legislation is to clearly define what are the core services that local government should deliver. It links back to the member’s first point around whether activity A or B is in or out, and I answered that question earlier today, so I don’t wish to repeat myself, but it is an important point to note that the legislation here does not prohibit any specific activity X or Y. However, it does prioritise what the activities are that local government must deliver first and foremost before anything else. That is the important point of detail in regards to that, which does not exist in the current model where community wellbeing is the definition of what councils must deliver. As the member will be aware, that is a much broader definition of “delivery of services and activities” than what is being proposed.

In regards to the questions around decisions that councils will need to make in an area where they are needing to meet a rates cap threshold versus the services they deliver, again, that will be down to respective councils and the way in which they manage their affairs, and it will be upon them to ensure that they structure themselves to deliver the core services first and foremost. Then that will take them to a position, and then they will need to, obviously, consider where they are at in terms of their ability to sustainably deliver any other core services that are over and above that. Of course, there will be challenges for some councils. We have 67 councils, so there will be a range of differing views around that, but the important point here is that we need to make sure that they are focused on the delivery of core services first and foremost.

12:14

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, my question to the Minister of Local Government is: what is this letter that he talks of? This letter that he talks of from the former chair of the Governance and Administration Committee. I’ll tell you one thing: if it was from Ms Belich, I know it would be very, very good letter. But what is it? It’s not on the Table, and we are in urgency, and it might be part of the public record. The reason I’m asking you, Minister, is that given the answer to the questions that have been raised, for example, from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking around the facilities component being capital expenditure or operational expenditure. If we could just have a little bit of clarity around this letter.

Now, can I just also have a look at clause 7? This is the proposed new section 11A. Now, when it comes to (1)(e), this is the “libraries, museums, reserves, and other community and recreational facilities.” Now, further down in new subsection (3), if you do a bit of a cross-check, you can see that the definitions are for many of those items actually referenced in other pieces of legislation. For “civil defence”, that’s no problem, and also for “reserve”, and “waste management and minimisation”, but it does beg the question: what does “community and recreational facilities” actually cover and capture if we’re looking at other parts or terms that have been identified in that section being cross-referenced by a legislative definition in another piece of legislation? Could the Minister just provide some understanding of what particularly the “community and recreational facilities” would actually seek to lead?

Can I move on to clause 8. This is looking at subclause (2) in clause 8. There’s a change there which seeks to basically remove “environmental wellbeing” as part of that. It’s simply saying, “the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities;” This is something that at a principled level, the principles would relate to the functionality of local authorities. Now, why is it that environmental wellbeing has, essentially, been removed as part of that, and does, actually, the Minister accept that environmental considerations specifically go to the heart of infrastructure cost implication considerations that councils might actually need to be making? It seems very strange that you wouldn’t have a reference to environmental aspects for consideration. You’re expecting councils to be focused on infrastructure. I understand that as one of the tenets outlined in the purpose, but when we’re looking at clause 8, the only one that would go would be environmental if we’re looking at the four wellbeings that are contained there. So I do want to know how councils are expected to turn their minds to the environmental considerations and, in particular when thinking about infrastructure, where that responsibility or priority might lie?

12:17

I was referring to a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs to the chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee, dated 17 November 2025, titled “Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill—Responses to information requests”. This letter can be found on the parliamentary website

And what does it say?

What does it say?

Thank you. The question is: what—

Google it!

Oh, I’m just being told to google it. Is it what the Minister just—

It’s on the parliamentary website. It’s publicly available. I’ve said that about three times.

OK. I just want it to be on the record that the Minister is telling me to google it. I’ve asked him specific questions about wording, and he’s referring me somewhere else rather than answering them here in this Chamber when those answers would be in the Hansard for everybody to look at when they’re trying to work out what these words mean. That is shameful, and that is the approach of this Government. It is callous; it is reckless. It is a reckless approach to lawmaking to refer off to some third document rather than answering the question: are operating expenses included? It’s a simple question. Yes or no? It’s easy. Just tell us, please.

I’m going to move on, though, because the Minister wants to be reckless. I do not want to be reckless, and I want to get to these big parts that the Minister’s just dropped on us this week. However, I’m not there yet. At clause 10, “Section 39 amended (Governance principles)”, I’m interested in this term—and we’ll come to more of this, I think, later on in the bill when we’re talking about how councillors work together. But this is this term that a local authority “should foster” the free exchange of information and “should foster” the responsibility of its elected members to work collaboratively. My question to the Minister is: what weight does he think that this phrase “should foster” should have? There are a lot of shoulds here. Is it a term already used in legislation, or is this a new term that comes with these amendments or not?

Does the Minister agree with me that “should foster” is a subjective term—that it’s an apple pie type of term? I’m not saying that I disagree with it, but if he could comment on how subjective it is, how apple-pie it is, and if there is any other reference to “should foster” in legislation—and what his expectation is that this requirement of “should foster” will lead to. Is it just to give a council some comfort, if they’re having a meeting with people to share some information, that if somebody tries to take some sort of review against the council for its decision-making processes, the council will then be able to go back to this amended section 39 and say, “Hang on, we’re supposed to foster this, and this is what we’re doing, so don’t give us a hard time.”? Is that why it is included, or is it included for some other reason?

I know we’re going to get to—I think, in the other part—the code of conduct. Again, I’ll be interested in asking the Minister what happens if councillors breach the code of conduct—we’re not there yet—and also, what happens if there is no fostering of the exchange of information. It’s not “making”—because “making” is a requirement—it’s a “should”. It’s not at the “making” level. What happens if the council doesn’t foster elected members to work collaboratively? What happens then? Is there any consequence for not fostering, and why is it in here? What is the mischief that the new clauses here are trying to deal with? Is it a well-known term that I’ve just not noticed before, or is it a new one? I think it would be useful for the Minister to give us a little bit of clarity on what his expectations are and the reason for including these amendments to section 39.

12:22

Thanks to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for the questions in regard to clause 10. The purpose, and the broader intent here, is to ensure that we have a standardisation of these expectations, to provide greater consistency and transparency for councils across the country and to provide clear expectations for elected members.

In regards to the question in regards to the governance principles that was asked before, the aim of the principles is to set out the high-level expectations on local government to provide for the good governance of local communities and the accountability of councils to their communities. Obviously, the interpretation is left to councils, in terms of how they deliver those.

12:23

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just note that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking just spoke to clause 10; however, I haven’t had a chance to speak to clause 7.

That’s fine.

Excellent; thank you very much. I do have just one call to make on clause 7, because I think it’s quite an important clause. Obviously, it’s creating a kind of hierarchy for what councils need to focus their mahi on, especially when you take that together with the eventual rates cap. There’s obviously going to be less room for councils to move, so this is actually a really important clause, and it’s really going to, in a way, dictate what councils can and cannot do.

A number of us from the Green Party have put forward a number of amendments, just to see if we can add a little bit more there, because it is quite prescriptive and it is really important that nothing is missed that is actually really important to communities and what councils do. When you look at clause 7, new section 11A(1)(e), it does list “libraries, museums, reserves, and other community and recreational facilities.”, which, I assume, will be like community halls, gyms, etc. There are some definite things that are missing there, and a lot of these are captured within our amendments. We’ve done them separately because we don’t want the whole lot put into one and then all ruled out of order. We’re not quite sure why, in this space, we’re missing things like public spaces—it’s not a reserve; it’s a public space—like a street mall, like the square in Christchurch, spaces that don’t actually fit in here but are really good public spaces. I note that we have got libraries and museums, but we don’t have art galleries, and also missing from that is heritage, as well. There’s nothing around economic development and, also, adaptation. This is why, I say, we’ve done these amendments separately: to ensure that, actually, if there is something where the Minister says, “Oh, actually, that should be in here”, we can have a look at that one tabled amendment and potentially include it.

I’ll quickly just go through what we have added as amendments for the Minister to consider—and potentially, he may recognise that that was missing from there—because it is a little bit concerning, when we do list things like libraries and museums, that suddenly we’re ruling out—and I take what the Minister said; it doesn’t technically rule things out. But, when you put a rates cap on, it means things will fall right to the bottom, and therefore the pressure on councils will mean that stuff won’t get looked at. So we have amendments and, if it’s OK, Madam Chair, I won’t talk to the time stamps, because that will take a lot of time—because there are several amendments—but they are all dated 16 September at 9.09, and then a few seconds after that.

The first one is around public spaces, which I spoke about earlier. That just makes sure it gives local government particular regard to pedestrian malls and town squares. The next one is around natural hazards and the activities that improve resilience to natural hazards. Then there is one around community support, to ensure that councils actually look at community support. There is another one around environmental enhancement and protection, which I think is quite important Then there is another one around facilities. It’s actually putting the words “and activities”—so “facilities and activities”. We have one that is to add “art galleries”. I see art galleries are excluded from this—and, as I mentioned earlier, also heritage. They are the extra additions that we’ve put in amendments individually for, and it would be great if the Minister could actually have a look at those amendments and say, “Actually, that one probably should sit within there, because it makes sense that councils need to prioritise.”

That could be art galleries or something, but I think it’s really important. We know councils have a responsibility in that space, and then suddenly, by legislation, they’re not allowed to prioritise an art gallery, when we say they have to prioritise a museum. Or the town square, for example—that’s something that doesn’t get prioritised. I think we’re going to see, from that, councils and communities actually being worse off. Those are my questions for the Minister on clause 7. Thank you.

12:27

I thank the member Mike Davidson for the questions. I think the member’s questions relate to similar questions that I have provided a response to, where I said clearly that the point of the definitions is not to prohibit but to prioritise.

Again, on this side of the House, we make no apology that the impetus, in terms of the need for change, is driven by the double-digit rates increases that we’ve seen across the country, in some areas up to 20 percent year-on-year increases. That is not affordable for communities, nor ratepayers, and the need to prioritise is something that I think all New Zealanders have to do as part of their daily life, as a result of the realities of the fact that their income needs to match what their expenses are.

I appreciate that, in prior lives, some in this House may have been in a position where there was a bottomless pit of money. That is not the reality in which we are operating now. We need to prioritise, and so does local government. I make no apology for that.

I’m just noting that, up to about clause 10, we’ve taken quite a few calls. We’d just like to finish off that section, and also just make sure that people know there is an Amendment Paper from 11.37 a.m. today, which you may or may not have seen.

12:29

Thank you very much. I do have a question, and it’s a new amendment I’ve got—it’s actually a new clause 9A—but, before I go on to that, I just want to quickly touch on something. The Minister of Local Government, just in his response, talked about double-digit rates increases year on, year off, and I just want to get some clarification around that. What were the drivers that were actually creating those double digits? There is a lot of blame being put on councils for being out of control with spending, but my understanding is that the drivers for that, Minister, were actually things like inflation in the construction industry—because, obviously, councils don’t buy cereal; they build roads—and interest rates as well. I think we need to be a little bit clear with people who are watching that, actually, there are a lot of drivers that were outside of the control of councils, and it’s unfair, I think, to blame elected members and councils for putting rates up when a lot of that was out of their control.

I’ve tabled an amendment to insert new clause 9A. I hope the Minister is really responsive to this, because he mentioned so in earlier discussions that we’ve had in this House. Obviously, what we’re aware of through his Simplifying Local Government reform is that there are a lot of councils that are going through this reform at the same time they’re having to representation reviews, which comes at a significant cost to the councils—a cost that actually may be absolutely pointless, because they may not exist. This tabled amendment actually just alters section 24A. What it does is it says, “After ‘Schedule’, insert ‘or if a council has a proposal submitted under the Head Start process as part of Simplifying Local Government reform’ ”. It’s basically going to exempt them from going through that process. The amendment is timestamped 15 September 2026, 4.45.00 p.m.

I hope the Minister really takes this amendment under consideration, because I know he expressed some concern at the time about this extra cost that’s going to be placed on councils for something they probably don’t need to do. I was working through it and trying to work out, well, what could be an amendment that we could hang onto this system improvements bill now to actually ensure that they don’t have to go through that, and then we can get that sorted right now, and it’s done. I think this is a really good win for the councils—and for the Minister if he accepts this amendment—because, actually, this is about saving money and not doing something that is just not needed.

It would be great if the Minister could take really good consideration of that amendment, because I think he would see some really good benefit in it, as well as local governments, and there are a number—a number—of councils that are forced to go through this representation review at a significant cost when there is absolutely no point of doing it, because they’re going through a reform that the Government have initiated right now. I would like the Minister to consider that and hopefully accept that amendment. Thank you.

12:32

Just in regards to that last point around representation reviews: I won’t be proceeding with the member’s tabled amendment as part of this legislative process. However, I have made statements in regards to the feedback that we’ve seen through the proposals on Head Start, which, again, is out of scope of this, but just to the members point, it is something that we are taking advice on, and we’ll have more to say on that later.

12:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for drawing our attention to the recent Amendment Papers—this is just terrible process from the Government, given that this reported back from the Governance and Administration Committee in, I think, November of last year. Anyway, we’ll get to that one.

Look, just for clarity, the Labour Party does support Mr Davidson’s tabled amendment that he just referred to. I know you said clause 10—

I’m just sort of nearing the finish of up to that point, so if you have another question, I haven’t closed that point off just yet.

I actually want to ask a question on clause 9 that I don’t think has been addressed yet. These are related to what are commonly known in local government circles as section 17A reviews. They are often looked at in terms of a council going through a particular process to identify whether a way of doing something is the most efficient and not necessarily cost-effective but effective for the community. It is, as the Minister of Local Government knows, often similar to the special consultative process in terms of the consultation, and councils, from time to time, do utilise section 17A reviews—often to think about whether a council-controlled organisation is the best away of delivering for a library service or a museum or something like that.

This is a proposed change that seeks to repeal section 17A, subsections (1) through to (4), and just talks about more of the infrastructure and public service but removes the localised aspect to it—which I find fascinating, given that the modus operandi of this Government taking office was about localism, and yet they want to strikethrough a lot of these aspects here. I mean, day by day, it just gets worse.

My question to the Minister is: how will councils still have an ability to determine whether the delivery of services, whether they’re in-house or otherwise, is still efficient and effective? These are changes to section 17A in terms of the review of how the delivery of services is actually undertaken, so my question, fundamentally, is why is this change being promoted, and what can councils and therefore their communities expect in terms of an ability to participate in any consultative process that councils might choose to adopt to review?

Now, I think this is actually quite a—section 17A reviews, as they are currently, are a very good way of councils engaging with the community to check how they are achieving the particular delivery of certain services. That’s important. That also aligns with the point of democracy that we’ve already covered, back in clause 6 replacing section 10, the “Purpose of local government”, which talks about the enablement of local decision-making for that to be democratic. I just want to get some clarity from the Minister around what is the only change, as I understand it, to the way in which section 17A is delivered.

12:36

In regards to the questions on the removal of the requirements under section 17A around service delivery reviews and the impact of that on cost-effectiveness of council services, we’ve covered that extensively in earlier conversations around the definitional changes that include cost-effectiveness within that definition and the reality that, actually, undertaking service delivery in a cost-effective way should be a business-as-usual expectation for local government. That is the purpose of the changes that we are making there. Removal of the strict rules around these reviews will allow councils to carry out this work in a way that is most cost effective for each of them. The new “Purpose” of the Local Government Act, which we talked about earlier, around clauses 4 and 5 that we’ve moved on from, makes it very clear around that definitional change and will ensure the delivery of more cost-effective public services.

12:37

Madam Chair, may I just check before I start, am I able to ask a short question on something on clause 8?

Yeah—and then I think we’ll move on to clause 11 forward, but I’ll let you have a question there, because we haven’t closed that piece off yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister of Local Government is really—we’re talking about amending section 14 in clause 8. We talk about replacing section 14(1)(h)(i) with “(i) the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities”, which sounds fairly close, may I say, to the four wellbeings, but it misses one of them out.

I think we’ve had that question, so is it a different question on that point, because someone over here in your team asked that question before—I think it was Mike Davidson—about the environmental wellbeing.

It was Tangi.

Oh, it was Tangi Utikere—sorry. I remember the question. Sorry, I apologise if I didn’t get the right member, but I think that question has been asked.

I didn’t hear an answer that explained why “environmental” was missing, other than the general disregard for the environment.

I’m going to take a call now from Lemauga Lydia Sosene, but we are moving forward—clause 11 onwards. Thank you.

12:38

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening really carefully to the questions on the different clauses but also the Minister of Local Government’s responses—it’s really important.

I do have a tabled amendment with regards to clause 16 amending section 57, which is to delete clause 16. I wanted to ask the Minister, in terms deleting clause 16, for clarification on the skills of directors of council-controlled organisations. I’m interested because the actual section—section 57(3)—talks about “When identifying the skills, knowledge, and experience required of directors of a council-controlled organisation, the local authority must consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of that council-controlled organisation.” The Minister has explained very clearly that the Government is moving to restrict or reduce in terms of local government functions, and the Government is wanting to focus on the specifics.

Minister, I wanted to ask: what advice did officials give to you with respect to when directors are being considered for CCOs—the skills that they bring to the table? Because, in my view, specifically within Auckland Council, we hold a very strong view in supporting the knowledge of tikanga, the knowledge of local iwi and hapū, which is really important. Why this is important in decision making of the governance side of council bodies is the understanding of whenua, the understanding of iwi participation, the understanding of hapū, and the Māori communities that are embedded in our local communities.

I’ve been listening in very carefully to the Minister’s answers to the different questions around community participation, but for directors, in terms of the skill set that they bring to the table when making decisions with local councils, can the Minister advise, please, the House and for those listening, how the expectation or the skill set of removing tikanga expectations or knowledge benefits local communities? I’ve understood that the Minister has been very clear around the Government’s intention to move towards a very definitive skill set. That is important, but so is tikanga and so is knowledge of iwi and hapū participation from those communities. So if the Minister could answer those questions. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

12:41

Yeah, I thank the member Lemauga Lydia Sosene for the question, and the member is correct that under the changes in this legislation, it will no longer require councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge in council-controlled organisation (CCO) director appointments, affecting Māori participation and council decision-making.

The member will be aware, I recall Mike Hosking—I think it was—on the radio the other morning making commentary in regards to this, and again, the purpose of the changes here is to remove this requirement, but removal of that requirement does not prohibit councils from considering the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge. Instead, it provides the flexibility for councils to determine the appropriate skills and knowledge and experience that are best required in order to guide and deliver the objectives of that CCO. As the member will be aware, we’ve got some CCOs that are delivering and are responsible for billions of dollars of assets, and the appointment of the directors for those CCOs needs to be a matter of precision around timing and capability and experience. It is not this Government’s view that we should be letting the law get in the way of councils making good appointments to deliver services in regards to those areas. That is the change that we’re making, and that’s the basis for it.

12:43

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am ready to move on to this Amendment Paper 803, which is about new clause 18A. I don’t know if you want to check with other members, or if you’re happy for me to press—

No, it’s OK. You go ahead.

Thank you. This Amendment Paper is one of two amendments on the amendment, and this is the one—Amendment Paper 803—that deals with development contributions and how they apply to fast-track approvals. That is what I have a range of questions on; I’m happy to come back to them if we want to jump back and forth.

But I would like the Minister of Local Government to comment on this. This is a substantive policy change that has just come into the House dealing with an issue that the select committee that I was on in 2024 was advised of by local government submitters: that there was a gap in the local government legislation around development contributions. My understanding is—and I’m happy for the Minister to tell me if my understanding is wrong at all—that there are many areas that are zoned something like rural, but they’re certainly not zoned for housing development. That has meant that those councils do not have development contribution policies to apply to those parcels of land, because it is not anticipated that there would be development there and, therefore, it hasn’t been anticipated that there would be a need for development contributions for those areas. Of course, we all know that the fast track just jumps over any community planning.

Am I correct in that statement? And is the purpose of this Amendment Paper 803 to fix the problem that I’ve just described and to enable development contributions to be applied to those fast-track developments that don’t have appropriate policies in relation to those particular areas of land? That’s the bigger question. I know that when we get to the Part 2 debate, then we will be—and Madam Chair, you weren’t in the Chair when we discussed this, but we discussed that Schedule 2 of this Amendment Paper is in Part 2 of the debate, and that relates to the transitional provisions. Why that is relevant, and I won’t ask questions on it now, is that the transitional provisions mean that whilst this might be a fix for future fast-track applications, it isn’t a fix for those applications that have already been determined or substantively determined. But we’ll get into that later on. That was my big-picture question.

Then if we come to new clause 18A, which is “Section 102 amended (Funding and financial policies)”, this is quite a messily written clause, because it says—just listen to these words: “In addition, subsection (4) does not apply to a development contribution policy to the extent that the policy provides for a development in relation to which a resource consent approval has been granted under the Fast-track Approvals Act”. On the face of it, it’s difficult to understand what that clause means with all of those words like “does not” and “to the extent” and “in relation to”. I take it to mean—and the Minister can tell me, again, if I’m wrong—that what this particular clause is doing is saying that where section 102(4) has a requirement for consultation to amend or develop a development contributions policy, that requirement for consultation does not apply in relation to this fast-track approvals part fix/not fix.

So my question is, am I interpreting new clause 18A correctly? And then I’ve got more questions on other clauses, but those are my first two questions. So, overarching, they are: why are we here in urgency and debating this Amendment Paper that was tabled yesterday; and second question, am I correct that new clause 18A, the first substantive clause in this Amendment Paper, is just to say that that requirement for consultation does not apply?

12:48

Yeah, I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for the question and reference to the Amendment Papers that were tabled yesterday at 9 and 9.30, which is an important context. The change, particularly around the fast-track portion, is obviously in response to the need for the ability for councils to be able to obtain the support and mechanisms from developers to be able to ensure that we can recover those costs in order to put in place infrastructure needs to support some of these fast-track aspects. There’s been some clear feedback from the sector that this change will provide significant benefits for that enablement of infrastructure to occur ahead and with these fast-track projects, so that’s the purpose of that. I will, as a member noted as we come to the end of this part, cover off more aspects around that specific portion in later parts, as has been highlighted.

12:49

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m surprised that Government members are wanting to speak on this part. I hope they’re not trying to close the debate, because we are in urgency and we have just—

Yeah, and I’ve made the point that there’s a new Amendment Paper, so I’ve got no intention of taking any closure motion at this point.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Auckland MPs.

Yes, maybe the Auckland MPs want to talk about their Auckland issues. I don’t think the Minister answered my question about whether that new clause 18A, which is amending section 102 of the principal Act, is just to remove that requirement for consultation for the development contribution policy, so when he answers the next question, he could go back to that. I think it’s a yes; I think it will be easy for him to say.

Now, another big question, then—thank you for answering my first question about why we are here in urgency with this amendment—is that if he can also talk us through why the amendments are needed when already the wording in the principal Act around development contributions has various different trigger points. There is the trigger point of when a resource consent is granted under the Resource Management Act, there’s also a trigger point of building consents, there’s also the PIMs—the property information memos—and also service connections, and so there’s a range of different trigger points for the development contribution to be invoiced, to be requested, if the policy applies for it.

My question is, given that there’s been a resource consent or deemed resource consent granted under the fast track, why is it that we cannot rely on those other triggers—the later triggers—because, of course, you get your resource consent first, then you would get your building consent and build your house, and then you are going to plug in to some pipes. Why is it that we need this change to apply at that first stage, or at the consent stage, rather than at those later stages? That’s one question, as well as my previous question about the consultation.

Then at what is proposed clause 18B, “New section 102A inserted (Development contribution policy in relation to resource consent approval under Fast-track Approvals Act 2024)”, I’m interested in the tense here. So at new section 102A(1) it says, “This section applies to a territorial authority if a resource consent approval is granted under that Fast-track Approvals Act”, and it’s the tense of “is granted”. Does this mean and is it the scheme of the amendment that before the council can initiate a change to their development contributions policy, there has to be a grant under the Fast-track Approvals Act—and I think that is the answer, and is that why “is granted” is there?

If the Minister can put his mind to being a council—let’s pretend he’s Queenstown and, say, the Queenstown district council doesn’t have a development contributions policy in effect for its rural zoned land. To then amend that policy, does it have to wait before it can amend it until a fast-track proposal is approved, and then it amends its development contributions policy, or is there an ability when it sees that a fast-track project is listed or it’s been referred for it to start that process?

Why I’m asking this is because the word “the” development is used throughout this clause, and so is the scheme of this that it’s fast-track development by fast-track development leads to then a consequential change to the development contributions policy? So the project has to be in the fast track and it has to be approved under the fast track, and once that happens—and we’re not talking about ones that have already been approved—then it’s for the council to amend its development contributions policy without consultation, I think, and within six months, because “6 months” is referred to in new section 102A(3), and it goes through development by development.

So if the Minister is Queenstown Lakes District Council—and we know there’s one. I’ve visited Ridgeburn, outside of Arrowtown by the river there, in rural zoned land, and then I visited, on the same day, one in Fernhill, and so it’s quite a different part of the town. It’s above an established area, but at high, rocky altitudes, and so it’s very expensive to build on. Would that Queenstown Lakes District Council then have to do two different changes to its development contributions policy for those two different projects?

That’s my question. There is the use of the word “the”—so if you look at section 102A(2)(a) and (b), it says, “to require a development contribution for the development;” and then “the development.” What is the sequence of when things pop into the fast track—this is my bigger question. When something goes into the fast track, it seems here, under subsection (1), that approval has to be granted. It has to be all the way through the fast track, and then that is the moment and that is the mechanism for the council to be able to say, “OK, you’ve gone specific project—project by project—you’ve gone through the process, and now we have the permission to amend our development contributions policy to include you.” That’s the question there.

12:56

Look, I thank the member Rachel Brooking for the question. I think it’s important to note that Amendment Paper 803 on the Table is putting in place a different trigger than is required for a resource consent under the fast-track approvals process.

The answer in regards to the amendment of the development contribution is, yes, it is amending the development contribution after a fast-track resource consent process. I think in regard to the member’s questions in regard to how this will interact between the developer and the council, it would be for the developer and the council to also have the ability to be able to establish a development agreement at any time, and so that will provide the mechanism and the flexibility around that.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended and will resume after question time.

14:02 · to the Minister of Finance

Does the Government intend to introduce a capital gains tax?

No. In some circumstances, gains on sale are considered income for tax purposes, and that has long been the case. However, the Government has no intention of introducing a specific capital gains tax.

Why is the Government not considering this?

Well, a capital gains tax would increase taxes on savings, investment, and entrepreneurship, loading more costs on to households and businesses—the complete opposite of what the economy needs—and capital gains taxes around the world are always very complex. Compared to other types of tax, compliance costs are high. These costs apply not just to wealthy people and big companies but to ordinary taxpayers, who, in many cases, will need specialised advice when buying and selling property or when running a small business. The biggest beneficiaries of a capital gains tax would be valuers, accountants, and lawyers.

Would a capital gains tax make people pay tax on inflation?

Well, it does depend on how the tax was designed, but if there was no allowance for inflation, a capital gains tax on long-held assets would be grossly unfair. Over 25 years, for example, a property might go up 75 percent in value because of inflation alone, and not through any underlying increase in real value. A household or business selling that property would have to pay capital gains tax when they are no better off. With no allowance for inflation, people would end up with large tax bills on what are only paper gains.

Has a capital gains tax previously been considered for New Zealand?

There have been several major reviews of New Zealand’s tax system over the past 25 years. Those reviews have had a range of opinions on a capital gains tax, but no Government in that time has decided to go ahead with one. Case in point, a previous Prime Minister said quite emphatically, “I’m confirming today that under a Government I lead, there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election. End of story.” That was Chris Hipkins in 2023.

Yep, good. Can’t use a question like that. The Hon David Seymour.

Here comes the cavalry.

Yeah, just leave it. The Hon David Seymour and no one else.

I’ll do the jokes.

Ha, ha!

Will the Government need to—[Interruption]

No, no, no. Wait, wait, wait. In spite of everything, we’ll just have the question asked with no other commentary around it.

Will the Government need to save money in order to balance the books with no new taxes; and if so, what plans does the Government have to do that?

Yes. In order to ensure that their taxes can remain low and that new taxes don’t need to be introduced, the Government will have to remain very fiscally disciplined. This will require prioritising new spending towards its most important priorities, continuing to eliminate wasteful programmes, and ensuring that we get maximum bang for every taxpayer buck. Thank you to my knight, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Is it possible that the Government can get better outcomes for people while spending less money, or is spending the only kind of aroha that a Government can show?

Well, no Government should be simply judged on the size of the cheques it writes on others’ behalf. The question is what impact and outcome you get for the dollars that you invest, because, after all, those dollars initially belonged to hard-working Kiwis, who always have a good use for their own money.

14:06 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes, and I just want to reassure the member that we will not be introducing a capital gains tax that taxes inflation, and that this Government is focused on more things than roaming charges.

Does he accept that the average worker’s pay has fallen in real terms under his Government, with New Zealand having the lowest real-terms wage recovery in the OECD?

Well, that’s why this Government is working incredibly hard to make sure we control spending, we bring inflation and interest rates down, we get the economy growing, and also we get people into work. I just want to assure the member that the forecasts are that in the next four years, we’ll have 220,000 new jobs added to this economy; the economy will be growing at 2.7 percent, on average, per year; and, most importantly, wages will be growing faster than inflation and prices.

How will freezing the minimum wage for three years help Kiwis get ahead, given minimum wage workers have already had a real-terms pay cut for three years in a row under his leadership—yet another reason working New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of this Government?

I’ll just say working New Zealanders can’t afford more taxes, because that takes money out of their back pockets, and that’s not a good thing. But I reject the characterisation of the question, because that’s not what we’re doing.

How does he expect Kiwi families to pay 20 percent more for their electricity when their wages have been going backwards in real terms under his leadership while the electricity companies have been gouging them for billions of dollars in profits?

Well, the way you do it is you don’t pass a bed tax that two-thirds will be paid for by Kiwis who might be going to visit a friend or a motel. You don’t add in a capital gains tax that’s going to be paid for by businesses in tax inflation. You don’t actually just keep adding taxes and taxes and taking money off working New Zealanders. Frankly, if the member actually cared about it, instead of petty point-scoring, and wanted to problem solve something, what he would have done if he cared about working New Zealanders is actually support tax relief for working New Zealanders—first time in 14 years.

Supplementary question.

Just wait. Just remember that there are reasonably strong rules about how questions should be asked but also answered, and both sides were outside those in that last exchange.

How does he expect Kiwis to pay for their groceries, like mince, which is up 30 percent; butter, which is up 40 percent; and bread, which is up 67 percent, when their wages are going backwards while the supermarkets make millions of dollars in excess profits?

Well, look, I just want to say to the member—I would like to reassure him that tomatoes are down 29 percent in the last year, eggs are down 16 percent, lettuce is down 15 percent, tinned spaghetti is down 6, chicken’s down 4, butter’s down 2, and I just—[Interruption]

Sorry, we’re going to have a repeat of yesterday if that sort of barrage continues. Ask a question; expect an answer.

So can I close it up? I’d just say to the member when he visits his bach, he’s more than welcome to make some nice cheesy chicken omelettes or maybe some chicken parmigiana—it’s going to be cheaper.

Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Just wait—just wait.

Why should New Zealanders believe him when he says he’s going to do another review of supermarkets to maybe consider breaking up the supermarkets, given his own Government received advice saying they could have saved shoppers $2.9 billion, yet they sat on that until the eve of an election, while the supermarkets continue to gouge them for millions of dollars in excess profits?

Sorry, I may have missed something, but I haven’t seen a policy to help solve a problem from that member around supermarkets. He had six years; he did absolutely nothing apart from some market studies. We are determined to make sure we get change in the supermarket sector—structural change. You had your go; you didn’t do it.

Was the Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, wrong when he told media today that the National Party doesn’t actually believe in breaking up the supermarkets, which is why they’ve announced another review—so that they don’t actually have to do it?

The Deputy Prime Minister, with all respect, doesn’t speak for the National Party.

When real wages have fallen, power prices have gone up, insurance prices have gone up, rates have gone up, insurance has gone up—all by more than 20 percent, under his leadership, in just the last two years—will he now admit that the cost of living crisis is not only not over; it’s getting worse under his leadership?

What I’d say, again—you know, cry me a river. But I’d say if that member was serious about supporting people, why didn’t you support tax relief for the first time for working New Zealanders? Why don’t you come out and support a council rates cap? Why don’t you come out and support structural separation for supermarkets? No idea. [Interruption]

Three question times left—that’s all he’s got.

Let’s just—

Absolute novice.

If you don’t mind?

No, I—

Beg your pardon? You what?

Well, you gave me an option, if I don’t mind—

No, no, no. It was actually more of an instruction than a question, but I’m not surprised there was no understanding in that. Just a general sort of, I suppose, observation that we are very close to the end of this Parliament, close to the election itself. Naturally, there’s going to be heightened tension, but just a little bit of decorum would be good.

Kei te Pirīmia, comrade. E tautoko ana ia—

Whoa, whoa! Hang on—sorry. Just ask the question.

14:12 · 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?]

Yes, and I just want to reassure that member that we won’t be lifting the income tax rate to 45 percent for those earning $160,000 or more, but I do want to commend the member for at least having some ideas. I don’t agree with them on supermarkets, but that’s better than what we’ve seen from the Labour Party.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. How is that question possibly in order, other than just to reflect the Prime Minister’s absolute desperation at this point?

Well, two things: firstly, before I can even make a decision about that, you were on your feet to take the point of order and I’ve obliged you by hearing it. In making your point of order, you’ve also made your point.

Did his Government weaken the Natural Environment Bill’s protection of the environment following discussions with industry?

No, we met with industry groups and we also met with the environmental NGOs, as we’ve discussed yesterday.

Whose words got put into the bill?

PCO’s.

Well, actually, the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO), who drafted the bill, as you well know, but I’d just say to the member that on this side of the House, we engage with many stakeholders. We want to hear the perspectives of as many New Zealanders as possible. We don’t just take our advice from officials and box-tick it through.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just give yourself a moment while everyone composes, so that we hear your question without any other interference.

What message does he think it tells New Zealanders when he allows the agricultural industry privileged access to Government, while at the same time coalition parties have taken over $1.143 million in political donations from agribusiness-linked donors since 2022 and hundreds of thousands of donations from mining—

OK. Well, look, the member is making a point, but it’s well outside the provisions of the Standing Orders. Ask a question without the dress up.

Whose words from which groups that his Ministers met with were finally put into the Natural Environment Bill?

As the member understands, PCO drafts legislation that comes before this House, but, of course, as a great Government, we’re interested in the interests of all New Zealanders. We take advice from officials, we take advice from—in this case—industry groups, and also the environmental NGOs. [Interruption]

Well, when everyone is quiet, I’ll the Hon David Seymour.

Does this Government have a habit of listening to people affected by laws that it’s making—

No.

—and, if so, how long has this been going on?

Wait—whoa. Sorry, would whoever was interrupting there like to just apologise to the House for not being able to constrain themselves.

I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you. It was very generous of you—you were surrounded by people who were equally guilty. We’ll have the question from the Hon David Seymour, with no one making any comments.

Does this Government have a habit of listening to people affected by the laws it’s making, and, if so, how long has this been going on?

It’s a bit of a surprise to me to hear from the other side that this is not normal practice but that you actually engage and listen to lots of stakeholders and everybody across the community.

Can the Prime Minister confirm—[Interruption]

Whoa, just a minute. Is it necessary?

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the following well-known friends of the National Party have had secret closed-door meetings with the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform: Lan Pham, Julie Anne Genter, the Hon Rachel Brooking, and Greenpeace?

I can, and I just commend the Minister for his very open interest in understanding the perspectives of everybody.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

The Hon Marama Davidson, and no one else.

What feedback from other groups that his Ministers met with, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, local and regional council, iwi and hapū groups, and environmental groups, made it into the actual drafting of their bill?

Well, I don’t know how to make myself any clearer: PCO draft the bill and the legislation that comes before the House here. Again, we engage, when we’re developing policy, with many people across the whole of the New Zealand, as we should, as a good representative Government.

Why should New Zealanders trust that this Government is going to protect nature when he allows the industries who pollute land and water the most to write the rules?

Well, I reject the characterisation of that question because this Government in this last quarter has had the lowest level of emissions in this economy since records began in 2010. This Government in the last quarter has had record high renewable energy consumption, at 96.4 percent. We can do both things, but we are going to grow this economy, and we make no apologies about that.

14:17 · to the Minister of Housing

Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

No.

Is the Government considering limiting, rather than removing, interest deductibility on residential property?

Great question.

That is a good question; thank you for that compliment. Also no. The Government is emphatically not leaving the door open to removing or limiting interest deductibility. We are not considering a half ban—for example, where 50 percent of interest can’t be deducted. If someone provides a rental earning $30,000 in rent and pays $25,000 in interest, their profit is $5,000. With deductibility, tax at 33 percent is about $1,650. Under a half ban, tax is about $5,775 on a property that only made $5,000 profit. This is a great way to disincentivise people from renting out their property or punish people who’ve had to reluctantly rent out their property after a change in personal circumstances. Halfway to unfair is still unfair.

What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

I’m still making my way through the Inland Revenue Department’s (IRD’s) 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements. They are riveting—or I could be a slow reader; could be both. Page 17 of the 2021 paper is very clear about who ends up paying the price of removing interest deductibility. It says: “upward pressure on rents” from this policy are “more likely to disproportionately impact low-income households, young people, Māori, and Pacific peoples”—the New Zealanders least likely to own their home. It notes, “around 43 percent of [New Zealand] children are living in rental accommodation”, and that “upward pressure on rents could have negative impacts on child wellbeing and child poverty.” The same page warned that higher rents may mean more “spending on the accommodation supplement and temporary additional support.”

What do the reports he has seen say about the rationale for removing interest deductibility?

The 2021 regulatory impact statement outlines that the key policy problem was housing affordability. The problem definition section noted there were concerns about rental affordability and maintaining an adequate supply of new housing stock. However, the same regulatory impact statement went on to describe in detail how removing interest deductibility was unlikely to fix the first problem and would make the other two worse. IRD said additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting housing affordability; they said it would put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer term. The rationale for removing interest deductibility is a shameless tax grab.

14:20 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes—particularly my statement that imposing vast additional new taxes on the economy would put it at risk.

Is partially privatising a State-owned asset an asset sale?

Well, the member would have to elaborate on exactly what she’s talking about.

Is partially privatising Kiwibank an asset sale?

Well, it would depend on what the proposal is that the member is referring to.

Is asset recycling an asset sale?

It would depend on the proposal that the member is referring to. Does she have any?

Will she rule out partially privatising Kiwibank?

Well, what I’ll rule out is that member ever coming up with a useful idea for the New Zealand economy.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Just a moment. Everyone, calm down.

I know it’s a very difficult time for some members on the other side of the House and we are close to an election. However, the Minister’s comments—

It’s not as tricky as it is for you. How’s your fiscal plan going?

—were a revelation to this side of the House, and particularly to me.

Hang on. Look, someone is talking and could leave the House right now—Mr Brown. One of you was talking—was it you, Mr Goldsmith? Away you go.

It was me—it’s me.

Oh well, OK—thank you for the honesty. Off you go. Sorry, I can’t warn all the time and nothing happens. Mr Bishop is leaving the House by volunteering to.

14:23

Will she rule out partially privatising Kiwibank?

Well, what the member defines as partial privatisation is another mystery in the Labour Party policy agenda.

Who should Kiwis believe when just yesterday morning, Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown said they were looking at asset sales and will have an announcement soon, then the Minister has ruled them out, then Simeon Brown rules them out, and then, just a few hours later, she puts asset sales straight back on the table, as reported by the media?

Well, that question is full of mischaracterisations.

Question No. 6. [Interruption] It would be a really great question time if there were actually no members here at all—I’d just read them to myself.

14:24 · to the Minister of Agriculture

Is the Government considering a land tax on farms and orchards?

No, we will not be implementing a land tax on farms and orchards, just as we will not be implementing any new taxes. Instead, the Government is keeping taxes low so all New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can do with their money.

What reports has he seen about a land tax on farms and orchards?

Well, I’ve seen a report by a reputed and respected commentator and journalist that says about land tax that “An average sheep and beef property could face around $43,400 a year; an arable farmer, nearly $49,000 a year.”, and they said, “That, folks, is $1,000 a week.” This would of course be even more if there were other taxes like a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. Instead of more taxes, the Government will continue to support farmers and growers to grow, like with Investment Boost, so that people can invest and innovate, grow their businesses, and create more higher-paying jobs.

Has he seen any other reports about a land tax?

Well, yes, I’ve seen a report of a land tax being described as “fantasy posing as policy”. That could well be said about any new tax that would harm New Zealand households and rural New Zealanders, sending our economic recovery backwards. This is why the Government won’t be implementing a land tax or any new taxes on New Zealand farms or orchards.

Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms and orchards?

Yes—a report by Federated Farmers about the harm that a land tax and any other tax would do to rural New Zealand. Simon Donald Roy Cameron of Federated Farmers, as well as Winston Peters—sorry, Winston Churchill; I often look and confuse the two of them—and Winston Churchill both said: “For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Minister Peters could well have said that. That’s why we have ruled out a land tax, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, a ute tax—in fact, every one of the new taxes I have seen proposed by others this year.

14:26 · to the Minister of Health

Does he agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement that “We’re currently recruiting 2,300 new nurses”; if so, what is the expected growth in nursing FTE from recruiting these nurses?

14:27

Regarding the first part of the member’s question, in the context it was made, yes. Regarding the second part of the member’s question, I’m advised by Health New Zealand that in relation to that statement, all 2,378 roles are fulltime-equivalent (FTE). As would be expected, I’m advised that the exact net growth in nursing FTE would depend on a range of factors, including normal workplace movements such as retirements, resignations, and parental leave.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question was: what is the expected growth in nursing fulltime-equivalents from recruiting these nurses? Now, the Minister was speaking into his chest a little—it was hard to hear his full answer—but I don’t believe there was a comment on the expected growth from those 2,300.

Well, he did say that the exact number would be dependent on a number of usual employment factors. I think that was a reasonable address to the question.

Does he stand by his statement that the nursing turnover rate is 8.4 percent, and, if so, is it also correct that Health New Zealand needs to hire 3,000 nurses just to keep a workforce of 35,000 nurses at the same size?

Yes, the turnover rate, I am advised, has decreased from 11.7 percent in September 2023 to 8.4 percent in March 2026, which shows that the retention of our nursing workforce is improving. Ultimately, that is why we are continuing to recruit to both fill vacancies and to grow the workforce.

Is it correct that the Government could be recruiting 2,300 nurses and not be growing the nursing workforce at all?

Well, the member is asserting an annualised figure and applying it to recruitment that is happening right now to fill vacancies and to grow the workforce. Ultimately, we are focused on growing our nursing workforce, filling vacancies, and that’s why Health New Zealand is recruiting to so many roles right now, today.

Is the Government committing to a net growth of 2,300 nurses?

We’re committing to growing our workforce, filling vacancies, and ensuring that we are recruiting as we have been since we came to Government, with 2,100 additional nurses since we came to Government.

When will net growth of 2,300 nurses be achieved by?

Well, as I said in my answer to the primary question, as would be expected, there are other factors, including normal workforce movements such as retirements, resignations, and parental leave. My expectation for Health New Zealand is that they fill vacancies, grow the workforce, and also grow the services that are delivering for New Zealanders.

Why should New Zealanders believe that after only hiring 54 nurses over two years, and after repeated attempts to conflate gross hiring with net growth of the workforce, they’re actually going to start hiring nurses again?

We are hiring, as I said in answer to the primary question. Health New Zealand is hiring 2,378 fulltime-equivalent roles now, and we’ve hired an additional 2,100 nurses since we came to Government. There is more work to do and we’re getting on and getting it done, whilst also improving on all of our health targets.

Can I ask the Minister: how many times has Ayesha Verrall asked that question, and when do you think the facts will sink in?

Well, you can’t be commenting on other members. Can I—

Especially when they’re right.

Just a minute. Can we go now to question No. 8; I call Dr David Wilson.

14:31 · to the Associate Minister of Police

What recent announcements has she made about fighting organised crime?

Earlier this month, I announced that the Government is establishing a multi-agency chief executive board (CEB) on Transnational, Serious, and Organised Crime (TSOC). There are a huge range of agencies that have a role in fighting organised crime, and establishing clearer governance and stronger accountability across the system, with a ministerial lead, was a core recommendation from the ministerial advisory group on TSOC. TSOC groups are sophisticated, well networked, and commodity agnostic. They will do anything to make money and will exploit vulnerabilities. This executive board will help deliver a better-organised Government to fight organised crime.

Why is this an important move?

It is important because organised crime is too big a challenge to ignore or not tackle head on. These people don’t care about the damage they cause. Illicit drugs drive cycles of addiction, poverty, violence, and murder. Money made in drugs is supporting international criminals to invest in their businesses and do even more harm. But this is about more than drugs. Organised crime affects every New Zealander every day. It’s why we now live in a world where we have to question the legitimacy of every email and message we receive. Organised crime also undermines legitimate business, drives exploitation and people trafficking, and syphons away Government revenue. Making New Zealand a much harder place for organised criminals to do business is our best chance to protect New Zealanders from all of this harm.

How are we progressing our response to transnational, serious, and organised crime?

I’ve now met with all the chief executives involved in our response to organised crime. I’m intending for the CEB to have its first meeting in October, at which point they will have their priorities and an initial work programme established. I would add that we haven’t been standing still until the formation of the board. Without getting into an exhaustive list, in the last year we’ve made real progress on actions from the TSOC plan, including adding an additional money-laundering team at Police, posting more customs and police staff offshore, and strengthening capability and cooperation in the Pacific. This has seen huge amounts of drugs stopped offshore and at the border, and in the last year, the Police organised crime group seized 200 kilograms of cocaine, close to a tonne of meth, and 137 firearms. Encouragingly, recent waste-water results are showing decreasing meth use, and we want to see this trajectory continue.

What examples, if any, can she provide of successful cross-agency work to tackle organised crime?

We’ve seen, in recent media, 14 large-scale grow houses shut down in just one operation—a testament to what’s possible when agencies use all of their powers to identify and take action on organised crime activity. I’ve previously announced an action group on illicit tobacco, where Customs, Police, Health New Zealand, and the Ministry of Health have joined forces to target and dismantle the illicit tobacco trade. The previous siloed approach meant that we weren’t using all the tools available to us for the illicit trade. Now, we’re better coordinated and more proactive.

14:35 · to the Minister of Revenue

Is the Government considering ending Investment Boost?

No, Investment Boost is tax savings for businesses to enable a stronger, more productive economy. We want New Zealand businesses investing, expanding, and growing, because when businesses grow, they create jobs, they lift wages, and create more opportunities for New Zealanders. Investment Boost is about backing businesses to do exactly that.

Why is Investment Boost important for growing the New Zealand economy?

If we want higher growth and a more productive economy, we need New Zealand businesses to be growing and investing. That means buying new machinery, farm equipment, vehicles, technology—that all helps them produce more and be more productive. Investment Boost helps make those investments more affordable by providing an immediate 20 percent deduction for eligible new assets.

What evidence has he seen that Investment Boost is encouraging business investment?

Early evidence is very encouraging. Inland Revenue found that businesses who were aware of Investment Boost said it was increasing how much they invested. Looking ahead, almost half of businesses planning to invest over the next five years said Investment Boost was having a positive effect on their plans. That tells us that Investment Boost is doing what it was designed to do: getting businesses investing and growing.

Did the Government consider putting a cap on the amount a business could claim through Investment Boost?

The Government deliberately chose not to impose an arbitrary cap on Investment Boost because our Government doesn’t want to cap aspiration or economic growth. Putting barriers in the way of productive investment, or introducing new taxes, is the last thing we should be doing if we want New Zealand to be a high-growth economy.

14:37 · to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Ngā mihi o te wā o te Wiki o te Reo Māori, Mr Speaker. Why does he defend sustainable price rises when one in three Kiwi households are struggling to afford food?

I do not defend high grocery prices. New Zealanders, as I have repeatedly said, pay too much for groceries. What I support is low and stable inflation, rather than inflation running at 7.3 percent, as it was in 2022. The Government is also working to increase grocery competition by making it easier to consent and build supermarkets, improving overseas investment pathways, strengthening competition settings and supplier protections, and backing Commerce Commission enforcement. I would also note that independent cost-benefit analysis, released today, estimates restructuring Foodstuffs could be worth around $200 to $1,300 a year per household by full roll-out.

Are the supermarkets gouging New Zealanders, or is he telling the people who are worried about the price increases of 88 percent for butter, 33 percent for milk, and 31 percent for lamb, since his Government took office, to “cry me a river”, like his Prime Minister?

As I have repeated said, and I will repeat again, New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries, and that is why we are doing the work that I just outlined. But if I can also point out that food price increases for the year to July 2026—the past year—were 1.9 percent. That compares to 12.5 percent to the year to June 2023, under the last Labour Government.

Are we up to the third—[Interruption]

Wait, wait, just wait. Okay.

Are we up to the third or the fourth or the fifth review that the Government has done to find out whether the supermarkets duopoly still controls around 80 percent of the market, and prices continue to rise?

This Government is doing a lot of work that I continue to outline. I can read that paragraph again. I would note that under the last Government, when they had an absolute majority and 65 MPs, food prices went up nearly 22 percent in three years.

When is his Government going to finally deliver on the commitment from Nicola Willis to lower grocery prices?

As I have said, I would encourage the member to get on to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website and review for herself the independent cost-benefit analysis that shows what could be achieved through potential structural reform.

Can the Minister confirm that, in fact, lower food prices have been delivered across several grocery categories in the last 12 months, including chicken, down 4 percent; tomatoes, down 29 percent; eggs, down 15.5 percent; and tinned spaghetti, down 6 percent?

I can confirm all of those. But, most notably—[Interruption]

Hang on. Just a bit of calm.

Most notably, I can confirm that fruit and vegetables are down 1 percent in the past year, compared to increasing by 22 percent in the year to June 2023 under the last Labour Government.

Why is he highlighting—

Just a moment. Just a moment.

Why is—

Hang on a minute. There is far too much noise coming from the Government benches.

Why is he highlighting his hard work to bring down the price of spaghetti when this tin of spaghetti [Member holds up tin] has come down 1c under National?

If I can—[Interruption]

Just a minute. I know that a topic like spaghetti excites the House. You add in a bit of pineapple, and the place is out of control. Can we just, please, let the answer flow.

Supplementary.

No, you’ve still got one.

He’s still got to answer.

Just a minute. I’ll tell you what we’ll do: we’ll try and be really nice—no, we won’t have the question again; just answer the question.

Even a small decrease in prices is a lot better than the huge increases that they saw under the last Labour Government in food prices.

Can the Minister confirm that in one single 12-month period under the last Labour Government, tinned spaghetti went up 35.4 percent, and is it the view of the Minister that if members opposite wish to cherry-pick price increases for particular goods, including mince, including bread, and including toast, then they should be aware that two can play at that game?

I can confirm those numbers.

That was, while the question was being asked, completely unacceptable interjection. We’re moving on, we’re moving on. We’re moving on. He’s got to answer a question.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I certainly don’t dispute that, but order in this House is a two-way street, and if Ministers are quite clearly going to refer to the other side of the House and that isn’t pulled up, there’s only one option available to us, and that is to respond.

Yeah, but the member will also know that it’s quite acceptable for Ministers to refer to historical matters that might have been the circumstance when they came into Government. I thought that question was right on the edge of that, but we’ll get a quick answer, and then we’ll move on to Arena Williams.

I always agree with what the Minister of Finance says. Can I put the contrast? There is no better contrast than fruit and vegetables falling by 1 percent in the past year, compared to increasing by 22 percent under a year under the Labour Government.

Is that what Kiwis deserve—1c off a tin of spaghetti and a letter from National to the Commerce Commission asking them to do a review?

What they don’t deserve is a 22 percent increase in food prices that they saw in three years under the last Labour Government. Our work continues, and our results will be a lot better than what they achieve, even with an absolute majority.

E te Pīka—[Interruption]

Hang on. Just stop all the conversation. Are we stopping the conversations?

I wasn’t talking.

No, you’re not, but the people behind you are. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and no one else.

14:45 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes, and I want to reassure the member that we won’t be introducing a capital gains tax that would put a wrecking ball through the economy.

Does his Government have any plans to increase community ownership of electricity generation so that communities share in the benefits generated from their whenua, wai, and natural resources?

Our real focus is making sure we increase the supply of electricity across the country. That’s what we’re doing, with a renewables boom under way. We’re also making sure we’ve got thermal energy in place to support lower wholesale electricity prices.

Will he rule out spending an additional $1 billion on oil and gas exploration under any Government he leads?

Well, again, liquefied natural gas plays a very important part, as you’ve seen. Wholesale electricity prices are down 35 percent under this Government as a function of a much more sensible, reasonable energy policy, unlike the Labour-Greens proposal of an oil and gas ban, which shot up wholesale electricity prices to $800 per megawatt hour. That led to regional mills closing and working people, who they used to care about, losing their jobs.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

We’re just waiting. In the meantime, can we remove that visual aid off the bench there. It’s clearly causing a high degree of distraction across the House. When we’re all quiet, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Why did his Government abandon the 100 percent renewable electricity target while committing public money to expanding the fossil fuel supply?

Well, look, I think this is just really quite illustrative of the other side’s poor understanding of energy policy, because under a Labour-Greens Government, they killed oil and gas and sent a chilling effect right through international investment. We ended up importing Indonesian coal rather than domestic gas.

Point of order. Aside from the fact that what the Prime Minister is saying is untrue—[Interruption]

No, hang on—hang on. Wait—wait. Hold on.

All right—inaccurate.

Hold on. I can work out where you’re going with this. Just make the point of order and let me rule on that.

Speaker’s ruling 205/4: he cannot bring parties that aren’t involved in the question into it. He’s done it the last two times. In fact, he’s done it the whole term, but since you’re pushing back on it, I’m going to raise it today.

Right. We’ll just have an answer directly to the question without any other extraneous matter being brought in. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, ask your question again.

Why did his Government abandon the 100 percent renewable electricity target while committing public money to expanding fossil fuel supply?

Because it raised energy prices and people lost their jobs.

Of the 31 permits that were stopped, how many were producing in that period?

If the member would like to put that question in writing, we’ll make sure she gets a proper answer.

Funny how you ask a question if you know the answer, but anyway, can we have a supplementary. Have you finished?

14:48 · 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?]

14:49

Yes—in particular, our desire never to introduce an inheritance tax.

Should Woolworths and Foodstuffs be allowed to continue making excess profits of $1 million a day as New Zealanders struggle to afford their groceries?

Well, that’s why you’re seeing announcements from us this morning on that.

Point of order. Sir, the Prime Minister is answering on behalf of the Government. The Government has not made an announcement on that today.

That is a point. I think the Prime Minister could answer that in a different way.

Well, we agree, having looked at all the previous reviews of the previous Governments where nothing changed and nothing happened, that there is a real structural problem in the supermarket sector. It’s important that in the future that is addressed.

Does the Prime Minister understand that his officials’ analysis shows that the biggest possible benefit for consumers to achieve more affordable groceries would be breaking up both Woolworths and Foodstuffs?

I disagree, given the analysis I’ve seen on that.

Why does he think that New Zealanders can publicly own an airline but not a supermarket?

Because I have visions of a Labour-Greens Government sending bureaucrats up and down this country, going into supermarkets with clipboards, assessing the price of oranges and Weet-Bix and everything else, and I’d just say that is not the answer. That is a Soviet step backwards, big time.

In the Prime Minister’s experience of employing people, would running a cafe in Mount Eden for three weeks qualify you to run a supermarket?

Wait on. Sorry. People may want to interject, but don’t. We’ve had one member leave the House. We’re nearly there at the end of question time, and so we’ll have the Hon David Seymour’s question without any interference.

In the Prime Minister’s experience of employing people, would someone who ran a cafe in Mount Eden for three weeks be qualified to run a supermarket chain?

Well, I have to give the Greens credit, because they are actually—

No, no. Sorry.

If 2022 Christopher Luxon said that intervening in the supermarkets would be a “disaster”, and 2026 Christopher Luxon is advocating for structural separation of supermarkets, just how long will it be until Christopher Luxon starts advocating for a publicly owned supermarket with an affordability mandate?

The question has just being pulled up because the Prime Minister answered as leader of the National Party when he should be answering for his Government, so there’s a different way you could put that question.

What exactly is the difference between public ownership of an airline and public ownership of a supermarket?

Supermarkets don’t fly.

Well, the bottom line—

Ha, ha!

Sorry, that may be amusing to some, but not particularly to me. The Prime Minister will answer and we’ll have the answer without any comment from anyone.

Sorry, can the member repeat the question.

Just a minute.

Try and try again.

Oh, Mr Peters, please. We want to move on. It’s the last question.

What exactly is the specific difference between public ownership of an airline and public ownership of a supermarket?

Look, as I said, the thought that we would have bureaucrats and officials roaming around with clipboards trying to implement the—[Interruption] No, no, hang on. Calm down. Calm down, people, calm down. It’s all good. Calm down.

Right. OK, absolute silence for the balance of that answer, which should be very brief.

I want to thank the Green Party for contributing to solving a problem that we have in our supermarket sector with their idea. I don’t support their idea, but at least they have an idea and a policy unlike what we’ve seen from—

That’s it; don’t bring them into it. That ends—[Interruption] That ends oral questions. Members and people in the gallery need to leave without making any noise.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.

14:55

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was eager—eager—amongst all the noise in here.

Just before the lunch break—when, I can inform the committee, I did not have canned spaghetti—we were talking about the link between when a fast track has to be approved and then when the development contributions policy can change. I think the Minister of Local Government’s answer was that, yes, I was correct, in terms of fast track has to be approved, and then the council can change its policy.

I think what the Minister was, in part, answering with his answer was that, well, despite that sequencing issue, the developer and the council can make a development agreement that would cover off what would have been covered in the development contributions policy. If he can confirm that when he’s—I see he’s nodding, but when he next gets up, if he can confirm that, that would be useful.

Then one of my questions around that was: does it have to be development by development? The Queenstown examples I gave before lunch—I don’t know where in the process those ones are, but if you have two separate developments that are unlikely to be covered by development contributions going on at the same time, is the council able to do a development contributions policy that applies to more than one fast-track project, or does it have to be a separate process for each discrete fast-track project? That was the question that I would like an answer to as well as the nods that the Minister was just giving. Thank you.

14:57

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before lunch—the member who just spoke obviously had moved to clause 18—we were still actually quite a little bit further back at clause 11, amending section 40. I just want to stay where I was talking earlier and just finish off a question that I hadn’t asked on that clause.

I have a tabled amendment to this, and it’s timestamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.11 a.m. It’s quite interesting when you read clause 11(2), inserting, after section 40(1)(f), new paragraph (fa), “how the local authority is acting in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g)”. It’s a little bit bizarre, because obviously this is about the governance principles, and there are a number of governance principles that are actually in the Act, so this is just two more that are going to get added on after paragraph (e)—so (fa) and (g).

It just seems a little bit bizarre that a local authority has to act in accordance with the governance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g), but then, to me, this is saying they can then ignore (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). I don’t think that’s the intention of what this new clause is meant to do; it’s actually meant to ensure that the local authority acts in accordance with all the governance principles that have been set out.

What I’ve just tabled is a very straightforward amendment, and it’s really just to remove (f) and (g) from that clause, so, instead of saying that they need to act in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g), it’ll simply say that they need to act in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39. That will therefore capture everything to ensure that local authorities are actually sticking to the governance principles that have been created in the Act, including the two additional ones that focus on the free exchange of information. That’s just a simple amendment that I’ve put forward to, hopefully, get rid of any confusion that may happen. We understand that once we put this stuff into legislation, it becomes quite rigid. I’d hate for councils to think they can, therefore, ignore and not act in accordance with all the governance principles that are actually set out. It’s a small amendment, but I think it’s an amendment that actually should be considered, because I think it actually will clarify and make sure there’s no uncertainty within an Act. It’s really important, when we do these bills, that we don’t actually create any uncertainty moving forward. It would be good if the Minister could consider that in good faith to try and actually make that a bit more straightforward. It’s just a simple question. I’ve tabled the amendment to make that better, and I’d like the Minister to reflect on that. Thank you.

15:00

I thank the member for the question. We won’t be proceeding with that member’s tabled amendment. It’s not consistent with Government policy.

In the context of the question from the member around applications, they are separate applications. However, where the applications are all put in at the same time, then there is the ability to do so concurrently.

Sorry, just the word there—he was using the word “applications”, and this is important because proposed new section 102A(1)—that’s in proposed clause 18B—says that this section applies if the approval is granted. It’s not to do with applications; it’s to do with grants of fast-track approvals. Can he confirm that when he was talking about “approvals”, he means “grants”, because I don’t think—and this is what my questioning was going to as well—that the sequence of events is that it has to be fully granted the fast-track approval before the council is able to amend its development contributions policy. I need confirmation on that point.

Then the second point I think what the Minister of Local Government is saying is that if there were multiple granted fast-track approvals in the same area, then the council would be able to include those multiple projects into its amendment to the development contributions policy. Is that right?

15:02

Yeah, well, it would be helpful, firstly, if the member the Hon Rachel Brooking could state the clause specifically that she’s asking a question in regards to, so that I’m not repeating myself in regards to that. The question that was put to me was whether those needed to be separate requests, and my answer to that is yes. However, when they go in together at the same time, then they can be concurrent. I won’t repeat myself again.

Sorry, I would like an apology, actually, from the Minister of Local Government, because I very explicitly said which clause I am talking about, as I almost always do, and I was telling you it was proposed new section 102A, which is at proposed clause 18B. These words are important, and I don’t think I heard the answer from the Minister about the “granted”, at proposed new subsection (1). I’m now looking on page 2 of his Amendment Paper 803, right at the top, to be very specific.

What line?

Oh, I’m looking at the second line there, which is that “a resource consent approval is granted”. Why I am now using a different tone of voice from normal is because this is a ridiculous approach. We are here in urgency. No select committee has seen this. I’m asking some very basic questions, and it would be considerate, if nothing else, if the Minister actually tried to, in good faith, answer them so we have something on the record. But it is typical of the reckless approach to this Government with fast track that the Minister is not undertaking that, so I’m giving him an opportunity again. I’m asking very reasonable questions about drafting that we’ve only seen and that has not gone through any process and that nobody has made submissions on. So how does the sequencing work, Minister?

You weren’t even on the committee. You don’t know.

I beg your pardon?

Take a call if you want to make a contribution.

Someone was saying I wasn’t in a select committee. That is right, and neither was this amendment, to those members across there. Perhaps if they’d been following this debate, they would know that we are discussing an amendment that has been tabled subsequent to the select committee process. It is a very serious issue that we are debating because it goes to the cost that will be imposed on ratepayers by developers, some of whom we know are donors to that political party. That’s interesting, isn’t it? At the moment, ratepayers will be paying for this, while these developers, these donors, they will just get by without development contributions.

Now, the Government had seen that this is a problem; it’s not going to fix it—because that goes to Part 2; we’ll get to Part 2 soon—for the problems that are already existing, but, for new ones, it is. I am asking questions about the new ones. A fast-track approval comes in and it is approved—this is my question: is it that only then the council can make a change to its development contributions policy under this amendment that members in that select committee have clearly not paid any attention to? That is the question. Please answer it.

Just before I do take the next call, just to sort of note what the Hon Rachel Brooking was talking about there. There is an Amendment Paper that has hit the Table today, I understand, and maybe all members are not aware of that, so just to note that for the committee. So questions about that Amendment Paper are important questions to put to the Minister and to the committee as well. Just to acknowledge that. If we can just focus on those particular questions and on the particular clauses and not those external issues, that would help us to move through the bill.

15:06

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Well, doesn’t that say what this Government thinks about this important issue? Shameful. Now, I’ve asked many questions that have not been answered, and I invite the Minister of Local Government to answer my questions.

My next questions are very simple. Running through this Amendment Paper, at clause 18C, it appears that there is no change here except for a reference, a cross-reference, and then again the other amendments—I’m turning now to page 3 of Amendment Paper 803—it seems that there are some other changes there; where, most of it, on its face, is not a policy change. There is one policy change in clause 19C and that is an amendment to section 197, and it’s about cross-boundary developments. I understand that the Government has a policy that works through this Amendment Paper, that, where a fast-track development goes across two different territorial authorities, then they can work together to charge a development contribution for those. The question is a very basic one: apart from that change that we can see in the interpretation at clause 19C, are there any other policy changes from 18C down to 19D? That’s a simple question. No? OK.

Moving on then to new section 198A, inserted by clause 19E, and we go to page 4 of the Amendment Paper. At the top of the page there, it says this is the “Purpose and application of section 198B”. These are all provisions that are being inserted into the development contributions part of the Local Government Act—being the principal Act. It says here that the purpose is to “provide the territorial authority with another basis on which to require a development contribution if a resource consent approval is granted under the Fast-track Approvals Act”. I note that “basis” is used in sections later on, and I’m wondering if the Minister can inform us why the word “basis” was chosen, because I’m not sure that this is a term that’s referred to elsewhere in the legislation.

However, elsewhere in the legislation, as I discussed in an earlier contribution, there are different trigger points for a development contribution, and those are not only resource consents but also when you hook on to the networks or you have a property information memo or a building consent. Does “another basis” mean in addition to those other things, those triggers, or is the idea that it’s something different? It’s not the triggers, it’s a new thing; it’s a new concept, this other basis, for these fast-track approvals. So that is my question about clause 198A.

Just reminding the Minister, I was asking him if there’s any policy changes in those proceedings sections, other than that cross-boundary development, that I understand is a clear policy position from the Government.

And then going back to clause 18B, that is that the fast-track approval has to be granted, and my sequencing question, which the Minister still hasn’t answered with the language that is used in these clauses. It’s a precise question about the sequencing—and I remind the Minister that after he criticised me for not telling him which clause I was on, when I had, that he was saying applications, and an application is what you do before something is granted. That is why I’m asking this question about sequencing.

In my mind—maybe the Minister’s mind is different, but an application is the thing that’s in the process and then once it comes out of the process, it’s been granted and it’s no longer an application. That is why I’m asking these questions. Back to clause 18B, about the sequencing of when the councils are going to be able to do these amendments to their development contribution policies.

15:11

In regards to clause 18C, no, and clause 198A(1) are standing drafting legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to move on to clause 21. Obviously, my Labour colleague may still be on clause 18, as well; I’d note that.

I have a couple of amendments. Obviously, we’re stepping into regulations here, and these are pretty simple ones as well. I guess it’s a little bit disappointing that the Minister is just refusing to actually give any consideration to these amendments when we’re trying to actually improve this bill and iron out some of the wrinkles. Like, it’s a bad bill, but let’s get a couple of improvements along the way. It would be really good if the Minister could take a little bit of time to actually consider these in good faith and actually potentially see the merits of some of the amendments that we’re putting forward.

I just want to quickly talk to the first one. This one is actually in the name of my colleague to my left: Celia Wade-Brown. Once again, we’d like to do simple amendments that are actually easy to understand and actually improve the bill for people that actually read it when it becomes legislation. This one is timestamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.14. It deals, in clause 3(1) to new section 259(4)(aa). If you read that section, it gives an example to differentiate between particular local authorities or types of classes of local authorities—for example, regional councils and territorial authorities.

I find this puzzling because, obviously, a lot’s changed since this was originally done. Like, this was obviously, before I actually came into Parliament. I wasn’t part of the select committee process, so that’s going back over around a year, now, that this happened. But obviously, since then, there’s been a clear desire to remove regional councils from existence. Therefore, we’re about to pass legislation that still refers, as an example, to regional councils that won’t exist soon.

Therefore, Celia Wade-Brown has a simple amendment that will actually just remove the word “regional” and replace it with “unitary”. That just actually clears it up so that actually, no one goes back and goes “Why are we talking about regional councils? What is a regional council?” Like I said, it’s a very simple, simple amendment, that actually makes it just a little bit more common sense, easy to understand.

The other amendment that we have is on clause 21 and this is to replace new section 259(4)(b).

Have you got the time and date stamp?

Time stamp? Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. That is 16 September 2026, 9.09.15. The amendment is to replace new section 259(4)(b)(aaa) with “consult all local authorities impacted by the regulations”.

And this is just to ensure that all local authorities that would be impacted by your proposed regulations are consulted instead of “all relevant local authorities”, which is technically up to interpretation—what you, the Minister, would consider to be relevant. I think it’s really important that we just remove that which is subject to interpretation and just basically put in the words “all local authorities that are impacted by that regulation”, which is a straightforward amendment. But it just removes some of that uncertainty—something that’s up for interpretation—you know, as to what is the relevant local authority. I think if we actually drill down and go “all local authorities”, it’s a straightforward easy amendment that actually does make the bill a lot clearer when it becomes legislation.

So just a couple of amendments that I’d like the Minister to consider.

15:15

I’m still on Amendment Paper (AP) 803. The Minister of Local Government gave some answers there. I think he said “18B, no”. I’ve got no idea what one of my questions on clause18B the “no” relates to.

C, sorry; 18C.

It was 18C.

Any policy changes.

OK. No policy changes on 18C. Thank you. It’s helpful to talk in full sentences when we’re here, for the Hansard.

So 18C—there’s no policy changes. Is that the same for the preceding sections? Clauses 19B, 19C; I’ve discussed 19D. I did not hear an answer about clause 18B, and that is the sequencing and if the fast track has to be granted rather than being an application.

Does the Minister understand what I am asking in terms of the timing?

I’m just looking at the clock, sorry.

The Minister is looking at the clock. Wow.

Ask the question.

This is a terrible, reckless way to make laws.

I’m going to ask people just to talk through the Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would encourage the Chair to encourage the Minister to focus on the questions being asked and to answer questions so that it can be on the Hansard, noting that this amendment has not gone through a select committee process. The people who know about this sort of law have not had time to make any submissions on it, and so I am trying to go through it to ask the Minister what it means, and he seems to be refusing to do this, which is outrageous.

If the Minister can please explain the sequencing in clause 18B, noting the difference between an application for a fast track—because, of course, these can be referred or they can already be on the list—and the granting of that approval. Does it have to be granted? The Minister said “application”; the words in the bill: “is granted”. There is a difference between an application and something that is granted. That is the question I’m asking the Minister. Did he misspeak? Did he mean granted, or is there something else in here that is not apparent to me asking these questions?

Going through then, I don’t think I heard an answer on the use of “basis” at clause 19E inserting new section 198A. Again, if the Minister wants to take us through what is happening at section 198B.

Also at clause 19E—looking at page 4 of the AP here—is the power to require development contributions in relation to resource consent approvals under the Fast-track Approvals Act. There’s a lot here that it seems to be a discretion on the council. The territorial authority “may require a development contribution” after the territorial authority has adopted or amended their plans. And, of course, that contribution must then be consistent with the content of that development contribution policy.

And then we go through to clause 19F, which is new section 199AA inserted. This is the “Basis on which development contributions may be required in relation to the Fast-track Approvals Act”. Again, it refers to “a development” at subclause (2) and at (1). At subclause (2), it refers to “a development”—not a development contribution; just a development—“if the effect of the development”. Again, these are singular terms, which is why I was asking before if every amendment made under these sections has to be discrete—its own fast-track approval. And then going further down to new section 199AA(7), it says, “This section does not prevent a territorial authority from requiring the development contribution that is to be used to pay, in full or in part, for expenditure already incurred by the territorial authority or a service provider in anticipation of the development.” I presume that is the normal development contributions clause, or the normal language, but it would be useful if the Minister of Local Government could confirm that what is outlined in these subsections of new section 199AA, in clause 19F, is what would normally happen in a development contributions policy; or if there is any difference from the primary legislation in its development contribution provisions to this legislation, that would then be specific to these fast-track approvals. Is it different or is it just simply the same terms rejigged a wee bit because we’re talking about these Fast-track Approvals Act again? That’s a question there.

That same question applies to the next paragraphs that all look to me like normal development contributions sections, in the legislation, that are simply amended for this fast-track process. I would, rather than going through them one by one, invite the Minister to tell us if there are any differences in these, that go to some policy that mean that a development contributions amended policy for a fast-track approved project will be different somehow from a development contributions policy that would apply to a normal non - fast-track project. That’s a series of questions.

My last question on this Amendment Paper, before we get to Part 2, is that I see in the Minister’s tabled amendment this morning—I think it was tabled around 11.30 a.m.—he’s deleted clause 22A, which is the last clause before we get into the schedule in Part 2, and that is clause 22A, “Section 290 amended (Development contributions)”, and it’s about transitional provisions. I’m wondering if the Minister can explain why this Amendment Paper 803, which is an amendment to Amendment Paper 565, which is an amendment to the amendment bill, has now been amended with a tabled amendment at 11.30 a.m. this morning, and if it’s significant or not.

15:23

In regards to clause 18B, I was referring to the word “granted”. In regards to clause—

Sorry, Minister, I can’t hear.

He said “granted”. He was referring to the word “granted”.

It seems to be we’re both having a bit of challenges hearing each other. Clause 18B, I was referring to the word “granted”. In regards to new section 199AA, inserted by clause 19F, it is predominantly what normally happens. There is no difference with the exception in the interests of cross-boundary, which is new. The Amendment Paper placed on the table today relates to technical drafting issues identified by the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

15:24

Thank you. Mr Chair. While understanding that there may be some more questions on the development contributions areas, I want to ask some questions on clause 21(2), first of all, where it talks about inserting after section 259(1)(dd) and talks about “prescribing the groups of activities that … must [be included] in the long-term plan, annual plan, and annual report:”. I wonder whether the Minister of Local Government could clarify, because I was on the Governance and Administration Committee at the beginning, but it has been a wee while since then and there have been amendments floated around and maybe you could clarify: do you also mean the asset management plans? Because they may be as important as the annual plans. And do you also mean the drafts, or is it only the final that you’re prescribing the groups of activities for? So that’s one on that particular section.

I think my colleague has mentioned some concerns I have in that amendment we put forward about taking the word “regional” out. That’s not because we don’t love regional councils; it’s just that we’re trying to clarify what does the Minister mean by “types or classes of local authority”. Do you mean that there might be different regulations depending on the size, and that might be geographic or it might be population size? Do you mean that it might be different regulations for rural and urban? Which would make some sense, but the example doesn’t really clarify that at all.

I do also have some questions on new subsection (4AB), inserted by clause 21(4), where you’re saying it must not relate to water services. My particular interest in water services is where we’re using natural processes to either reduce the risk of flooding or to protect headwaters. So you’ve got the natural environment, and maybe you’re saying it would make more sense to plant up the banks of this river than it would to do concrete down the side, for example. Now, as I recollect, from looking at the Local Government (Water Services) Act, natural infrastructure was potentially included but it wasn’t very explicit, so, presumably, we can still talk about protecting headwaters and reducing flooding by planting, maybe by the community, maybe by contractors, maybe by staff, but I would like some clarification on that, please.

15:27

Kia orana. Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions. They actually also relate to clause 21 as well. When we’re looking at the groups of activities—which is very common in local government circles to understand what they are—I guess my question for the Minister of Local Government is: with this change, which will allow regulations to, effectively, be much more direct around what those activity groups will look like, why is it that he believes that Ministers are better placed to determine those sorts of things rather than local communities, who elect people around decision-making tables to make those decisions? Because that is exactly what clause 21 is seeking to do. It is essentially seeking to put into regulation-making powers an ability to describe how particular groups of activities could actually work out. The groups of activities have been with local government for a very long time, so my first question is why he believes that Ministers in central government are better placed to determine what those might be and how they might work, and just also on what principle that is justified as well.

There is a new provision here in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 755, which just landed on 15 September—and I look at the clock over there that has the date, so it landed today—and it does have a few changes in here, but this does propose a new clause 21A. While most of that Amendment Paper relates to Part 2, my understanding is that Part 1 comes into play here because the new clause 21A is, effectively, standing up the regulation-making powers for Orders in Council to be made around exceptions here. My question for the Minister, and this is in relation to new section 260A, inserted by clause 21A, is that this will provide an ability to exempt some from the application of three clauses: clauses 23(4), 30A(6B), or 31A(1) of schedule 7, and they’re related to three things there. I’m not going to go through all of them, but the one that is perhaps of relevance is the “any class or type of non-elected member”. Now, we will get to the specifics of that in Part 2 for sure.

There is an ability there for an order, on the recommendation of the Minister, to do a couple of things: one is time bound, either an unspecified period of time or a specified period of time, and the other, new section 260A(2)(b), is “with or without conditions.” What does the Minister see some of those possible conditions might be? It clearly is not related to the timebound nature of it, because that is captured by new subsection (2)(a), but new subsection (2)(b) is there.

A question for the Minister: what is this new regulation-making power seeking or intending to cover, particularly those three clauses that I have identified? Further to that, what are some of the possible conditions, or what might be envisaged as the types of conditions, that could or could not be applied, in terms of the Minister recommending to the Governor-General that an Order in Council may or may not be made?

15:31

Thank you very much, members, for those questions. In regards to Celia Wade-Brown’s questions around the groupings of activities, the question in regards to whether they apply around asset management plans: no. There was a question around whether they apply to draft plans: yes. Do they apply to different types of councils? Again, the answer is yes.

In regards to questions relating to the centralised reporting, by Tangi Utikere, in regards to, and also including, clause 2(b), councils are still primarily responsible to their communities and ratepayers and should be reflecting their needs and wishes in their planning and reporting. Across the country, councils provide similar services and facilities, and plan for and report to their communities, and providing consistent information that is easy to access and helps increase the transparency and accountability of councils to ratepayers is a way in which we will ensure that localism remains.

15:32

Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, I just have a couple of questions. This is on the Minister of Local Government’s recent Amendment Paper 755, which is, obviously, an amendment to Amendment Paper 565. It’s in relation to clause 21A, inserting new section 260A. I have a couple of questions on that, because, obviously, this has been very recent and there has been no real time to scrutinise these new clauses.

I’m just curious: “New section 260A inserted (Order in Council may specify exemptions in relation to non-elected member provisions)”—how will the Minister make the decision on when to recommend that an Order in Council be made under proposed new section 260A(1), exempting non-members from clause 31A(1) of Schedule 7 and enabling them to vote on council committees?

My other question in relation to new clause 21A: will an Order in Council under the proposed new section 260A(1) be able to be made in regards to those specifically excluded from voting by new clause 31A(4) of Schedule 7, to enable them to vote? It’s some, really, quite technical questions around this new clause 21A and this new section 260A. I think it’s really important, because we haven’t had time to scrutinise it, that we get a fulsome answer on how this is actually going to work, especially when we have seen a committee be excluded in a later part of this bill. Thank you.

15:33

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I had the opportunity to comment on Amendment Paper 755, following on from the discussion that my colleagues have had on this Amendment Paper. It’s a very specific question in relation to the changes that the Minister of Local Government is bringing in and the definition in clause 5(1A)—not as we originally discussed but as amended by the Amendment Paper—of “non-elected member”.

The reason I am asking this is that it is a commonly utilised provision to allow for, if there is a vacancy within 12 months of a local body election, the first non-successful—arguably, non-elected—member for a local board or for a council to be able to take up the position on the governing body of that authority, in the instance of a vacancy within that 12-month period. My question for the Minister is: as this is a very common occurrence, would that person who was co-opted on be considered a non-elected member under his Amendment Paper 755, or not?

15:35

Just in regards to that last point, just to clarify: when that occurs, it is not a co-option mechanism; it’s generally as a result of the candidate ceasing to be a candidate and therefore the need to re-appoint, and they take the next person on the list, who has been voted in and who has a position on the list that is second after the one that is in place.

That’s incorrect.

No, it is correct. In regards to clause—

It’s an appointment.

Are we doing a question and answer?

Communicate through the Chair, thank you very much. I can give that side a call if they want some clarification.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to the questions relating to new clause 21A, the Government’s clear expectation is that non-elected members will not vote. We haven’t made decisions around what types of exemptions will be made at this point, but the key premise underlying this is that there should not be responsibility without accountability.

15:36

Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very concerned because the Minister of Local Government just gave us an answer that is not correct. It’s really important that that gets clarified, so it’s actually in the Hansard as the correct answer. Elected members on councils—if they step down, there is a by-election; they do not come back from the next off a list. It would be great if we could actually get a proper answer to that question.

I think what we will do is, if you put those questions again—and I suspect Mr Utikere wants to do that—that might give the Minister further time to reflect, or actually to reject what is being said by members around the committee. Is that OK? I was going to go to Tangi Utikere.

15:37

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister of Local Government is on what basis he reaches that determination, because my understanding is that that is not correct. Where there is a vacancy—and, I mean, we had the situation where Mr Arbuckle himself vacated his local government seat—

Or Mike Davidson’s community board role.

Excuse me, I do not want people communicating across the Chamber.

They just did it for the last 10 minutes.

Communicate through the Chair.

What’s going on here? Where there is a vacancy at a local government level, if it falls within 12 months of the scheduled date of an election, there is the ability for the local authority, if it chooses to, to fill that vacancy by appointment.

Now, it might be a common practice that the successful person who is appointed to take that role may very well be the next highest-polling person, but history will show that in this country that is not always the case. It is entirely within the purview of the council to determine who is going to be appointed—if they choose to do that at all. I am, along with Mr Davidson, concerned that the Minister is giving advice to the committee saying that it is always going to be the next highest-polling person. Our understanding is that that is not the case.

The question from Camilla Belich is still there, around what role that person then takes. Does the Minister’s Amendment Paper cover the appointment of a member, who then becomes an elected member by definition, in relation to clause 5(1A), or not? It’s important to understand whether or not the Minister’s intention is that someone who is now appointed to fill a role is going to be captured by an inability to vote on matters, because they are not deemed as elected.

15:39

To clarify the question—the example that is being given by Tangi Utikere—where that individual is appointed, they will be able to vote. A person who is appointed to a vacancy in the 12 months before an election is treated as a councillor under the law. Hopefully that clarifies the point that is being asked.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a few questions, one going back to Amendment Paper 803.

I thank the Minister for his answer that proposed clause 18C is not a policy change. I think that’s what he said. The Minister said in his answer that there is this cross-boundary change at proposed clause 19C, but can he just confirm if there’s anything else in there that is a policy change. I take his point that proposed clause 22A, the change in his other paper is a drafting change, not policy change. So just if he can confirm that there’s nothing else that we haven’t covered in here that’s a policy change—he’s shaking his head, so we’ll get that on the record, and he’s shaking it in the “no”, sideways. It is a horizontal rather than a vertical shake.

Now, going back to the bill as reported back from the select committee, I was wondering if the Minister—I’ve just got three small questions on this. One is at clause 20. That is “Section 200 amended (Limitations applying to requirement for development contribution)”. There are words in this about third-party provision, so I’m wondering, again, similar to my other questions: is this a policy change to enable more third-party provision of the infrastructure that would normally be charged for or could often be charged for by development contributions, or is it simply some sort of rewording? That’s my question. That’s at clause 20: is that a policy decision to enable more third-party work, or is it simply some other reason?

Then if we move on to clause 21, the “(Regulations)” clause that’s been mentioned a wee bit, I have a couple of questions there. One at new paragraph (dc) is “prescribing parameters or benchmarks”. I’m wondering how those two things are different—a parameter versus a benchmark. Does the Minister imagine that a parameter is a specific measurement and a benchmark could be a more quantitative statement? Is that the difference between the two of them? And then I note that there is “(ii) performing specified activities or groups of activities in accordance with best practice:”. Does that “best practice” mean that the regulation will prescribe what the best practice is, or does the best practice come from somewhere else?

Then my last question on this is at clause 21(3)—so still on clause 21, subsection (3). There is a new regulatory power to “prescribing processes, time frames, and other matters relating to a request for access to documents under clause 26A(2) of Schedule 7:”. I haven’t looked at what that reference is there, but I was wondering if the Minister can let me know if this is different from a requirement under LGOIMA, under the—now I can’t remember what LGOIMA stands for, the Local Government Official Information—

I think we all know what you mean.

Yes. However, that is the LGOIMA. This is what happens when you say a word for 20 years and then you forget that it’s actually got proper words inside it. If this is in addition to LGOIMA—or what is the interaction with the time frames that are already prescribed in LGOIMA at new paragraph (fa). Thank you, Mr Chair.

15:43

In regards to questions on clause 20—is it a policy change?—no. In regards to the point of clarification around parameter versus benchmark, parameter—I think, as the member outlined, parameter is a range and benchmark is a target.

15:44

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still waiting for a response from the Minister around the items contained in his Amendment Paper in terms of various conditions that may or may not be imposed as part of the regulation-making powers.

I want to ask the Minister about clause 22. This is the next step from the performance measures and activity groups that have been identified in clause 21. It actually introduces a role for the Secretary for Local Government to make some rules or to define some parameters around performance measures.

Very first question: why is it that the secretary is being seen as the appropriate vehicle to, essentially, impose upon local councils what it is that they should be doing in terms of the performance measures? Is this not just an attack on the very localism that the Government sought to get elected on at the last election, removing the ability for local councils to be making some of those determinations themselves? Certainly, on face value and even at a more basic level, that’s exactly what it looks like. My question to the Minister is: why is it that the secretary is being asked to have not just a role but a fundamental role in terms of setting the performance measures for councils all around the country?

In terms of the particular process that the secretary must go through before making these rules, which is defined in replacement section 261B(3)(b). This is where the secretary, firstly, must consult with all relevant local authorities. But the second one specifies whoever the secretary considers to be appropriate. This is putting into that person’s domain quite a significant level of influence in that particular space, so why is it that this Government, who apparently hail on the issue of localism and yet all their actions certainly indicate and show something quite different, is seeing the secretary as the appropriate vehicle to undertake that work?

15:46

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s still no response in that particular space, but maybe we’ll just keep asking questions. I mean, let’s not forget that some of these changes were only tabled in the Parliament on 15 September—so not that long ago, really, in terms of that.

Is it that the position of the Government is such that there isn’t going to be any communication between the Government and the Secretary for Local Government? The suggested changes that have been made through the select committee process talk about the connection between the Minister providing some advice to the secretary, but, actually, reference to the Minister seems to no longer exist, in terms of that part of the clause. Originally, it had that “the Minister advises the Secretary that the Minister considers it appropriate to consult”, so this is removing that responsibility from ministerial purview into a completely different area. It would be helpful for the Minister to provide a little bit of clarity around that.

I also think that it is still important, given that his Amendment Paper is new and it does give the regulation-making powers, which are, as we know, secondary legislation, so this does provide a limitation on, in this sense, an elected member’s or a committee’s or a local territorial authority’s ability to either do certain things or not do certain things. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the Minister to explain to the committee or to, indeed, guide the committee through his thoughts around what that will mean in terms of the imposition of regulations for elected members who are duly elected by their communities—whether they are elected or appointed, they are none the less elected.

15:48

Thanks for that question. In regards to replacement section 261B(3) and the role of the secretary, as the member will be aware, the secretary is probably the most senior public servant within that department. This is not some new element in the context that this is amending an existing section, which makes it more flexible. The secretary already has similar powers to make performance measures. While the member is trying to imply that this is something new, that is not the case.

The question around clause 21(3), again, in regards to prescribing regulations around the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act process—to clarify, this is separate to that process. That covers off all the questions that are outstanding.

15:49

Point of order. I’m getting the feeling that we will move on from Part 1 soon. I just want to confirm with you, while you’re in the Chair, that Schedule 2 for Amendment Paper 803 is related to Schedule 2 which is in Amendment Paper 565 and will be considered in the Part 2 debate.

That’s a lot of numbers!

I’m just asking that because it says, “in Schedule 2, after new clause 70, insert”, but, in fact, in Amendment Paper 565, in Schedule 2, it goes to 69, not to 70. So that’s why I’m just double checking that—

That it’s in this debate and not somewhere else?

That it’s in the next debate—it’s in Part 2.

That it’s in the next debate. Oh, hold on a sec—I’ll just have a quick read.

Yep, thank you.

It’s definitely in the debate.

In this debate—in Part 1?

In Part 2—Part 2.

In Part 2. Thank you.

I feel we are naturally coming to a close.

15:50

Yeah, and actually, you might have just answered my question. I was just checking if Schedule 2 is in Part 1 or Part 2.

Part 2.

Part 2. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 803 amending Part 1 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 565 amending Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 755 and 803 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 565 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to delete clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 651 be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 3(d) be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to delete clause 5(1) set out on Amendment Paper 652 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing the definition of “community outcomes” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1A), paragraph (a) in the definition of “cost-effective” be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1A), paragraph (b) in the definition of “cost-effective” be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 5(3) replacing new paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 11A(1)(e), inserting “public places” be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 11A(1)(e), inserting “and activities” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 11A(1)(e), inserting “art galleries” be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 11A(1)(e), inserting “heritage” be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 11A(1)(f) relating to natural hazards be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 11A(1)(f) relating to community support be agreed to.

Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new paragraph (f) relating to environmental enhancement and protection is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment deleting clause 8(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9(3) inserting “delivery and” be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 9A be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 39(1)(f), inserting a reference to the code of conduct be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 40(2)(fa), be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 42(2)(i) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment deleting clause 16 be agreed to.

Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment deleting clause 16 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 16 be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment deleting clause 18(2) be agreed to.