Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 20 February 2025

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

I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to mark the one-year anniversary of the passing of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins.

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

I move, That this House mark the one-year anniversary of the passing of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, tomorrow, 21 February 2025, and acknowledge his contribution to the country, the communities he belonged to, and his aiga, his family.

Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 today’s reporting that the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform received advice from the Clerk on the admissibility of amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Bill in July 2024. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Ministers and members regularly receive advice from the Clerk; that is in itself not remarkable. The substantive matters arising from this particular advice were traversed during the committee stages of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I do not think that the business of the House should be set aside today to revisit this.

For clarity, I would reiterate that the rules and practices of the House regarding private legislation have not changed. Existing Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings still apply. Bills or amendments for the particular interest or benefit of individuals or groups are still classified as being in the nature of private legislation, as it states in Standing Order 257(1)(d), regardless of whether they are deemed to be public policy. In the case of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, I drew a different conclusion to the Clerk, having taken his advice and considered that the individual benefits to the projects listed in the Schedule were not sufficiently clear, given the bill itself prescribed a process they must still go through. I refer members to Standing Order 257(2). The application for an urgent debate is declined.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until 4 March. In that week, we will consider the committee stage of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, as well as the associated second readings of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. On Wednesday, there will be extended hours, where the first item of business will be the remaining stages of the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill.

No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered two papers.

2023-24 annual reports for the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.

I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Observations from our audits of councils’ 2024-34 long-term plans. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Five select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Health Committee on the 2023-24 annual review of the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service

report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

2023-24 annual review of Sport and Recreation New Zealand

2023-24 annual review of the arts, culture and heritage sector, and the

Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.

The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of three bills.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill, introduction.

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction

Will the Government’s policies and actions ensure Aotearoa meets the long-term target of reducing child material hardship to 6 percent by 2028; if not, will it change its policies to do so?

on behalf of the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Child poverty statistics released today show that although there was no significant change to child poverty rates, lifting children out of material hardship will be an ongoing challenge. Since 2017, there are now around 17,000 more children in material hardship. By not meeting the previously set second intermediate targets, the highly ambitious 10-year targets will be that much more challenging. We know we have more work to do, which is why this Government has a target to lift 17,000 more children out of material hardship by 2027. We are relentlessly focused on growing the economy, to enable us to invest in reducing child poverty.

Is she concerned about multiple reports that show that kids won’t have food on the table because of funding expiring for food banks, parents won’t be able to afford the basics because of cuts to benefit indexation, and the working poor are seeing the minimum wage fall behind inflation; if so, what about this Government’s record should give New Zealanders any confidence that they will reduce child poverty?

On behalf of the Minister, we are concerned with all of the measures for material hardship, which is why we have introduced tax relief, FamilyBoost, and increased the in-work tax credit.

Is it correct that the changes to benefit indexation will mean benefits will now rise at a lower rate than previously set by other Governments?

Mr Speaker, that’s a specific question—happy to take that in writing.

Oh no, he should know the answer to that.

Just wait for a bit of quiet.

Is the Government on track to meet its child poverty targets, given the failure to reduce material hardship to 9 percent in the 2023-24 year; if not, what will she do about it?

We set the intermediate target in around June last year—11 percent for material hardship is the intermediate target we have set. We are encouraged by Treasury modelling that shows that our investments in Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 children out of poverty, on the after-housing cost measures by 2026-27.

Why did she set these interim targets that can be met with, according to Treasury’s forecasts, zero further action from this Government, and does that highlight just how little ambition she has for the thousands of kids who will stay in poverty as a result?

On behalf of the Minister, these targets are ambitious. In a challenging environment, they will take quite a bit of effort to reach, and we’re very encouraged by the targets that we have set and the investment that we’ve made, particularly through Budget 2024, and other investments we will make.

Does she accept these interim targets, that her own Government set, require zero further action from this Government to address child poverty?

On behalf of the Minister, no.

On the matter of material hardship, what impact do questions from woke-riddled—

No—no further. Thank you.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yesterday’s Monetary Policy Statement confirmed annual Consumers Price Index inflation is sustainably within the 1 to 3 percent target range, giving the Reserve Bank confidence to continue lowering the official cash rate (OCR). In other words, the era of high inflation is over, and, of course, New Zealanders hurt a lot between 2021 and 2023, when inflation went over 7 percent, eroding people’s wages and savings. Spending constraint and price stability is back.

How is the Government helping to keep inflation under control?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, of course, the Reserve Bank has primary responsibility for controlling inflation, but the Government of the day can either help that task or hinder it through decisions around tax and spending. This is a Government that is helping. We’ve introduced discipline to Government spending after years of largesse, and the Reserve Bank says, in the Monetary Policy Statement, that Government expenditure is still assumed to decline as a share of the economy over the medium term, reducing inflationary pressure.

By how much will households benefit from lower interest rates?

On behalf of the Minister, people’s circumstances vary, so there is no one exact answer, but to give an illustration that helps demonstrate the point, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, a 1 percentage point drop in their interest rate reduces their required repayments by around $150 a fortnight. That is a significant reduction that could be used elsewhere in the household budget. So a decline in the OCR has a real, material impact on households’ budgets and helps New Zealanders get ahead.

What is the Reserve Bank’s forecast for economic growth in the next year?

On behalf of the Minister, more good news: the Reserve Bank expects economic growth to have returned in the December quarter of last year, then forecasts growth of 2.4 percent over 2025. This is in line with other forecasts, including Westpac’s, which expects growth of 2.5 percent this year. BNZ expects 2.6 percent, and ANZ expects 2.7 percent. This economy is back in growth, and we need to accelerate that from this point on.

In confirming that the era of high inflation is over, can he also confirm that the era of borrow and hope, which we inherited, is also over?

Well, on behalf of the Minister, the Government will be borrowing for some time to come, but we are working as hard as possible to get off the trajectory of endless, debt-fuelled consumption that pushes up prices and pushes up inflation and, inevitably, pushes up interest rates—and going for sustainable growth based on sound principles of price stability and a market-led economy.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Sir, last week—last Thursday—you committed to the House that you would go away and consider the requirements of Ministers answering questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. I would have hoped that we might get that clarity before this question.

Yes, and I apologise for not having come back to you, but there have been one or two other things that have caused a bit of a distraction today.

to the Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: As I have said over 300 times, yes.

Who does he agree with: Winston Peters, who said, “The name of this country is New Zealand. This person who came here in 2006—you’re not going to change it.”, or David Seymour, who said that “while I prefer to use New Zealand, I’m not here to stop other people saying Aotearoa.”, or will he maintain his silence on this issue?

As an answer that’s based on intellectual and academic integrity, the name of this country was always New Zealand, until Pember Reeves decided in the 1880s that he would call it Aotearoa, which is a massive insult to the people of Ngāi Tahu—that’s not their name—and we are going to not make a name change for this country until, in the democratic conventions of this great nation, we first consult and get the agreement of the New Zealand people.

Do Winston Peters’ comments suggest that New Zealanders who were born overseas should have fewer rights than those who were born here, and, if so, will he condemn that?

Look, it is very, very clear that Mr Peters made no such suggestion at all, but he paralleled the fact that in 2006, an application was made to a country called New Zealand, and that is still the same country that that person came to. Now, that’s not an attack on any immigrant, at all.

Will he stick up for migrant communities by disciplining Winston Peters and Shane Jones for their repeated attacks on members of Parliament based entirely on their country of origin, or will he continue to keep his head down by pretending that his Ministers’ comments are not his problem?

The simple answer to that is that if you get a fallacious statement like that, it doesn’t bear a response at all.

How will he achieve the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to train no fewer than 500 new front-line police by 27 November 2025 when there are now 72 fewer police officers than when he became Prime Minister?

I thank the member for that question. The current police planning is for up to 650 recruits to commence training in the first half of 2025. This is 75 more than in the entirety of the 2023-24 year, which the previous Government was responsible for. We, in short, are on track.

Does he agree with Winston Peters that the target of 500 additional police by 27 November 2025 would magically be met if police officials would merely read the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, or does he agree with the Commissioner of Police, who has all but admitted that the target won’t be met until 2026 at the earliest?

Given the very, very remarkable record of Mr Peters on this matter, where the last tranche of such training was a commitment for 1,800 but it ended up being successfully 2,338 in that tranche, we are setting out for the same performance this time around. So that’s why we’ve got confidence that on this matter, we’re on track.

Is Winston Peters actually accomplishing anything for Aotearoa when he tells members of migrant communities that their views are worth less than people born in Aotearoa and he instructs officials that they can meet political targets just by reading a coalition agreement, or will he acknowledge that this is a divisive and counter-productive way to run a Government?

That member will get an answer when she asks the question about a country called New Zealand, for which I’m responsible.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d be concerned if the requirements on Ministers to answer questions falls into a debate as to whether the use of te reo Māori is appropriate in this House. Yesterday, you said that you would go back and consider two pretty important things: (1) whether the application of the convention in this House that te reo and English can be interchangeable, regardless of the word; and (2) whether it is appropriate for members to question the legitimacy of other members given where they came from. Now, that response there to that question, albeit political, was simply about that very thing, and if we don’t get clarity from you on to this issue, then I suspect we’re going to be hearing that a lot, and it will lead to disorder, which, of course, is your job to maintain.

Well, the clarity point is—

Mr Speaker.

Oh, are you speaking to the point of order?

Mr Speaker, this country has hard-working taxpayers who have spent billions of dollars over the years in an export-dependent nation to try and sell a name of a country called New Zealand, and this has all been changed without any mandate or access to the people of this country, which is our democratic responsibility.

Speaking to the point of order.

Speaking to the point of order.

So two points—OK, we’ll go with the Hon Willie Jackson.

Mr Speaker, we need some direction from you on this—

I’m trying to give it.

—and I ask that very respectfully—given how precious the language is in this House, and I think you acknowledged that. But it is, sadly, being dumped on by two of the most senior Māori members in this Parliament, who are questioning the legitimacy. I ask you to make a ruling on this—yes or no—in terms of the legitimacy of te reo Māori.

Speaking to the point of order, I too support clarity from you, Mr Speaker, in terms of the use of te reo Māori in the House. When thinking about the way that we do promote ourselves as Aotearoa New Zealand on the international stage, it’s in all of our strategic documents and it’s on our passports, so why can we not celebrate te reo Māori in this House?

Well, the first point is we mostly certainly can, and there is no question that the Standing Orders make it appropriate for either language to be used in an interchangeable way. I don’t think that the Standing Orders should become confused over a viewpoint that one person might have on the use of the word “Aotearoa” compared to another person’s view on the use of that word. When it comes to the answering of—

Just a minute, Mr Speaker—

Oh, I’m in the middle of a ruling, and you’ve broken my flow. When it comes to the answering of a question, as was raised there, I think it becomes very hard for the Speaker to determine that a question has not been addressed if the question is, in the first place—in the answer—rejected, and I think that’s the difficulty that we face here. But let me be very clear: Standing Order 109, I think it is—and someone can check that, if that they like—makes the use of either the English language or te reo Māori perfectly acceptable, and there’s no question about that.

Mr Speaker, I’d like to draw your attention to an important point.

Is this a new point of order?

Whilst it is correct that you’re something of an auditor of parliamentary conduct, the member from Labour is asking you to audit political narrative. That is not your role—

That’s what I just said.

But, sir, day after day, when different political perspectives are being issued on controversial issues, you’re getting dragged into it. That is not how Parliament should work.

Well, that’s true. But I’d have to say, from my own point of view, I’d be completely naive if I thought that political matters were never going to be discussed in this House and that there wasn’t somehow a number of occasions where people have differences—that’s the point of having a Parliament. All sides need to get a little less sensitive about some of the things that are said quite safely in this room, because we do have a safe democracy. Ricardo Menéndez March.

This is the new point of order.

Yep.

Thank you. I wanted to wait until the end of the question, particularly as the Prime Minister was answering questions to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. I noted something yesterday, but it has been repeated again, and that has been the delegitimisation of people’s contributions by using the time of arrival of someone who is a citizen to this country. I’m asking you to reflect as to the appropriateness of that, particularly because of the ramifications that that has for people outside of this Chamber. When people are utilising someone’s date of arrival, it does seem like it delegitimises someone’s standing in this House.

Well, it’s all very well to say that the Speaker should become the interferer and run interference on all sorts of things on this House. The reality is that the Standing Orders provide a remedy for people who have been offended in this House.

I’m not offended.

Well, then, what is the point? And I’m sorry to ask it because I don’t want to have a discussion about that here—

OK.

—but you’re welcome to come and talk to me about that. I think the general public make up their own minds about these things, and I don’t think that some of the claims, and some of the extraordinary communications I’ve had on this, bear out the way in which New Zealanders generally think.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That last point of order was grossly out of time. The member, if he was going to make that point of order, had to raise it at the right time, but we’ve moved on, and, coming late to the party and not knowing what the rules are, he got away with it. You should have stopped him on that basis that he was out of time.

Oh well, you know, my failings are many in all of this stuff, which I freely admit. We’ll move now to question No. 4—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had attempted to seek a point of order, but there were two prior—

Yeah, I realise that.

—so I don’t want to be accused of being out of time. As you point out, Standing Order 109, which you have clarified today, allows members of this House to address you in either English, te reo Māori, or sign language. My point, however, was that yesterday, you made a suggestion that when it came to geographical terms, it might be reasonable to expect members to use the English version alongside the te reo Māori version, and I think that’s the point that the House needs clarity on. Given what you’ve just said now, is it no longer your view that that is required, and if members want to say Aotearoa—or, indeed, for example, Whakaoriori instead of Masterton—you are not requiring us to follow it up with an English version?

Look, I said yesterday that I wanted to bring to the House a sound ruling on this, so I don’t want to make it up from this seat—I didn’t yesterday; I’m not doing it today. I certainly wanted to find out where the New Zealand Geographic Board is on all of these things, so let’s do it absolutely properly. But the other thing is the point I just made before: it’s a debating House. People say things that others don’t like, and—

Exactly.

Well, it goes for two sides. If people are getting upset about the use of a word here or there—and unless it is grossly offensive, I don’t think that the Speaker should be interrupting. But I certainly have not stopped and will not stop people using an appropriate expression for whatever they’re talking about in debate.

Speaking to that, sir—

Yeah, OK.

—this is not a case of being sensitive; it’s not a case of disagreeing with other members. This is a case of getting clarity from you—

Yes, I know, and that’s what I’ve said I’ll do.

—as to how you’re interpreting the rules, and I actually, frankly, don’t think the suggestion that members seeking clarity from you—as is our right—by applying Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders is anything to do with political debate or the sensitivity of members.

Well, look, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have led to this discussion. But I will bring down a ruling on the first day back after the next recess.

Mr Speaker, speaking to this point of order, I appreciate that it’s a tough position for you, but the angst in terms of, particularly, our Māori language community is high because we have an expert in the Māori language in Mr Jones—and we all acknowledge that and concede that—who is questioning the legitimacy of the usage of te reo Māori in the House. That’s why we need clear clarification from you on its usage, because I appreciate that it’s tough when you have an expert, for some reason, coming out with the nonsense he’s coming out with, and we need some clarity, because it’s very clear you can use English or Māori. We just want some direction, sir.

Well, for the third time today, can I say that Standing Order 109 stands. It hasn’t changed, and I’m not changing it, and I doubt that any Standing Orders Committee is going to change it. So there is no question that either language of the three options people have can be used in this House.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made regarding resilient transport connections in Hawke’s Bay?

Last week, I travelled to the mighty Hawke’s Bay—thrilled to confirm the Government has approved funding to deliver the Waikare Gorge realignment project, at a cost of between $350 million and $425 million. This will deliver 4 kilometres of State Highway 2 realignment between Wairoa and Napier, including a 160 metre long arch bridge over the top of the Waikare Gorge. It was actually two years to the day since Cyclone Gabrielle, and I know it’s been a tough grind for the people of Wairoa and the East Coast. We are committed to this region and its recovery, and I want to acknowledge the strong advocacy of its fine local MPs.

Why is this project so important for the people of the East Coast?

Oh, well, as the member knows, currently the State highway travels through Putorino and down into Waikare Gorge. This has been prone to slips in the past, and the gorge bridge was destroyed in Cyclone Gabrielle, severing the connection between Hawke’s Bay and Wairoa for a number of months. State Highway 2 connection is critical for the thousands of road users and freight operators who use this corridor every day, and local communities and businesses who’ve been looking forward to this keenly anticipated project going ahead.

What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?

It’s been outstanding feedback. I want to particularly quote Wairoa Mayor Craig Little: “Wairoa will be happy. No one knows what this means to us. It’s a big one.” Mr Little, His Worship, has been a staunch advocate for this project alongside local MPs, and I do want to acknowledge the persistence and patience of those living, working, and travelling through the East Coast. We’re looking forward to construction starting on this project as soon as possible.

to the Minister for Children

Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to serious youth offenders and the military-style academies?

Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time. I especially stand by my actions to provide funding of $30.6 million over four years to continue the fast-track youth offending programme and extend the programme to 14- to 17-year-olds, which will contribute to this Government’s target rate of a 15 percent reduction in the total number of children and young people who are serious and persistent youth offenders.

Are there currently military-style academy pilot participants missing from the in-community stage of the pilot?

I have said in the House many times that I will not be speaking to these young people’s day-to-day life activities, that they’re a small cohort of young people, and that we must respect their privacy.

Is there currently a matter of public safety concerning the military-style academy pilot?

It wouldn’t be for me to say whether something is or is not a matter of public safety. This would be a matter for the police, who would make the call on that.

Does she agree with the expert clinical psychologist Brian Dixon’s testimony to the select committee, who said, “Contrary to popular beliefs in some circles that military-style academy training are an untested panacea, the actual science shows that such approaches are an abject failure, and, furthermore, they lead to more and more serious offending. Quite frankly, such experiments are a colossal waste of money and legislating for more of those is throwing good money after bad.”, and, if not, why not?

Once again, I think we need to get off the fixation of the name “boot camps” and actually understand what we’re trying to achieve here. These are young people who have repeat serious offences who continue to come to youth justice residence, and then when their sentence is over, whip back into the community into the same environment that they came from. What we are doing now is making sure we’re going to put legislation in place that will allow us to have a more intensive, holistic approach to dealing with these young people.

Has the Minister seen, in terms of independent evaluation, feedback from whānau—that’s family—“My son learnt a lot from being part of the MSA programme. In the past when my son had offended, he did not show any accountability for his actions. However, this time my son showed remorse for what he had done … I am thankful to Oranga Tamariki and thankful to the boot camp”—has she seen that evidence?

I would have to say and to add to that that I would like to thank every staff member and every person involved that allowed what the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about just now. These young people need people behind them to support them to be the best that they can be.

Is she confident that any reoffending occurring during the in-community stage of the military-style academy pilot is not more serious reoffending?

I would just like to put this in context. What we were doing before was letting these kids go in and out of these youth justice residences without any support. For young people who received a supervision of residence order in 2022, where a young person is ordered to spend time in a secure youth justice residence, the one-year offending rate was 75 percent—75 percent. If we can help some of that 75 percent be better than what they are now, then I’m all for it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting, long answer, but my question was: “Is she confident that the reoffending since the pilot in in-community phase is more serious reoffending?” She didn’t answer that.

Well, she certainly addressed the question. I didn’t hear all of it, of course, because there were people to my left who were at some audible volume saying, “Answer the question.” So I didn’t get the entire answer. I can assume only that the Minister addressed the question.

How can she say that her military-style academy pilot is a success and continue to push through legislation when she is not being transparent about what is really going on?

I don’t believe I’ve ever said that the pilot is a success. I’ve constantly stood here and said it’s too early to state whether it’s a success or not. It is still a pilot.

to the Associate Minister of Defence

What announcements has the Government made about Defence housing?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recently had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon on new soldiers flats at Papakura Military Camp—by happy coincidence, within the electorate of the Minister of Defence. The project was delivered in an impressive time frame of six months and constructed offsite with modular technology. This offers an exciting insight into the future of being able to deliver more Defence housing and accommodation options on base, and mirrors the work of other ministerial colleagues to more efficiently and affordably procure more classrooms, social housing, and so on, in the same manner.

Why did the Government choose to invest in upgrading the soldiers flat at Papakura Military Camp?

Defence housing is an essential way to support our personnel wearing uniform who serve our country so well—they are posted across New Zealand. Some 1,900 Defence homes, many of which—in fact, most of which—are more than 60 years old. We know that our soldiers, sailors, and aviators deserve better than they have had for very many years in this regard, and I’m sure that the member asking the question, ex-Major Weenink, having experienced those facilities herself, would share my view in that regard.

What is the benefit of improving housing for New Zealand’s Defence personnel?

Improving Defence housing isn’t just placing a roof over the head of our Defence Force personnel and their families, important as that is. It’s a crucial element in maintaining morale and discipline, which in turn leads to positive outcomes in terms of recruitment and retention that are going to be essential as we ensure that our personnel are well equipped to provide the national security aims, and other ways in which our Defence Force is a force for good for New Zealand.

Is this the last Defence estate project the Government will be investing in?

Far from it. In fact, it’s not even the last Defence investment in housing at Papakura Military Camp. We have an ambitious programme to deliver through the Defence Estate Regeneration Plan. For example, in the next year alone, $180 million worth of procurement of capital projects—again, better housing for our personnel and their families, modernised shared spaces like dining halls, and maintenance, of course, for the facilities that we already do have. On top of this, Budget 2024 delivered an extra $7 million of new operating funding for leasing of Defence housing so that at Devonport Naval Base, an additional 35 new houses will support those personnel. I thank all those who’ve worked hard on these projects over the year—they are coming to fruition under this Government.

to the Associate Minister of Justice

What changes is the Government making in phase one of its anti-money laundering and countering finance of terrorism reform, and how will these changes cut red tape to boost the economy, if at all?

Phase one focuses on cutting red tape to reduce compliance costs and grow the economy. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill will together streamline outdated anti - money-laundering (AML) requirements, remove duplication, and reduce compliance costs, with the aim of increasing productivity.

What specific changes are being made through the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill to cut red tape and grow the economy?

We are removing mandatory enhanced customer due diligence for low-risk trusts such as family trusts. Currently, businesses are required to apply the same enhanced customer due diligence processes to all trusts regardless of the risk. This change will provide relief for reporting entities that will no longer have to collect information for low-risk trusts.

How will changes introduced through the Statutes Amendment Bill tackle unnecessary regulation and encourage growth?

The Statutes Amendment Bill will remove address verification requirements in most cases. Many New Zealanders and businesses are currently required to have their addresses repeatedly verified due to the AML requirements, even if they’ve used the same bank for many years. This unnecessary regulation wastes time and money, and creates barriers for people trying to access basic financial services. Removing these requirements will also help those without a formal address, like dependent children or persons with intellectual disabilities, to open bank accounts more easily.

Can the Minister provide other examples of red tape that’s being removed in phase one of her reforms?

One example is the requirement for people to submit a Border Cash Report if they receive cash from someone who has already declared it when entering New Zealand. This is unnecessary red tape, adding no value but creating more work for businesses and individuals. Phase one of my reforms will remove outdated requirements like this one to save New Zealanders both time and money.

to the Minister of Transport

Does he stand by his statement about speed limit increases that it is “safe to do these changes”; if so, what specific evidence has he received, if any, on the impact of reversing speed limit reductions on deaths and serious injuries?

Yes. I’m advised the Ministry of Transport undertook an interim regulatory impact analysis to support the new speed rule, which has been released publicly. The ministry advised it is difficult to accurately model the impact of the rule on deaths and serious injuries.

Does he accept the findings from Waka Kotahi’s speed monitoring economic assessment, undertaken in 2024, that found corridors which had speed limits reduced prevented an average of 27 deaths and serious injuries, per corridor, each year, with travel time increases of between 12 seconds and four minutes?

I’m not overly familiar with the document the member is referring to. All I would say is that the Government is reversing the blanket speed limit reductions advocated and pushed forward by the previous Government. We sought a mandate for that at the election. We are carrying that out, and it’s been broadly popular around the country.

What does he say to a Waitaki Bridge resident who said about the reduced speed limit that “The speed limit change was community-driven from the very beginning. It was fantastic that the community had managed to see the change happen, and it just seems that it’s now become a political issue rather than an actual safety issue.”?

Well, as the member knows, there are around 50 State highways around the country that are out for further consultation, so that particular resident potentially is able to have their say. We’ve actually improved the consultation requirements for ongoing speed limit changes as part of the new rule that was set last year, and community voice, as part of the process, is important.

Will he then allow road-controlling authorities, including local councils, to retain safe speed limits where strong community support has already been demonstrated, without having to automatically reverse and then consult again?

There’s new consultation requirements as part of the new rule, but as the member knows, we are setting a rule, particularly around schools—that I know the member’s been very concerned about—and that is an important change that we’re making.

Is he aware that in places like New Plymouth, for example, they’ve been told that they have to automatically reverse speed limits by July in places where the reductions had 89 percent community support, and will they have to reverse the speed limits, then spend money consulting again in order to have a speed limit that actually delivers for their communities?

Yes, I’ve seen the comments from the Mayor of New Plymouth.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t a question about whether he’d seen the comments; it was a question about whether that road-controlling authority will have to reverse speed limits and then consult again, or whether he will consider allowing the community voice to be heard.

Well, that’s not what the question was.

I agree.

The question was: was I aware of the of the statement, and the answer is yes.

Does he have any idea how much it will cost councils to automatically reverse all of the speed limits, then consult again should they wish to prioritise road safety instead of following his Government’s direction, described by the New Plymouth mayor as “ideologically-driven nonsense [with] no scientific basis”?

The only person who generally advocates for that ideologically driven nonsense is that member and her comrades in the Green Party.

The member’s allocation of questions has expired.

to the Minister for Women

Does she have confidence that the Government is advocating on behalf of, and prioritising issues pertaining to, women?

on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes.

How can she have confidence that the Government is prioritising issues pertaining to women when the Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, joked in an interview, “I don’t know if a gang member wants to deal with a perimenopausal woman.”?

Well—

The look would probably give us an answer, actually!

Let me just say this: we women have put up with a lot. And I know this: Minister Mitchell is the strongest advocate against the violence that gangs mete out to women that I have seen, and I fully support him in standing up against the gangs. As for his little statement, I’ll deal with that later!

Would abolishing the Ministry for Women, as per the next Deputy Prime Minister’s campaign wish, help advocate for issues pertaining to women?

Could the member ask that again, please.

Certainly. Would abolishing the Ministry for Women, as per the next Deputy Prime Minister’s campaign wish, help advocate for issues pertaining to women?

Well, it depends whether or not the ministry has a great Minister, which they do in the Hon Nicola Grigg. And I’d also say, too, that the coalition agreements are what the Government is fulfilling, not every party’s campaign promises.

Does she agree with ACT Party leader, David Seymour, when he said, “The gender pay gap exists when you have to be there late at night to make the sale, put in the extra hours, and do all the extra things that women are often unavailable to do because of the way gender roles work.”?

Well, I think, being one of those women who is always there late at night working, and always have been in my working life, I know that sometimes women do get a very hard time and different treatment, and that is why we stand up for women. The best thing we can all do is to acknowledge women, stand up for each other no matter what, and no matter our political affiliations, which is not something I’ve always felt from that side of the House.

Does she think it’s appropriate for Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court to tell women what period products to use to save money?

Do you know, I think it’s amazing, because I don’t need to worry about those sorts of things any more, and I’m just so grateful for the fact that this man is actually interested in it, because I sure as hell am not.

How can she have confidence the Government is advocating for women when her colleagues mock perimenopausal women, dismiss the causes for the gender pay gap, appoint an anti-abortion lobbyist as the Minister of Health, and tell women what to put in their vagina, and why has she, as the Minister for Women, stood by and done nothing?

Well, I’ll tell you what, that question is seriously going to affect my reading of answers that are given in the House from this point on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a stupid question, and the last thing we need is for women in this House to be belittling other members of Parliament who are trying to do their job. Just stand up for women when they ask you to. [Interruption]

Thank you—we’ll now wait for complete silence. I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

to the Minister for Children

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time, especially my statement that the best interests and the safety of our children should be first and foremost in all decision making for our young people.

Does she stand by her decision to remove mandatory family group conferences (FGCs) for youth classified as young serious offenders, despite the fact that 80 percent of rangatahi likely to receive this classification are Māori and will be the most in need of input from whānau, hapū, and iwi?

I am a real big fan of family group conferences and the intention of why family group conferences were brought in in the first place. I want to go back to the true intention of why those FGCs were brought about in the first place, not it becoming a tick-box exercise for judges to hold up the court system and allow kids to be on remand for up to 12 months at a time because of FGCs.

Is she determined to isolate mokopuna Māori in the system for their w’akapapa—genealogy—with the removal of mandatory family group conferences and the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act?

We will not be removing family group conferences. What we’re doing is making sure that a family group conference is done right in the first place rather than having to have repeated family group conferences with no outcomes and not being done in the way that they were intended to be done.

Does the Minister want to see a reduction in the number of tamariki Māori in care?

Absolutely. That’s why I’m really proud of four of the nine partners that are now operationalised within this country showing positive results. For example, far fewer Tainui tamariki entered care and protection in 2023 compared to 2019, and there was a 61 percent reduction, all because we’ve worked together for our young people.

Would the $260,000 spent per child on these boot camps have been better spent on expanding the Ka Ora, Ka Ako - Healthy School Lunches Programme to help prevent our tamariki from offending in the first place?

The money that we are investing in these young people is to help them to be accountable for the crimes that they’ve committed. They have left victims behind within the community, and there needs to be accountability for that. But it is also about making sure that we rehabilitate these young people to lessen the chance of victims in our community and also give these kids a better chance at life.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcement has he made regarding funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund for the Mental Health Foundation?

I was thrilled to recently announce that the Mental Health Foundation is the latest recipient of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. This funding is being matched by the Mental Health Foundation to fully fund Project Wakapuāwai, an initiative that will digitise more mental health resources to allow Kiwis faster access to mental health information and support. This funding will allow for the Mental Health Foundation to redevelop and futureproof its digital platforms to improve the ways they provide crucial information about mental health, wellbeing, suicide prevention, and mental distress for all New Zealanders.

Why is it important to digitise mental health resources?

Well, this Government knows that access to information and support for our rural and remote communities remains a barrier, so online resources such as this are another option for those looking to support themselves or someone they care about. If you’re on a farm in Northland or a tiny town in Southern New Zealand, we know your access to mental health support can be limited. We want every Kiwi to know help is close, and this goes some way to achieving that.

What other contracts have been announced as a result of the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Well, the Mental Health Foundation is the fourth contract to be awarded so far from the first round of the mental health innovation fund. The other three recipients are Youthline, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and MATES in Construction. Youthline will receive funding to expand its Counselling Your Way programme. The Sir John Kirwan Foundation will receive funding to scale up Mitey, a free early intervention initiative to support children’s mental health. MATES in Construction will receive funding for its community workplace-based programme. These are only the first three recipients, and I’m excited to share more recipients in the future.

Does the Minister regret ignoring advice from his own officials that funding this initiative out of health funds would lead to workforce shortages, when thousands more people have now been locked out of specialist mental health services due to workforce shortages?

Well, the question is “Do I regret not following official advice?” What—advice not to spend money that was stuck in Wellington and send it out to the front line with organisations like Youthline, MATES in Construction, and the Mental Health Foundation? I know what the public wants me to do. Also, the member raised the question about the workforce. The Auditor-General, in its damning report of the last Government, said there was no mental health workforce plan. This Government’s delivered New Zealand’s first mental health workforce plan within baseline budget, so it shows you can actually do both.

How does the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund support New Zealanders to access timely mental health support?

Well, the Government is focused on not only growing and improving the performance of our existing front-line services but we’re also growing and developing new front-line mental health and addiction workforces. I think it’s fantastic that the innovation fund is supporting our front-line mental health workforce and enabling more Kiwis to get faster access to timely mental health support. This fund is part of the Government’s commitment of investing more in grassroots initiatives. We came into Government to say we’d get more money out of Wellington to the front line, and that’s what we’ve done.

On the point of mental health, can the Minister explain to the House what happened to the $1.2 billion under Jacinda Ardern’s Government?

Well, what I can do is—

No, no. No. Question 12.

Supplementary.

Yes.

Well, can I ask the Minister, putting it this way, is there a present series of policies that have learnt from the fact that the $1.2 billion ended up with five hospital beds?

Well, I reflected, coming into Government, on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report on the last Government that said, despite the $1.9 billion announced for mental health, it had made no material difference, which showed it was less about just tagging money and making announcements, but actually getting money out the door to new services, and that’s what we’ve announced today.

to the Minister for Disability Issues

Does she stand by her statement that “The Government is focused on delivering services and supports that meet the needs of disabled people, their family and carers, both now and into the future”; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister for Disability Issues: Yes. There has been a record investment of $1.1 billion over five years to address demand and cost pressures on the support service. The Government has taken urgent steps to stabilise the disability support system. Work is well under way to implement the recommendations of the independent review. Included in this are needs assessment and service coordination centres (NASCs) that have budgets greater than their spending in the last financial year, ensuring that there continues to be places available in residential care for those with the greatest need.

How can she stand by her statement, when doctors are saying that intellectually disabled people are unable to transition into residential care facilities they were approved for because of her Government’s freeze on new placements?

The residential component of NASC budgets is larger than in the previous budget, and I am advised that there is not a freeze on new entries into residential care.

How is she supporting disabled people, when psychiatrists are saying that people with severe difficulties who were admitted into hospital are no longer able to go home or into residential facilities due to the freeze and are instead stuck in psych wards?

As I said in my previous question, I’m advised that there is not a freeze on new entries into residential care.

Does she agree with doctors and nurses who recently wrote in the New Zealand Medical Journal that her freeze is causing unnecessary, severe harm to those with an intellectual disability, and their families and carers?

What I agree with is other phrases in the Medical Journal that said, “pending commissioning and completion of detailed and urgent review of the contract and pricing models, which is currently under way”.

How is cutting the funding package of an autistic eight-year-old child with complex needs by almost 50 percent, despite the child’s needs not changing, meeting the needs of disabled people, especially when the family was told the cut was because of her Government’s directive to NASCs to reduce spending?

I’m advised that NASCs need to prioritise their indicative budgets towards those in the highest need. NASCs hold responsibility for determining whether someone needs eligibility for Disability Support Services support, and secondly, what that support looks like.

How can she possibly expect New Zealanders to believe that there is no freeze, when disabled people, family, carers, doctors, and a document from her own ministry all say there is?

The $1.1 billion increase in funding over five years, in Budget 2024, is a good indication of our support for the disabled sector.

Mr Speaker, following discussion at the Business Committee, I seek leave to move the motion in my name on the Table to adopt the sessional order for permission to be absent on Thursday for return home.

Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.

I move, That the House adopt the sessional order, Permission to be absent on Thursday for return home:

Permission to be absent on Thursday for return home

(1) On a Thursday, a member’s proxy vote is not counted towards the limit on proxy votes under Standing Order 146(2) if, at the time the proxy vote is cast, the member is absent from the House with permission to be absent granted under paragraph (2).

(2) A leader or whip of a party consisting of more than one member may grant any member of that party permission to be absent from the House if―

(a) the absence is for the purpose of enabling the member to return to their home, and

(b) the location of the member’s home means that it is not reasonably practicable for the member to return to there, on a Thursday, unless they leave the parliamentary precincts before 5 pm.

(3) The Speaker may grant permission to be absent under paragraph (2) to a member of a party consisting of one member or to an Independent member.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply when—

(a) the sitting has been extended under Standing Order 56, or

(b) business is being transacted under urgency.

(5) As soon as practicable after each sitting on a Thursday, the leader or whip of each party must report to the Clerk the number of members of that party who were absent during that Thursday with permission granted under paragraph (2).

(6) Standing Order 146 is read accordingly.

I’m seeing people raising their hands and thumbs up in agreement, so I don’t intend to take too much more of the House’s time. It’s been agreed with the Business Committee to allow a bit more flexibility for members returning home on a Thursday.

I move, That the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill amends the Overseas Investment Act to create a streamlined pathway for overseas investment in existing build-to-rent developments. It addresses a key concern of build-to-rent developers that they need certainty they’ll be able to on-sell their developments. Given the size and complexity of these assets, this can be challenging when limited to the domestic market.

The build-to-rent sector does have significant potential. I think it was yesterday we were talking in the committee of the whole House stage about just how much potential that is. I was intrigued to get an email overnight—in fact, it might have come in this morning, actually—from someone who was following the committee stage debate last night. She specifically wanted to email me to say that she’d heard the question to me from the Hon Julie Anne Genter in the committee stage debate. I think the question was about how many build-to-rent developers have been turned down through the existing benefit to New Zealand test.

I didn’t know what the answer was, and neither did the officials, but I’m advised by one of the top lawyers working in the area that there is substantial interest in this bill passing, and a number of people following it, because they are quite interested in doing that, but the existing test is a barrier. That, actually, perhaps a day later, directly addresses the question from the member. There is interest out there in this.

I’m not going to pretend it’s the answer to New Zealand’s housing woes, as various members in the House who have been housing Ministers and housing spokespeople know. There’s no one silver bullet, because if there was, we would have fired it by now. What we need to do is make a whole series of changes, and build-to-rent is part of it. Medium- to large-scale residential housing developments is a small proportion of the market, but it has the potential to play a much bigger role. If you look at the UK, for example, there’s 240,000 build-to-rent homes in 2022 in the UK. There’s similar success in the US and parts of Europe. Often what you see with build-to-rents is longer leases to tenants, making them a popular choice for renters looking for secure, long-term housing. This is a small and important contribution.

What the bill does is create a streamlined pathway within the Overseas Investment Act. Under the current rules, overseas investors in build-to-rent have a streamlined pathway to develop new housing, but they can only purchase established housing developments if they meet the onerous benefit to New Zealand test—so they don’t have certainty. Therefore, they’ll be able to sell their assets when they’re complete or if they face financial distress. International investment is critical in this sector, but these are large and complex assets, and, internationally, institutional investors such as the pension funds, the big players in the sector, can provide stable returns over an extended period of time. The pathway addresses this issue and gives developers the certainty they need.

The streamlined pathways in the Act have specific criteria or thresholds to ensure they’re used appropriately. In this case, the new pathway enables investors to purchase established large-scale rental developments in circumstances where there are one or more buildings which total at least 20 dwellings. They must also continue to make at least 20 dwellings available for rent—and we had a bit of a debate in the committee stage of the House about whether or not “at least” or “more than” was the same thing; Mr Xu-Nan from the Greens struggled to get there, but we got there in the end. That is indeed the case: they must continue to make at least 20 dwellings available for rent, and they may use an intermediary to lease their build-to-rent developments, which is likely to be a common business model.

There was a change at the select committee. I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work. The new test was designed to enable the use of intermediaries. The existing test that supports investors building new housing does not appear to, so you could have had build-to-rent developers who built 200 new dwellings being forced to sell those because they wanted to contract a property manager. Thank you to the committee for sorting that out. There’s been quite a bit of good will on the committee.

I have taken some comments from the Opposition in relation to some amendments, which I did take some advice on, and as we had an extended discussion in the committee stage last night—we’re not proceeding with those amendments at this time, but we’ll keep a watching brief on the issue and I thank the constructive comments from the Opposition in relation to that.

International investment is essential for growth. We have low capital intensity relative to other developed economies. We do need international capital to bring in expertise, connections, and just capital. This bill is just one small way the Government is supporting high-quality international investment. Of course, the Hon David Seymour is working hard on the Overseas Investment Act changes—very important for the future of the New Zealand economy. This bill creates a streamlined pathway. It’s one small change, but we do need broader reforms as well, of course.

It’s been a pleasure to take this bill through. I want to thank everyone for supporting it. I think it’s going to pass almost unanimously. It’s a small contribution to fixing our housing crisis, and, of course, there’s always more to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour Party supports this bill, the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill, but we wouldn’t support the bill if went any further. It’s a pretty specific proposal, and it is backed up by a pretty sound argument.

Build-to-rent, as an asset class, was quite a significant inclusion under the previous Labour Government, and it’s good to see this Government is building on that. It will play a part in ensuring that there are suitable options for those that need a home, which is pretty much all of us. The thing, though, is that we should never give up on the dream of people being able to buy their own homes. We don’t ever want to look like, as a Parliament, we are saying to people, “Look, we will support this, but that’s your lot. You can stay there for a long time, but you’ll always be a renter.” The sad reality is, for a lot of people, that is what they face—we should never give up on that—but, in this instance, it’s clear that build-to-rent does play a part.

What will be interesting is any subsequent proposals around the change to overseas investment in existing property, because, in this instance, the rationale made sense at least—that those that were looking to invest and specifically build build-to-rent developments were being restricted because those potential buyers, some of them were from overseas, and so they didn’t have the confidence to build in the first place. Now, if we want this to work, we don’t want there to be a lack of confidence in investing in such developments. Will the Government look to extend that to existing properties, is the question.

Now, if they do, we will strongly oppose that, because if we see what we’ve seen previously, in that the residential market gets unaffordable, then the only option they will have are rentals, and we need to avoid that, and part of that is disincentivising competition on existing stock. This Government has done that by reversing the interest deductibility rules to back to where they were, and already we have seen the number of consents for new builds fall, and we have seen the level of lending to investors increase. Already there is increased competition on existing stock, but, in this instance, there was a case, and so therefore, we agree.

I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that Dr Megan Woods did when she was housing Minister in encouraging build-to-rents in this country. I think she can be really proud of that.

I want to touch on something the Minister of Housing said in his contribution. He was very vague about it, and I think he’s very vague about it because he knows, deep down, that we have a point, and for whatever reason he chose not to pursue it. I think it was a missed opportunity, the fact that he didn’t. The threshold for this bill to kick in is 20 units. Regardless of the size of the development, as long as 20 remain build-to-rent, then they would qualify for the provisions, if you like, within this bill. That is fine; we’re comfortable with that. It’s consistent with what’s been in the past, but what was disappointing was just the sheer unwillingness from the Minister, officials, frankly, and some other members to really dive into this; disappointing because I think that for areas outside the large urban centres—let’s say Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch—a 20-unit development is massive. You might see even an eight-to-10-unit development as quite a large one, relative to their area.

Well, they will never have the benefit from this bill, and I think we’re unlikely to see build-to-rent become a feature outside of our largest cities. That is a shame. Why should the regions miss out? All they needed to do was to look at a two-tier system: that the 20-unit minimum applied in the cities, and a proportional threshold outside of that; so as long as it’s above six units and 100 percent. So that we don’t get gaming of the system, it has to be specific build-to-rent development, but just at a smaller size. Then we’ll see your Nelsons and we’ll see your Wairarapas benefit from this as well, but we’re not. Now, the Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry about it. We’ll revisit it at three years’ time.” But why? Why couldn’t we have just done it now? Anyway, look, it’s done now. I’ve got that grizzle out of the way; I’ve put it on the record. We tried to help the regions; the Government didn’t want to. It’s there on the record—that’s fine.

People will benefit from this. The Labour Party supports this. It makes sense to go through. That support won’t extend to any further loosening of the overseas investment rules. It’d be very interesting if what we’re hearing—that they’re looking to loosen those for properties $5 million and over. We’ll be keeping an eye and an ear out for that, because once you open that door, it’s all on. At least this is limited to a specific asset class that doesn’t then move on to the residential property market, because, in doing so, that would be disastrous. But this bill makes sense, and that’s why we support it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Housing is a human right. We in this Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that the policies that we put in place are leading to a situation where people have—every person has—access to secure, affordable housing that’s safe. It makes sense for it to be energy efficient; that affects human health as well as energy use. This bill, the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill, as the Minister himself said, isn’t really going to make a massive difference one way or the other.

Let me be very clear: the Green Party supports build-to-rent, and we think there should be incentives in place to ensure we get high-quality build-to-rent homes. We don’t believe that owning a home has to be the pathway for people to get access to safe, secure, affordable housing. We need better renter protections, and, most of all—the thing that would make the biggest difference to the housing crisis in this country, and we know this from looking at other countries who actually have achieved more affordable and secure housing for people—there is a really important role for the public sector, whether that’s at a central government level or  at local level, in the provision, in building and supplying public housing. That has to be a major part of it. For whatever benefit the Government thinks it’s going to get through this technical change to the Overseas Investment Act, which means that, actually, build-to rent as a specific asset class can be invested in—not only by foreign investors, but they can also be sold to other foreign investors, whether by people who are domestic investors or foreign investors.

That’s what this bill is doing; it just makes it a little bit easier to do that. It’s not going to address the severe shortage in housing supply that has been now worsened by the existing Government cancelling all the planned builds from Kāinga Ora. Kāinga Ora was just ramping up to the point where it was going to be able to deliver. It’s really important to have a large “for public good” public sector player in the development space. Just in my own electorate of Rongotai alone, I talked to a builder who said they had $70 million worth of new builds, redevelopment of public land, that would have supplied more homes into Rongotai, cancelled now by the existing Government. That affects the building and construction sector. That’s why, in part, Engineering New Zealand came out earlier this week and said hundreds of engineers have lost their jobs and are leaving New Zealand.

That is a direct consequence of this coalition Government’s actions, because they are ideologically opposed to something that is demonstrated to be practical and the right way to help achieve affordable housing. Not to mention the fact that at the same time they’re saying, “OK, we’re going to do build-to-rent and we’re going to make it easier for foreign investors to invest and sell to other foreign investors build-to-rent housing.”, they are taking away protections for renters and bringing back no-cause evictions. Where is the security in that for renters? Nowhere. If we don’t have proper protection for renters, increasing the supply of rental properties isn’t necessarily going to provide the affordable, secure housing that we need. That’s the truth, and that’s why, if you look at other developed countries that have much better outcomes than us on a whole range of issues, they have much better protection for renters. They have a higher proportion of their population renting, because it’s not a bad thing. You can have a secure home and have some agency over what the home looks like; you can actually determine—you know, it’s like a permanent home, because there’s protection for renters.

It makes sense as a society to ensure that everybody has a healthy, affordable home. Stop with your moralistic—this Government is very, very much like punish the poor, blame them for all their problems, don’t do anything to actually help people. That’s the reality. Every problem that we face in society, rather than actually investing in our country ourselves, is “Let’s sell it off. Let’s sell it off to the foreigners; let’s get some more money from the foreigners! Let’s get some foreign capital.” Guess what? When people from other countries who have money come and invest in infrastructure in our country, whether that’s roads or whether that’s housing, they expect a return for it. On the one hand, in their personal lives, they know that they retain autonomy and build wealth by buying homes and owning their own home, but governing on behalf of the country, they’re like, “Let’s just sell it all off to foreign investors and put future New Zealanders on the hook to pay back at high interest rates the cost of providing that infrastructure.”

The Green Party is not going to support this bill. We have real solutions that will actually address the supply of housing, and we come from the point of view of care for our community. That’s what everyone in this House should be doing, really. I mean, we’re here to represent all New Zealanders, not just the top 1 percent, not just the wealthy and sorted, like the Prime Minister. We’re not here to line the pockets of foreign investors when we ourselves could be investing in rental properties, when we could be resourcing our councils to build council housing. There was an inquiry into the future of Auckland’s governance way back—2008, ’09, ’10. A royal commission came back and made it very clear that, actually, there’s a really important role at the local level for councils to be involved in social housing, and that’s strongly evidence based.

We have now several decades of a legacy of the pressure for councils to sell that off, even under the last Labour majority Government. They put the Wellington council in the invidious position of having to transfer council housing to a community housing provider in order to access the income-related rent subsidy, which private landlords, private providers of rental properties, can access. Why shouldn’t our local communities be able to do that through council housing? There’s not a country in the world that has become a successful country, with high levels of wellbeing for the people, with health for their people, who’ve done it through privatisation, foreign investment, tax cuts for landlords, tax cuts for the rich. You do it by investing in all the people, because the people are our greatest resource.

We bear the brunt of it when there are households with children where parents are working—they’re in poverty, they’re in insecure housing, they’re in unhealthy housing, and they can be booted out of their rental property for no good reason. Then the people who own those rental properties are able to benefit from the lower interest rates by leveraging more debt and buying more property—property prices go up—and it leads to more inequality in society. But we pay for it—we all pay for it. We’ll pay for it because higher child poverty levels, insecure housing for children, and children living in poverty when their parents are working is not good for us. That is what leads to more crime. That is what leads to us having bigger bills in terms of our health system. Everybody knows the health system is under enormous pressure, in no insignificant part caused by road crashes, which will be made worse under changes by this Government, but also because people live in unhealthy housing. Then we suffer with rheumatic fever and preventable childhood illnesses.

It just makes sense, it just makes sense, but the reason the coalition Government—well, they just seem incapable of understanding evidence, doing basic maths, and understanding that what is best for the wealthiest individual is not necessarily best for the collective, for the group, for all of us in the country. The way that we as a society become better off is that we look after each other. We make sure that those who are the most vulnerable are looked after, and in the end we will benefit, because those kids will grow up healthy and able to be their best selves and contribute more back to society. We’re not paying the big health bills, because, if we put people in healthy, secure, warm, dry housing and secure housing, we don’t have as many emergency departments admissions, we don’t have as many chronic diseases, we don’t have as much asthma.

It just makes sense, but the Government comes here and says, “Yeah, well, we don’t think public housing—there’s no silver bullet, but we’re going to tweak some tiny things around the edges. Our real agenda is making it easier for foreign investors to make a buck off New Zealand.”

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, no one in this House is denying that New Zealand has got a massive housing problem, sometimes called a housing crisis. I think what we just heard is a complete fairy tale for how that could actually be. When you have, as the previous speaker alluded to, house prices going up and becoming more unaffordable, that’s an incentive for people to build. People actually want to build and deliver housing. The real problem we have in New Zealand is that we have just harsh and unworkable, sometimes unmovable, and designed-to-say-no legislation and problems in this country that this Government is working incredibly hard on addressing, through things like reforming the Resource Management Act, and doing things like allowing products to be brought into New Zealand to build our houses, which the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Chris Penk, is shepherding through the House quite well. That will lead to more houses being built.

I hope that this bill will contribute to allowing another piece of the puzzle, which is capital. We need capital to pay for subbies, to pay for builders, to pay for the drapes, curtains, underfloor. We need that money to actually purchase the goods. Yes, there’s a return, because someone’s putting something up and they need a return. When you actually provide the capital—as people who save and work and put it away for a rainy day and want to get a return on it do, as we all do with what we put away—those people deserve to get a return. That’s the sort of thing that people want when they invest in something like a build-to-rent. On one side, you get people providing capital and getting a return; on the other side, you get long-term, stable rentals, which, as the previous speaker has talked about, are something that we want to see in this country. Our system disincentivises investment from overseas in a lot of ways.

This bill—and yes it is for one asset class—will do a lot to increase the interest in investing in the things that New Zealand needs to house our population. It’s creating a streamlined pathway for overseas investors to purchase already existing large-scale rental developments. Look, this coalition Government is working on broad changes to the Overseas Investment Act, as I’ve already said. ACT has pushed for this for a long time. I’m glad to see this happening. I think it’s going to address concerns that have been bubbling away in the community about stable housing for people who need a rental community with a professional—there’s a lot of concern about having professional property managers and professional businesses. This is what we are talking about here: professional companies employing professionals to house people that maybe couldn’t find it somewhere else or want to have something that is a long-term customer relationship, rather than what we have historically done in this country.

Look, I just want to reiterate the point that I made in my second reading speech: fixing the housing crisis that we have in New Zealand is not an easy task. There are so many different elements that flow into it, as I just outlined: planning, infrastructure, the way we deliver services to places where we want to build, what we use to build, the skills we need to maintain in this country and grow. All of these things take a lot of getting right to get that whole soup together so that you can have a delicious boil-up at the end of the day.

This is what this Government’s working on: getting all those ingredients in the right place so that we can get a housing situation in New Zealand that means New Zealanders and people who want to become New Zealanders can see somewhere that they can not only invest their capital but invest their life in, somewhere they can see a stable future for their families, a stable future for their businesses and their lives and their careers, so that everybody in this big boat we call New Zealand or Aotearoa—we all are paddling in the same direction, we all feel like we have a place here, and New Zealanders can look at their country with pride when we have the places to house New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

I think we all agree that there is a housing shortage. What we seem to disagree on—certainly in the speech from the Green Party member—is what the solution to that might be. It is always a pleasure to follow after, particularly on housing issues, Cameron Luxton, who I think is probably the only person who has actually built houses with his own hands. He is our resident builder.

No, sorry. You’ve got to be accurate if you’re going to start making those sorts of statements.

OK. Sorry, Mr Speaker. Sometimes we flush hidden talents out of the House when we make statements like that, which need to be corrected. I know we have people who contributed to parts of a house, anyway.

I, first of all, want to start off with the Greens’ solution, which seems to be to go down the public housing track. Julie Anne Genter stood up and said that Kāinga Ora (KO) public housing was the answer to everything, and she said it’s $70 million. Well, how many houses? We didn’t get a reply from her at any stage on that. I can bet your bottom dollar that the problem with those is they were inordinately expensive. When I was the Mayor of Wellington, I saw KO projects, and most of them were sitting at around $900,000 to a million dollars—for the building; probably excluding the land. That is for a one- or two-bedroom house—maybe three if you’re lucky. They were very, very expensive. Clearly, they were getting the model wrong.

This bill, Madam Speaker—you won’t correct me, will you, on whether you built a house or not? This bill is just a small part of the answer to a very big, complicated problem. What it does is it opens a new pathway for foreign investors to be able to build or buy new housing or long-term housing for rental purposes, where you have 20 or more dwellings all in one place, all contiguous. It’s not a big part of the market, but it’s an important part. It doesn’t say they have to build them, but what it does tend to do is make it more likely that a developer in New Zealand might build something, knowing they’ve got more likelihood of being able to sell it to an international investor or, indeed, to a New Zealand investor. It streamlines the investment process.

I want to talk a little bit about the reasons we have a housing shortage, and there are two parts to it. One is supply; one is demand. Obviously, supply has gone up and down a little bit in terms of the amount that’s been built over time. In fact, it was obvious what was going to happen in the last little while, during the COVID situation. Interest rates went through the roof, the cost of building went through the roof, and house prices which peaked then suddenly plummeted. In that situation, are you, as a developer, going to build a house? The answer is probably not, because you can’t make money on it. The reality is that unless you’re going to step in, as the Green Party suggested, and just have the public sector throw enormous amounts of money at housing regardless of what the cost of it is—and that seemed to be the model that KO was operating under—the market is going to decide when it’s going to build and when it’s not going to build. Obviously, they backed off in that situation.

The other part that I wanted to mention is the demand side. The reality is that over many, many years, the last decade or so, COVID aside, we’ve had very, very significant population growth, and that now is no longer driven by New Zealand births over deaths. It is driven very much by migration. One of the things that has always irritated me, I might say, is that we’ve had successive Governments, both Labour and National, saying to councils, “We want you to provide for 30 years of population growth in terms of housing.” Given that most of that now is migration driven, who’s in charge of that? Well, it’s not the councils; it’s the Government. The Government needs to have some sort of clarity around what sort of level of population growth there is going to be.

It was interesting—and I’ve said this before in this House—that the Infrastructure Commission, who, thank heavens, as a responsible organisation, are now saying that we need a population demographic strategy for the country—because if you don’t have that, how many houses do you need? What sort of infrastructure do you need? How many schools? How many hospitals? All of those things. The absence of that becomes a real problem. What they said about stats, because we rely on stats for these sorts of things about the projections—they said stats are “flying blind”, because they don’t know, because they’ve got to put the estimates on the basis of, essentially, past practice, but they don’t know what future practice is going to be, and neither does the Government. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Government on that side or the Government on this side. We need to do a lot better in that place.

To go back to supply, this is about providing another avenue for the supply of houses. New Zealand First has always been very wary of foreign investment in New Zealand. What we want to do is to make sure that where there is foreign investment in New Zealand, it is to the benefit of New Zealand. That’s what we’re about, New Zealand First. It’s about the benefit to New Zealand. It’s not about the benefit to foreign investors. We’ve always been a little bit wary about that, but what we want to do is make sure there is a good benefit. If you’re going to buy something, what’s that benefit going to be?

We heard mention—I think it was Kieran McAnulty—that there’s a suggestion that maybe $5 million might be the sort of price at which somebody might be able to buy a house in New Zealand. Well, I’m not aware of that as being a definite proposition, but I would say—and I think our view will be—that if you’re going to buy a house, it’s got to be something that doesn’t compete with the New Zealand market, and $5 million probably does that. But $2 million, which was the suggestion, of course, from the National Party, was one that New Zealand First said no to, because you are then starting to compete with New Zealand homeowners.

It was interesting, actually—I had a quick look last week at the number of houses which are $2 million - plus which were listed on TradeMe. I did cherry-pick here. The property market in Wellington has been, obviously, pretty terrible recently, as 3 to 3.5 percent of the 3,249 listings were $2 million or above. In Auckland, out of 15,196 listings, approximately 12 percent were $2 million or above, or could be quite close to $2 million, and there’d be whole lot there. In Queenstown Lakes, it was 45 percent of the 469 listings. My point is that, in some parts of the country, $2 million becomes a real competition with New Zealand buyers, and the other part of that, of course, is that what it would tend to encourage is, if you were thinking about listing it just under $2 million, you might just go, “I’ll push it up a little bit so that I might get a foreigner buying it as well.” That is a real issue.

If I might return to the $5 million—and I think we would be very strong on this—you don’t just want to sell a house; you want to sell to somebody who’s got a lot of money. You want to sell something to someone who’s also going to invest significantly in this country, in productive development, in building new businesses, expanding businesses, and employing Kiwis, because that’s a really important thing.

Let’s just focus, again, on this build-to-rent. Is it going to make a difference? It will make a difference at the margins. We’ve seen that there is a growing market in other jurisdictions—the US, Europe, etc. Will that be as big a benefit here? At the moment, I think the Property Council said that our build-to-rent market is very small. It’s about 0.1 percent of the overall market. They think that if the policy settings are favourable, within a decade it could be 25,000 dwellings. It sounds quite a lot, but it’s still one only 1 percent of the market, so it’s still relatively small. I suspect the reason for that is that those bigger markets—Australia, UK, Europe, and the United States—have got big domestic investment in this. We don’t, and so it’s likely still to remain a relatively modest contribution.

I want to finish off, finally, with some comments on the minority reports. I think Labour said they’d support this proposition. Good; they’re quite clearly trying to differentiate themselves somehow, so we’ve got the idea of having some different number. Kieran McAnulty said a proportional number, but I don’t know how you do a proportional number when Auckland is a lot bigger than Wellington and bigger than Christchurch, and New Plymouth and Masterton are very different sizes. It would be complicated. You might choose another arbitrary level, which is, I guess, what he was suggesting. OK. I think what I’d say is let’s just try what we’ve got at the moment, and let’s see how it goes, and if it goes well, maybe have a look at that going forward. That seems to be where we’re at, at the moment.

It was the Greens, to me, who were really confused, because what they’re saying, effectively, is, “We’ve got enough money in this country to build all the houses that we need.” I don’t know where that money’s coming from, because, at the same time, they want a capital gains tax and they want to punish rental property owners, so they’re going to disincentivise people from building houses. I do not know which magic money tree, other than the State, they seem to want to raid to be able to build the houses this country needs. This bill is simply a small contribution, amongst a range of complex contributions, to fixing a big problem for this country in terms of housing, and I commend this bill to the House.

Unlike Cameron Luxton, who is actually a builder, I’m not a builder, but just before I started this job, I built 16 homes in a tiny little place in the very Far North, and I want to relate it to this bill. We built four-bedroom, three-bedroom, and two-bedroom homes on a piece of dirt in Te Kao. By building the homes, we then had to put a new road in. By putting the new road in, then we had to put in a brand new water treatment system, and this in the context of community development thinking, marae-centric thinking. All of this development happened because the community and the marae community decided we need homes—and, by the way, we know how to do this. Our tribe contributed to that investment, and Kāinga Ora also contributed to that investment.

The bigger context of this is managing around 4,000 hectares of farmland. We’ve got a truckload of farmland up in Te Kao. This is Aupōuri land: 3,000 bulls; a little mussel farm just down the way in Houhora. We put in 565 water tanks. What I’m describing here is the context—it’s not just about the house; it is about the community in which one resides. When I’m thinking about and reading this bill—which I’d like to support, but we’re not quite there yet.

Oh!

I know—yeah, no, I know. We should talk more. It is important because it is about the significance of community design, consultation, and development. That’s the position I want to bring into this discussion—might be a wee bit late, but, nevertheless, here it is.

From our perspective, in the essence of this bill, yes, it does remove barriers for overseas investors to build-to-rent, but what it does then is replace the barrier and put it smack in front of hapū and whānau and tribal—iwi—investors. That’s what it does. It doesn’t, in my view, and in our view, look closely and understand enough the context of which I’ve just described in my opening context. The barrier’s placed squarely in front of Māori, in introducing what can only be described as a golden ticket for foreign entities to farm us for money, land, and prosperity.

Pfft.

I know—I know—it does make people go “Pfft”, but stick with me.

I use the term “golden ticket” purposefully, right? You will all recognise that I use words really clearly. [Interruption] There’s not an accident in the way I describe our reality. Right, I’ll start again. I use the term “golden ticket” purposefully, understanding that in the context of this coalition Government’s overall policy platform, this bill cannot be viewed in isolation of a wider machine. The previous speaker talked about how, well, it’s a small contribution to a whole big network of things. That’s the bit we can simply not trust.

What?

I know, I know, it’s OK. No, hang in there—we’re good. It’s Thursday—stick with me.

If it wasn’t already grim—I’m going to say it again: if it wasn’t already grim—for whānau to buy their own homes now, allowing overseas competitors—overseas competitors—to buy whenua and build rentals will make it more difficult, clearly. Now, just register that: for our mokopuna to own homes in their future. The smokescreen here is that this will assist with the rental shortage here at home. It’s going, “No, no, no, Mariameno, we’re going to get more—I mean, really, this is good for you. Go with us.” We are a nation of renters because the housing market is so inaccessible. So what do we do? The Government’s best answer is to sell our whenua to overseas investors and build more prisons and set up boot camps. Thank you for the housing strategy.

Here we go—30 seconds left—we simply cannot support this. We’d like to be able to, but it doesn’t do enough and it doesn’t understand us enough. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to tautoko the previous speaker, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, but also the Hon Julie Anne Genter, in opposing this bill on behalf of the Green Party. Now, understandably, this bill is to remove barriers for overseas investment in build-to-rent housing. I’ll talk more about our housing crisis in a bit, but in terms of the bill itself, let’s first discuss what has happened during the committee stage. I would like to point out also my appreciation to the Minister of Housing for answering our questions diligently during the committee stage. That is much appreciated when that does happen.

If you’re looking at the policy statement, we can talk about the nuance in terms of some of the things that we mentioned in the committee stage around the exemptions when it comes to the Overseas Investment Act, the complexity of that Act itself, and the sort of exemptions and allowances that this bill has to make in order to make that particular Act work or to make this particular exemption work, as well as in terms of our international obligations through either our free-trade agreements or our comprehensive economic partnership agreements.

However, the basis of this bill is that we want to see more rental properties or more housing that is affordable for the people of Aotearoa. Does this bill serve that purpose? The bill itself is simply to buy existing, large rental developments, not in terms of creating or increasing the stock of the rental market but the existing ones. I think that, fundamentally, is one of the barriers or the challenges that we see with this bill—what is the actual likelihood of us increasing the housing stock, other than simply passing the issue from one party to another?

One of the things that did come up during the committee stage—and I think the Hon Julie Anne Genter was very accurate when it comes to the question around this—is that when we see that it’s not going to increase, and that domestically we do not have the capital or the resources to fund for things and we need people from overseas to actually come here and buy up the sort of large rental development properties, and there is no other way for us to do that, we must also realise that the revenue that is being made from these is also less likely to stay in Aotearoa as well. In many ways: who does this benefit and where is this money going to?

I think it’s really important to point out as well—and I think it’s incredibly ironic to point out—that for myself and for my communities, as migrants, we have been repeatedly told that we need to be grateful and fall in line, yet we have a system here which is looking overseas to help solve our housing issue that we should, as people from Aotearoa, be grateful for. I’m also, in this particular case, quite surprised that the very party who are interested in keeping everything within the country to benefit the people of Aotearoa seem to be OK with sending some of that money and the revenue that we will be making from this if we keep it within Aotearoa overseas as well.

I think, fundamentally, there are two major issues that we have with this. The housing crisis is real. We need more houses for our people and for our communities and to create that intergenerational connectivity. That is important. It will be the root cause, and it will help solve some of the root cause issues we are seeing in our communities around crime, around mental health, and around the cost of living, but this bill doesn’t really address that. The concern we have is that not only will it not increase the housing stock; it will send the revenue overseas, and at the same time, it will be what this Government will do as a pat on the back for a job well done when there are better ways for us to address the crisis.

What another great day for a Government that can now proudly claim and own the fact that we are the party for mum and dad landlords, we are the party for homeowners, and now this is just another step to confirm that we are the party for renters. It gives me great pleasure to rise and support this third reading of the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill.

Let’s just take an opportunity to recap some of the achievements in and around this, because we don’t want to over talk this piece of legislation, because it’s only a small piece of the puzzle. Let’s not forget that we’ve done a lot in and around making housing more affordable going into the future, and putting the downward pressure on rent increases going into the future. We’ve lifted the brightline test to 10 years. We’ve brought back deductibility, treating interest as a genuine expense. We’ve brought back no-cause terminations on 90-day contracts. Thanks to Minister Penk, as Minister for Building and Construction, we’ve put more competition into building products. We’re reforming our building consent regime, as Minister Penk is working on with the councils. We’re making it easier for building granny flats. And, of course, there’s the reforms that we will see unleashed this year on the 1991 Resource Management Act.

Come back to the bill at some point, Mr Brewer.

Madam Speaker, thank you, on this Thursday, for giving me that latitude which is always expected on a third reading from at least one member of the Government! And that falls to me! I won’t mention that rents increased $170 per week under the last Government; nor will I mention that the social housing waiting list increased by over 20,000.

I want to finish off specifically talking about the bill because I want to leave a gem with our listeners on “Truth Radio” and viewers on TV today—that this is perfect for the likes of Auckland. For a city that has gone through the unitary plan of 2016, it caters very well for these medium- to large-scale build-to-rents. Whether they can be done and whether they will be done, there’s a lot of excitement for filling in the terrace housing, apartment zone, and mixed housing urban zone. These build-to-rents, medium-sized residential complexes are perfect in our town centres, in our metro centres, in our transport hubs, and on our arterial roads. If you want to know the excitement that’s brewing—

Ay!

Aw!

—go to this—you like that? You like that? If you want to know this, just to finish up, Madam Speaker—because David MacLeod gave me 10 minutes, but apparently it’s shorter—buildtorentnz.co.nz.

I’ll give it to you again: www.buildtorentnz.co.nz. The Property Council has led this, and you will see on that buildtorentnz.co.nz website all of what’s under construction, with 1,800 completed units, 736 under construction, and nearly 3,000 in the pipeline as of the end of December. Build-to-rent is ready to go. It’s already started. This will be huge news to a lot of people around New Zealand today. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty indicated, Labour is continuing to support this bill. I agree with the last sentence of the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, that build-to-rent is under way. It is under way because, when we were in Government, we put in place the regime that allowed it to happen. We created the asset class. We made it clear that build-to-rent was part of solving our housing crisis. I agree with speakers in this House that have been careful to say that this is not some kind of magical solution to the housing crisis in New Zealand, but when we were in Government, none the less, we saw it as an important piece of the puzzle of solving a housing crisis and why we put in place the legislation to create the asset class of build-to-rent.

I think it is worth remembering that one of the things when creating that asset class is we were creating a new way of renting in New Zealand. This wasn’t just about building large apartment blocks and saying that there needed to be X number of owners. It actually was looking at it from the perspective of renters and saying, “If we’re going to create a new class for landlords, what does that mean for the people who are renting those?” Under this asset class, those people renting those apartments have the right for leases up to 10 years. This is hugely important. One of the things that we heard very loudly when we were doing the policy work around this is that renting is changing in New Zealand. Some people choose to rent their whole lives and they want to make sure that they can create a home in the place that they are leasing or renting, not live on year-to-year tenancies which do not allow their children to continue at the same school or to put down roots in a community.

One of the things that we, when in Government, also put work into was putting in place funding to ensure that this actually could be extended out to community organisations that could provide another part of our housing puzzle and solving our housing crisis. That we could get affordable rentals—not public housing but something that sat between the market and public housing in the form of community rentals, owned and rented at cheaper rates. Unfortunately, this Government has removed that piece of the puzzle by scrapping the fund that would have allowed our community providers to do that. That is a great shame, and I do ask the Government to reconsider that, because we will not solve a housing crisis until we resurrect that piece of housing that sits between the market and public housing, which we had in New Zealand for decades—decades and decades, since the 1930s—until the previous National Government created community housing providers’ access to the income-related rent subsidy, and we saw the dissolving of what had been a mainstay of housing in New Zealand.

In supporting this bill, I do put that plea out to the Government to rethink what I think has been a huge error, and one of the reasons we are seeing upticks in homelessness and why we are seeing more people that are not even getting on to the public housing waiting list but cannot find housing. We have to make sure that we are looking to solve the housing crisis for the most vulnerable in our communities as well, and if we just leave it to market mechanisms like this, it will not do it on its own.

This bill is very specific and very narrow in that what it does is it responds to concerns from the sector to do a belts and braces approach around laying bare in terms of the Overseas Investment Act what the test is. There was a long stream of advice that came through from Treasury and from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development that, actually, what needed to be done could be done under the settings of the Official Information Act. In Government and in Opposition, we’d indicated that we were willing to look at whether we did need to put in further backstops to make it clear that this was an asset class that was open for investment in New Zealand and that we were encouraging.

There are always tweaks that can be made to a regime. This is a new regime that was only put in place, I think, in 2022 when we passed the legislation to allow the creation of this asset class. We will need to monitor it over the coming years to ensure that it is fit for purpose. We have international examples to look to that many other countries do have build-to-rent schemes, but New Zealand has to make sure that we’re continually watching it to make sure that it is fit for purpose here in Aotearoa. Labour is pleased to support this legislation but we do urge the Government to not cut off what are some incredibly important parts of making this work for all of our community. That means reversing the cuts that they have made to housing and, in particular, in the area of affordable rental housing to community providers.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is great to continue the conversation in this regard. As has been said by, I think, both sides of House, we appreciate the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s certainly part of that puzzle. As our Minister said, it’s creating a streamlined pathway. One of the members opposite was a bit grumpy that we’re not extending it to the regions, but I think the realistic nature of this bill is that it’s probably not going to appeal to those regions, so I think it’s probably a fairly moot point.

This is largely about supply. I’d like to quote from The Post from just this Saturday: “For example, I have a rental property on the same street as one owned by a friend, and they are similar properties. My property was rented in two days, although I did reduce the rent by $70, but my friend reduced his rent by $150 and he still hasn’t rented it.” I think that’s an indicative example of the work that we’re doing, as a Government, across the ecosystem of housing, and it is and has been putting evidence and downward pressure on rents. It is all about supply, and this bill is another good example of supply.

The chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Mr Brewer, has already alluded to many of the layers, the things that we have done over the last few months in Government. Of course, it was great news, only yesterday, to have the official cash rate drop by 50 basis points. The flow-on effect is just another example of the compound effect that we’re doing towards housing. The Minister beside me, the Hon Chris Penk, is doing some excellent work around consenting. Again, I’ll use that term “a streamlined pathway”—removing the friction in consenting to get houses built faster and quicker, so instead of taking three months or six months to get consent, hopefully six weeks, and we can build and be more productive.

The comment was made that we removed some funding from the housing portfolio, but we’re also enabling community housing providers (CHPs) to build housing and create—

It was money for the CHPs—it was actually money for them!

Remember, Kāinga Ora, how gold—

It wasn’t Kāinga Ora; it was CHPs.

No, no. If you’d let me finish, you might learn something, the Hon Megan Woods. Through the Kāinga Ora wasteful-spending situation, we’ve pulled some of that money back, and we’re creating competition with community housing providers to build more housing. We’re actually going to get a more diverse typology of housing, including affordable rentals, for you, Megan. That’s fantastic news.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce yet another thing that this Government is doing to enable housing supply and get Kiwis housed—private rental, market rental, affordable, the whole lot. We’re into it.

Goodness! That was quite something, seeing a newish member of the House explain—explain—what’s going on in the housing market to the former Minister of Housing. That was just interesting.

I’m going to explain something else back to that member Ryan Hamilton, and that’s to do with rent and what drives rents. It was something that he might have missed in the Monetary Policy Statement around what was happening with rents. Existing rents are staying high; new rents are going down. We know that a large part of what drives rents is demand. Now, if it was the case that rents dropped in response to interest drops, those existing rents should have dropped too, but they have not. It’s a simple little fact that rents are typically driven by demand in the rental market. So, you know, there’s something going on there—linked to the number of New Zealanders that have had to leave this country in order to find work. We know that net migration has slowed—that’s probably what’s been driving the rental market more than anything else.

Having said all that—I do want to address this particular bill, the detail of it rather than the points that have been made in argument—Labour does support this bill, perhaps with one or two reservations. This is work that we started, and we do want to see more build-to-rent investment in New Zealand. I think it’s important to note, for some people who are a bit dubious about it, that all it does is create a streamlined process through the Overseas Investment Act, right. All the other requirements of that office still apply, so there are still protections in there for New Zealand in terms of the sale of land. What it does is it creates a capacity where an investor is going to invest in build-to-rent housing, then that can go through the Overseas Investment Office in a slightly more streamlined fashion.

The point of build-to-rent, as my colleague the former Minister of Housing Megan Woods pointed out, was it that creates that security for renters—that renters know that they can have a tenure of a property for 10 years, perhaps longer, depending. What it means is that a renter in that build-to-rent space can put down roots in a community. Of course, we know in many countries overseas, people do rent for their entire lives, in the same building, in security. It’s a perfectly viable method of providing housing and of providing long-term, secure housing.

There is something I think we want to be a little bit cautious about here, though, in that in New Zealand, we have typically accumulated security through homeownership. That is what has built security for a family, for a couple, for an individual, and for the next generations of a family. Now, I support build-to-rent because it does give tenants security of tenure, and perhaps tenants who might not be able to afford to buy a house. But I don’t want to see people being priced out of a housing market altogether.

I think it’s quite important that we do a couple of things. One is that we do work hard to ensure that we have that security of housing tenure available in an ownership model as well as a build-to-rent model, but there’s also an alternative. We know that New Zealanders are very fond of their investments in homes and housing—people enjoy investing in it—but there are other routes for building up security, for building up the financial resources of a family. I think one of the things we need to consider is how we enhance KiwiSaver; how we ensure that every person in this country has access to KiwiSaver savings; how that gives them a different form of security—that’s not the security of an owned home, but it is the security of resources built up in your own name, through another savings mechanism.

Of course, if we value KiwiSaver, we’ve also valued the security of the owned home, and that’s why the build-to-rent is quite good—I see these things as going together. I’m just going to point out that we owe a lot to that gifted Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen, who set up KiwiSaver and got it going. It has proved to be a real boon to New Zealand. I think this move to encourage build-to-rent investments—started under the Labour Government; enhanced by this current Government—is a good thing to do. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand needs more high-quality, long-term, stable homes, so build-to-rent is one of the ways that we will deliver them, and this is why I’m standing here to support the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill. Now, our Government is making it easier for investors to find these projects in New Zealand so we can build more homes, create more jobs, and provide long-term, stable homes.

Why does providing more jobs matter for New Zealand? Because they’re more than just numbers on spreadsheets. It means more apprentices will get into the projects with construction, more work for tradies, more engineers, more architects, more suppliers, more plumbers, more drainers, more excavator operators, more forklift drivers, more diggers, more landscapers, and the list goes on. It means, also, for the local businesses, as the developments take shape, more cafes, more coffee, more sandwiches, more hardware stores, more service providers. They will be seeing the real benefits when they see the projects in their community. It also means that Kiwi families in New Zealand will now have more income, have more money for more choices at the supermarket checkouts, more after-school activities for their children.

This is why build-to-rent is part of our wider plan as the National Government to go for growth, because we’re saying yes to solutions, yes to actions, yes to more income, yes to a stronger economy for all Kiwis in the country. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do just want to indulge the House really shortly for a moment, to pay tribute to Jennifer Anne Ng. This morning, the Assistant Speaker, myself, and the Serjeant-at-Arms went to her funeral to pay our respects on behalf of Parliament. We heard about Jenny the friend; “Grandma”, as the Chamber officers would delightfully call her; and Jenny the Ceroc dancer, the art appreciator, the jewellery appreciator—Jenny, just an amazing friend. I do want to acknowledge that Jenny was a wonderful constituent of the electorate of Mana. I loved being able to see her at community meetings at the rest home village where she and Bobby lived, so we give our love and thoughts to Bobby, the Young family, and to our Chamber office staff as well.

I do rise to take a call on behalf of the Labour Party on the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill. Many aspects of this bill have been traversed both within the various readings and the committee of the whole House stage. As part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee process, we received 27 submissions on this, including from a local iwi, which I acknowledged in the second reading of the House, who provided us with a bit more scope for the committee to think about, but on parts which are not within the scope of this bill.

I do want to support a number of the comments made by both Dr Megan Woods and Dr Deborah Russell in relation to this, and to acknowledge Dr Megan Woods for her work that she did around the build-to-rent regime, basically bringing it up, because we knew that it was an area within the housing policy that was missing at the time when Labour was in Government. One of the interesting things is that, when you’re going around meeting a number of businesses and investors, you actually hear about what the good things are that the previous Government has done. Actually, one of the large Kiwi investors said that the build-to-rent work that they had done at the time of Minister Woods was actually a standout for them. I just want to acknowledge Dr Megan Woods for her work that she’s done, and also just acknowledge the Minister for carrying that work through.

As members of the Labour Party have set out, this is a very narrow set of circumstances in the Overseas Investment Act. It does streamline the test in order to make things slightly quicker for those who have the volume of build-to-rent units. It has not removed some of those protections from the Overseas Investment Act, which is why this side of the House is supporting it—it makes it slightly easier because of the type of test it is with the volume and the 20 units that it’s put in, but also because some of the other protections which are still within the Act apply.

I also do want to acknowledge the point made by the Hon Kieran McAnulty in relation to the regional tests. We did hope that as a party, we would be able to convince other members of the House to consider proportionality, particularly in the regions where 20 units actually could be quite difficult to build. It’s unfortunate that we were unable to convince members on the Government side to change that through the committee of the whole House. Nevertheless, even despite that, we will still support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

The coalition Government is going for growth—going for growth in incomes, jobs, and housing. A big part of this is by unlocking the potential of foreign direct investment. The way we do this is by removing barriers. That is what this bill seeks to do by incentivising foreign investment in build-to-rent. I think all that has been said in this House is relevant. I don’t have much more to contribute other than to say I agree with the statements made from many sides of this part of the House. It is part of the solution. It is good news for Auckland. It is good news for renters. It’s good news for wider New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

We come first to the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to clause 1.

Leave is sought for this purpose. Is there objection? There is objection. So first of all, members, we come to clause 1. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to speak on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum number of District Court judges by one, from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. This increase will help alleviate any pressure on the courts arising from the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill which is currently being considered by this House. Funding for the additional District Court judge has been secured from Budget 2024.

On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I am committed to improving timeliness and reducing delays in our courts. It is critical that victims, their families, and everyone coming through the courts can access fair and timely justice so they can move on with their lives faster.

While this bill is specifically targeted to supporting sentencing reforms, the Government also has a much wider timeliness programme under way. The Government and the judiciary are working to roll out several initiatives across the courts, such as improvements to the duty lawyer system, bail scheduling, and larger reforms like Te Au Reka. These are designed to create a more efficient system, with progress and impacts on the courts being closely monitored. Once we have a better idea of how the courts are performing under these new initiatives, further resourcing requirements can be considered if needed.

The statutory cap on District Court judges includes Youth Court judges and Family Court judges, as the Youth Court and the Family Court are both divisions of the District Court. The cap was last amended in 2019. Since then, additional judges have been appointed, bringing the total number of fulltime-equivalent judges to at or near the statutory maximum.

We currently have 181.2 fulltime-equivalent judges appointed, bringing us very close to the current statutory cap of 182. The cap on the number of judges is set out in legislation so Parliament can have oversight of public spending on judges while preserving judicial independence. While we are asking the courts to do more in imposing tougher sentences for criminals and implementing stronger law and order policies, the Government is also ensuring they have the resources needed to do so.

In conclusion, notwithstanding, this is a small bill, I consider this an important part of delivering on the Government’s law and order commitments and supporting the courts to deliver timely justice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re on clause 1, but I just have a quick question for the Minister in the chair, just to pick up on what the Minister was mentioning before. Thank you, Minister, for giving such a comprehensive background and context on this bill and some of the wider projects.

I think one of the things with the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, as indicated in the title, is that when the bill was being debated, it was part of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill as well. Now hearing from the Minister, in terms of some of the broader work that is being done in terms of the judiciary and around capacity, etc., I want to check with the Minister: why, then, did this bill get introduced at this particular moment when other works are already being done? Especially since this bill has been split out from the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill so that it has to go through all of these processes, including the debate and all of the speeches, etc., why do we have to go through all of that when the Minister’s signalling that there is other work being done?

Surely it might be a good idea to see how some of that is being carried out first and then having a better sense of what has been indicated in this bill is actually the best option or the best number of increase. I’m sure that the Minister has also seen in a number of submissions that other people have made comments in terms of the actual number, which I’m sure we’ll debate on to in clause 4. But, I think, in the context of clause 1 and what the Minister has said, I just want to check: based on what you said, why, again, this bill now? Thank you.

Thank you. I thank the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his question. I understand why it’s being asked. If I can just relate to the last increase that occurred in 2019, where we actually increased the number of judges from 165 through to 182. That was for a number of reasons at the time, and we quickly went up to, I believe it was, about 172 judges within that appointment. The officials have gone away, looked at what the reforms are that this Government is putting through will require in terms of how many judges will be needed.

Because we are sitting on that 181.2, we just want to be able to relieve some of that pressure should there be an increase required. This will actually lift the cap to 183.5; it’s currently sitting on 182—oh, 181.5; so many numbers! In actual fact, we do think that just one additional judge will be required, should we actually need it. At this stage, having moved in 2019 from 165 judges to 182, we’ve already put a significant increase of judges into the District Court system. This really is a bit of a backfill just in case it’s needed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very, very brief question, because I want to ask the Minister—and also signalling to you, Madam Chair, that I have—more questions when we get to clause 4 of this bill, in terms of the number itself.

I want to pick up on, with the Minister, what you mentioned before. Can I just check in your expert opinion, also in terms of the information you have from the officials—what you are saying is that the addition of one at this stage is anticipatory in case the capacity increases, but the actual capacity we have now in terms of the court system is actually sufficient, based on the 2019 increase. Would that be a correct assumption?

Can I just remind the member we’re on clause 1, which is around the title.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Labour supports this bill, but certainly doesn’t support the legislation which the Minister says has given rise to it. I don’t intend to have a substantive debate about the provisions of the bill, but there are two kind of general policy matters that I would invite the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee to comment on. She’s already noted that there was a rise in the number of available District Court judges from 165 to 182 some years ago. It’s against that background, against that increase, we’ve seen a very significant increase in judges’ workloads.

Dr Webb, can I just remind you we’re on clause 1.

Yes, well, I understand that clause 1, the “Title” clause, is the appropriate place to have a wider introductory discussion about policy. If I may say, Madam Chair, I don’t intend to go through in detail further in the debate, so I thought I’d get these policy questions out of the way early on, and then we—you know, if Dr Xu-Nan wants to go through in detail, he’s welcome to, but I won’t be. If I’m asking your indulgence, I’ll do that.

As long as it relates to clause 1.

Well, it’s the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, and the question is around the number of judges.

My first question is really about the number of judges required, because we’ve got not only the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill that this was going to be associated with, but also the young serious offenders legislation and the gang patch and three-strikes laws. My first question is whether the number is even going to be enough.

The Minister in her introductory comments mentioned he work programme in terms of the District Court judges putting some procedures in place, and some work on bail and duty solicitors. My second question is in terms of the number of cases backlogged and the time taken, what progress has been made with those? If there’s no progress, that’s a concern, but if there is progress, why do we need this?

I thank the member for his question, but I don’t see anywhere in the title where it talks about the number of judges. The District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill is about initiating one more judge—from 182 and to 183.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, we now come to clause 2. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the commencement date, I would like to get some clarification from the Minister. Yes, it’s perfectly understandable, and it’s quite a common practice we see—that the Act comes into force after Royal assent—but something that we did see, as part of the select committee process, and also the report, is the fact that the appointment of the judge itself could happen at any time. While the commencement date is after Royal assent, I want to check with the Minister if the Minister has any sort of advice or any thoughts around when this appointment will be likely to take place.

That’s not for me to decide, about when an appointment may take place. What this bill does is allow for the implementation of an extra judge when it’s needed. It’s expedient for us to do so, as soon as this bill has received Royal assent, should it be voted that far through, and it looks like it will be because it seems to have support across the House. All we are merely doing is allowing the judiciary and other officials to start the appointment process, when it may be determined to be needed.

The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Members, we are up to clause 4, “Section 12 amended (Maximum number Judges)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions around clause 4 regarding the increase to the amendment numbers from 182 to 183 or when we’re looking at potentially part-time equivalent full-time staff (EFTS) from 181.5 to 182.5.

I guess my first question is when we’re looking at section 12 of the District Court Act, we can’t read section 12 independently—we must read it in conjunction, and I think particularly in conjunction, with section 11 of the District Court Act 2016. Although the Minister mentioned before that this is sort of anticipatory in terms of the court system then being able to start identifying and working on all of those, I want to check if the Minister has considered, first and foremost, how that process is going to take place, and particularly in terms of which areas are most likely we’re looking at where that judge is going to be appointed.

Again, I come back to the purpose of this bill in conjunction with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which states that it’s in anticipation of an increase, potentially, in load of the number of people who are going to be attributed to that. Then what I’m not sensing or having any clarity on is how, then, we’re going to take that conjunction bill that is going to be looked at later and then find a solution to know where that extra one EFTS or potentially multiple—0.2 or 0.5 dotted—is going to actually be appointed throughout the country. If we see a sudden increase in, let’s say, Tāmaki-makau-rau, we’re not going to be able to know that if we appoint a 0.5 EFTS judge in Ōtautahi. I just want to get a sense of how you’re planning on that on the data that you’re going to be using to know where to appoint that extra one judge.

The purpose of this bill is to allow for the appointment of an extra judge and raising the cap. The detail that the member is looking for is not actually relevant to the bill that’s here, and it’s not the Minister in charge of the bill—the Minister of Justice—that makes the appointments. Appointments are made with the help of the judiciary, who will help inform officials as to where that extra additional help may be needed. For the purposes of this bill, it’s allowing them the opportunity to be able to make those additional appointments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will have another go, because I didn’t get a very satisfactory answer last time. I’ll reframe it to be a question about the number of judges rather than a general policy question. There were two parts to my question, but I’ll ask them separately.

In terms of having one judge, there has been an ongoing problem of a backlog of work and significant delays in a number of courts, but especially in the District Court. The Associate Minister of Justice alluded to a number of initiatives, and in determining that one judge is enough, it seems to presuppose that those initiatives are being effective. Could she assure the committee, preferably by reference to some substantive evidence, that the initiatives that she referred to—and I recall bail, District Court judges’ initiatives, and duty solicitor initiatives—are having tangible results on a reduction in backlogs?

I took my seat because I thought the Minister would respond directly, but if she needs to take some advice on that, that’s fine as well. My other question in terms of whether the number of one is the right number relates to the advice she received. She alluded to receiving advice about the Sentencing Act, but the Sentencing Act is only one part of the programme that the Government has, and so I would like to hear from her whether she is confident that, in respect of the Sentencing Act, just one judge is enough, because looking at the complexity of that Act, it’s a lot of work and there’s certainly going to be a lot more sentencing done and a lot more imprisonment, but also in terms of the other reforms in the justice sector that will create more work for District Court judges, including three strikes, gang patches, and young serious offenders, and whether she’s taken into account that legislation and the additional judicial workload flowing from those pieces of legislation as well.

Thank you to the member Duncan Webb for his questions. The advice that we have received is that one judge, at this stage, should be enough. Part of the reason why we are not looking to do a massive increase like we did previously, from 165 to 182, is because of the financial implications that are there, which could be based on, actually, allowing this, because it’s ongoing, right? We want to ensure that we have what is required, and what we have been told is required is one judge.

When it comes to the other initiatives of this Government to restore law and order back into our communities and make criminals accountable for their crimes, then we have other initiatives that we have in place for court timeliness, and this will help free up some of the judges’ times as well. At the moment, what we are looking at is the implementation of legislation to allow the consideration of increasing what is required in the courts by the judges, and we think that we are being proactive in this. I’m being asked what the numbers are. Well, the other laws haven’t actually gone through yet, nor have any sentences gone through yet. What we are doing is being proactive and preparing for what is to come, because we will be making criminals accountable for their actions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, coming back to clause 4, I want to pick up on what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, but the thing is, what I want to check as well from the Minister—again, I hear Minister’s passionate speech. That is fine, but I want to check with the Minister if she has received advice in terms of the number of judges specifically, and if she or her officials have taken into consideration the 2022 report Improving Access to Civil Justice, and particularly when it comes to the fact that in that report it does specify that despite the fact that there is an increase in the number of District Court judges, like the Minister has said, from 160 to 182, we are still seeing a decline of District Court’s civil jurisdiction and that we’re still catching up to it. Has the Minister, in making the decision on just increasing one in this case, taken into consideration the recommendations of this particular report, being the first question?

The second question for the Minister is: if there are other things that the Minister said that they are considering, are we hearing from the Minister that she is also not ruling out the possibility that we might be seeing a further piece of legislation down the track that would increase the number of maybe not even District Court judges but other forms of judges as well?

The last thing I want to ask is: does she have any idea, because she said that District Court judges not only include the District Court but other courts as well in terms of the Youth Court and the Family Court, where this extra one judge would be coming from and whether this one extra judge would be going into the Youth Court, would be going into the District Court, would be going into the Family Court—whether there’s evidence for that?

Three questions to the Minister. The first one is: has the Improving Access to Civil Justice report been taken into consideration as part of this decision making? Number two, in terms of the increase of just one, are we seeing future legislation based on what the Minister has said that potentially increases the number of judges further? And number three is: does she have any idea or any sort of clarification around which court would this judge likely go to—whether it’s district, youth, or family?

I’m going to say it again: the decision to increase one judge is based on the advice and the research that’s been done, the information that’s been received from the judiciary as well as the officials, as to what we could proactively implement should there be an increase. I did not make mention of any further legislation coming. What I made mention of is other court timeliness aspects that this Government is producing to help the judges.

As for the clarification as to where they will go, I’ll just repeat again: the legislation that we are preparing for has not gone through the House yet, has not impacted the courts yet, and the whole purpose of allowing an extra District Court judge is to be able to implement one should we need it, and wherever it is needed.

Just very quickly, I totally understand where the Minister in the chair is coming from, but by locking us into one additional judge, surely the Minister is anticipating this, because this was the advice the Minister has given. I do ask the Minister where she thinks this is going. I understand that we are looking at a level of judicial independence and how they’re able to do that, but surely by knowing that potentially only one is needed, is there other advice or suggestions or clarifications that she has received regarding where it’s going?

Maybe I can reword it another way. In 2019, we increased from 165 to 182, based on the projections that the officials on the judiciary told us that they needed. That was six years ago. We are now at a point where they are suggesting there is a possibility that we may need one more, so we are introducing one more just in case they need that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I will report this bill without amendment.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I don’t mean to be rude, but didn’t we need to vote on the final clause itself? You just had a vote on whether the debate now close.

Thank you, Dr Webb. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Members, we now come to the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 10—“Shooting clubs and shooting ranges”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I’m pleased to be here for this stage of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill forms phase two of the Government’s four-phase approach to firearms reform, which will provide for greater protection of public safety by simplifying regulatory requirements to improve compliance. The bill signals a change of approach from the current punitive regulation of shooting clubs and ranges to a more collaborative approach that supports public safety.

Shooting clubs and ranges play an important public safety role. They are places where firearm users can learn, practise, and compete in a safe environment. Ensuring these facilities are well supported to continue is important, as without these spaces, firearms users will not have safe places to perform shooting activities or to sight-in their rifles, creating risks that people will engage in these behaviours in areas that could put the public at risk.

The bill aims to improve the regulation of clubs and ranges by repealing and replacing Part 6 to make several key legislative amendments. This bill creates a distinction between the pistol and non-pistol shooting clubs and ranges. This reflects the distinction between how pistols and non-pistols are already regulated in parts of the Arms Act. In recognition of the higher regulatory requirements that are associated with pistols, the regulatory requirements for pistol clubs and ranges remain largely the same. The only change is to streamline the annual reporting requirements for pistol clubs by requiring that annual reports be submitted within two months of the end of the financial year.

For non-pistol clubs and ranges, the current approval and certification systems are replaced with a new enrolment system. The enrolment system is designed to ensure that the regulator has the information necessary to ensure public safety while reducing costs and the time burden for operators, many of whom are volunteers. I consider this will improve compliance and continue to provide for public safety.

The bill supports the operation of temporary non-pistol ranges by persons who have specialist knowledge by removing the barrier of certification. Instead, the regulator must be notified of the event. The temporary range can only operate for a maximum of two events per year, and each event can be for no more than four days in duration.

The bill seeks to reduce compliance burdens where there is no clear public safety benefit. Under the bill, non-pistol clubs will still have to be incorporated if they sell firearms and ammunition. However, they will not have to be incorporated if they only sell ammunition at the club range or event which is used on the day of the sale and is not taken off club premises.

The bill makes changes to compliance requirements. It specifies the timing at which inspections can occur. For pistol clubs and ranges, this is upon application for approval and certification and then at renewal dates. For non-pistol clubs and ranges, inspections can take place upon application for enrolment and then every five years. In both cases, additional inspections can take place if there is a change in circumstance which impacts the safety of the range. This helps clarify requirements for volunteers while ensuring inspections are still able to occur when necessary to ensure public safety. The other change is to specify that the regulator can only remove hard-copy documents during an inspection. I consider these changes will ensure that clubs and ranges are not unduly burdened with compliance requirements while providing strong incentives for operators to maintain high safety standards.

Lastly, the bill makes a series of changes to existing references to the Minister of Police and the commissioner to reflect the shift in the policy responsibility for the Arms Act from the police portfolio to the justice portfolio. Ultimately, the bill addresses the over-regulation of clubs and ranges by reducing requirements which have no clear public safety benefits. By supporting shooting clubs and ranges to comply with the Act, we can support better public safety outcomes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions, but the primary one I’d like to really understand from the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee is about the proposed enrolment system which is contained within the bill.

The bill provides to return, really, to a system which was here in New Zealand before 2019, and it appears to be largely voluntary to allow safety practices set by the shooting governing body. The concern that we have in the Labour Party is that it provides no ability for Police to enforce the rules unless breaches are drawn to their attention by a third party. The Police Association have raised this issue during the select committee stage, and also Police, the organisation, has raised these issues in their briefings, both to the Minister and in their briefings to the committee.

The proposals contained within this bill will, effectively, limit police inspections of clubs and ranges to once in every five years—at the first application for enrolment or certification, and then at a five-yearly application for renewal. The reduced ability for police to carry out inspections, we consider, undermines the ability to enforce safety. While the primary purpose of this bill is to increase public safety, it seems disingenuous that we, through this legislation, are disempowering the New Zealand Police to be able to enforce safety.

This bill also increases the opportunity for unsupervised shooting ranges by people without licences, and it does create multiple loopholes for gang members and extremists—such as the one that happened in Christchurch on 15 March. In that particular instance, we had someone who was able to practise their shooting skills without police oversight, and our concern is that this legislation returns us to a system which would enable that terror attack to occur again in New Zealand.

It increases the opportunities, also, for the supply of ammunition, and so that is a real concern—for criminals who unlawfully hold a firearm to be able to potentially access ammunition. We know that ammunition is a form of currency in the criminal underworld, and it creates a very dangerous precedent in this space, for where these pop-up ranges can now occur. You could, effectively, have a shooting range appear over your back fence if you live rurally. There’s absolutely no ability for police to enforce safety measures or even inspect these facilities. If there are only two events per calendar year, there is no oversight. In our view, this is, effectively, a Wild West approach to firearms regulation in New Zealand.

Police are, effectively, locked out of doing inspections of either pistol ranges or non-pistol ranges for five years. It’s for that reason I would like the Minister to consider the amendment that I’ve proposed. That amendment is to enable police to conduct those inspections. The amendment removes subsection (2), so that the provision is the same as the existing Arms Act, would provide that police are able to inspect any shooting range, both pistol and non-pistol, with a minimum of seven days’ notice, to inspect compliance with Police Shooting Range Manual requirements. And that would be for ballistics, for safety, and for general public safety.

We believe that the self-regulation of something as dangerous as a firearm is not appropriate for New Zealand. We’ve learnt in our past that this can cause devastating effects to our community. We really would like to understand from the Minister why Police are being shut out of the ability to have oversight of something that is an incredibly dangerous area, and when Police themselves have repeatedly asked for the ability to have oversight in this area.

Furthermore—I’ll just wind up quickly—in 2024, Parliament’s Petitions Committee questioned the ability of operators of shooting clubs and ranges to be able to monitor and screen criminals—

Madam Chair.

—and I’d be interested to hear—

I’ll just let the member finish this question.

I’ll just finish. If the Minister would also like to answer that. In 2024, she may be aware that Parliament’s Petitions Committee questioned the ability of operators of shooting clubs and ranges to be able to monitor or screen for criminals and extremists who use the facilities. I want to know if she’s read that petition and if she’s aware of the advice within that petition. It also noted that Police and security agencies needed oversight of club internal processes, which this bill cuts them out of.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a lot to unpack in there, especially the pure amount of misinformation that has just been read out on what this bill does and why this bill has amendments. Bear with me while I try to go through everything that the member, the Hon Ginny Andersen, incorrectly said in her five-minute contribution. I expect that it’s going to take me a little while to go through this. Should I not have captured everything that the member had said, I invite the member to stand up again so that we can address some of that.

I’m going to, first of all, move to the enrolment system that we have introduced. The member has made the allegation that we are going to be returning to what it was before; we are not. Before, we did not have any enrolment system whatsoever, except for the pistol clubs, where police would go along and check on the ranges. What the member has failed to understand in her time sitting in the committee and listening to submitters is the fact that parent organisations from across the country already have their range standing operations: how they’re going to create a range, and how they’re going to operate that range.

I’m going to, just now, speak to the petition that the member spoke to about a range volunteer’s ability to monitor extremists. That is not a volunteer’s job, and the moment we start putting that on to volunteers in New Zealand, then I have to have grave concerns about what the role of New Zealand Police would be, because that’s for them. That’s for them to make sure that any person who gets a firearms licence is actually fit and proper to be in possession of it. For those that may be watching this at home, licensed firearm owners—and there’s just under 250,000 of them—are under watch for fit and proper behaviour every single day of their lives.

No, they’re not.

If they come to the attention of New Zealand Police for any reason whatsoever, even if it’s for being caught in a car accident—ask New Zealand Police because they will confirm it: they get, every night, every 24 hours, a list of licensed firearm owners who have come to the attention of New Zealand Police. That has been in place for quite some time, and that, Hon Dr Duncan Webb, is a fact.

What else have we got here? We have talked about—well, the member inaccurately, once again, said that police have been locked out of ranges. Police have not been locked out of ranges. In fact, if the member bothered to even read the legislation, it says we will ensure that the five-year ability is there, unless there is a change in circumstance. Now, that change in circumstance could mean, for example, a weather event that may have potentially done damage to the backstop on a range.

I think what is really important here is that, for some reason, that member thinks that all those volunteers that run the ranges and deliver the service for their communities are not interested in maintaining their range or making sure that they are operational. That, in itself, is a discredit to the volunteers in the country who have kept so many people safe by keeping an eye on those that are coming in—teaching them safe firearms handling skills and making sure that they are keeping an eye on them. Once upon a time, we had a position where those that were in charge of firearms activities had a relationship with New Zealand Police and were able to go knock on their door and tell them when they had concerns about an individual’s behaviour. That is still there, but that is something that we need to encourage more of, because the trust and confidence has, unfortunately, been lost. This is a way of being able to repair it.

When we’re talking about the supply of ammunition—and, in fact, the member, for some reason, has mentioned that non-licensed people could open up a pop-up range and practise shootings at schools. I have no idea what this has to do with the Arms Act, because non-licensed people don’t come under the Arms Act; they come under the Crimes Act, right? If they’re going to go ahead and do that—open up a range—then they are committing an illegal activity in itself under the Crimes Act.

Also, the fact that there are these pop-up ranges—I know, the member is not really interested—I’m losing my train of thought; there was so much there. There is legislation around the pop-up ranges which requires that not just anybody can create a temporary range—it’s not a pop-up range; it’s a temporary range. In fact, those that can create a temporary range are only those that are either a member of a club or organisation that is already considered to be a part of the fraternity. It’s not Joe Bloggs, and anyone else that goes about doing that will, effectively, be committing an offence.

The ammunition side of it—this is really important, and I think, again, it speaks to the member not having any understanding about what actually happens on a range. The member is making accusations of innocent members of the public, who are volunteers, that they will potentially be giving live ammunition to people to take away from the range and not record it. That’s not how it operates. If the member knew the law, she would also know that a firearms licence is required in order to buy and sell ammunition—

Not if you’re with a mate. That’s not true, Nicole.

—and when they are not in possession of a firearms licence, then they must be under the immediate supervision of someone who does have a firearms licence. If the member had ever even attempted to go to a club and see how it operates, she would know that what is dispersed is the number of rounds required to finish or compete or complete an actual event. Any spare rounds are taken back to the club. It’s almost like the army, where the army must account for all of their rounds—that’s exactly what the club has done, too. I invite the member to actually read the legislation and stop misleading and scaring the public, because this legislation is actually going to create a really good regime, which Labour failed in.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call because I have heard a number of statements from the Minister which are inflammatory and inaccurate, and there is much I want to address in this bill.

When I look at the regulatory impact statement, I see that there’s a statement here that “Continuation of the status quo may contribute to the closure of shooting clubs and ranges where the volunteers who run them are unwilling or unable to comply with the regulatory requirements”. We know that the current regime has only been in existence for a year. Further on in the regulatory impact statement, it says there is “little evidence of any positive and negative impacts of the requirements.”, of the current requirements, but we’re told in the regulatory impact statement that in fact there has been very little engagement—there’s been incredible time constraint on the development of this bill, because of the Minister’s desire and knowledge of the firearms sector. It’s been compacted.

I say this as a firearms owner: I was astonished to hear—I’ve had my firearms licence since I was 16—that I’m now observed by the police day and night for my behaviour because I have a firearms licence. I can tell the Minister, that is not true. It is certainly not true.

To the point that there is very strict control of what happens on shooting ranges, we would have to put our faith in the good nature of the volunteers on every shooting range. While I do go to shooting ranges and I do know really good people, I couldn’t confirm that every single volunteer at every single shooting range will operate with protection and safety in mind and not behave in a way or make something possible for the criminals in our community, the criminal fraternity who may well want to access ranges, and we can’t identify them. The Minister is correct that the police should be notifying or keeping tabs on those who are in the criminal underworld, but, of course, our volunteers who run the ranges should be able to notify the police and should be keeping tabs on that as well.

There are many, many points I want to make. In particular, I’ve heard how the current regime is so punitive, how it’s been so burdensome on people, and yet there is no evidence for that. What we have here is a solution in search of a problem. We’ve got now a situation where we don’t know when the police are going—well, the police have to give notice for when they will be able to check on a range, and they can only do so within a certain period. If we think about that, should our traffic officers as well give us notice when they are going to be on the roads? Should they let us know, give us five years’ warning, when they’re going to check whether we’re speeding or have a licence or a warrant of fitness or our car is registered? Should the traffic police also give us notice, seven days’ notice, that they’re going to going to turn up to check the speed cameras? This is what this amounts to. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have taken away the ability of police to investigate, just to check, just to make sure things are OK. We have removed that from this bill.

This bill claims to want more safety. It claims to be working for public safety, and it is doing the exact opposite. I’m very much in support of Ginny Andersen’s amendment, and I would ask the Minister to consider and explain whether she will accept it, the amendment to clause 5 amending section 38XJ to delete subsection (2). I think that is an absolute necessity and it should be done, and I’d like the Minister to respond to whether she will at least do that. Thank you.

Just before I call the Minister, it’s come to my attention that one of the members heard someone calling out “lies” during one of the Minister’s sections, and I’m just wondering if there is a member in the Chamber that actually said that, who would like to withdraw and apologise?

Yes, Madam Chair, that was me, and I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, and I hope that won’t be repeated this afternoon or any time soon.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I raise an issue that I’ve been reflecting on for a wee while now, and that interaction made me think that perhaps now’s a good time to raise it. An accusation of misinformation or disinformation is akin to accusing someone of lying. We haven’t actually had any clear ruling on that, but it is an interjection that we hear relatively regularly in this House. You cannot call a member a liar; we know that. I’m conscious that you’re in the Chair, but as presiding officers, could that be something that you could reflect on and maybe come back to us on?

Absolutely. I’ll commit to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and if I may speak to that point of order—

You can speak to the point of order if you wish to. I’ve committed to go back and see what the ruling is around it, but if you feel like there is something you’d like to say about what you said, then feel free. It’s your time.

Yes, I would just ask, in the Chair’s reflection on that word “misinformation”, if we cannot use a word that accurately describes what has just been said in the Chamber, could the Chair then suggest what would be appropriate?

We’ll review the Hansard and what has been said today, and we’ll come back. I commit to coming back with a decision on that one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to speak to the Green member’s points. The Green member referred to the regulatory impact statement, which said, in his view, that there is no evidence for change of the status quo. I’m going to ask the member to reflect on the statements that were made when the legislation came in that said there was no evidence there was a problem that needed to be fixed. We are not going to back to what it was. We have taken some of the safety aspects of the introduction of Part 6 and maintained them. What we are looking to do here is stop some of the duplicative work and the burden that is on those volunteers to maintain it.

We have carefully gone through what it is that we are repealing or changing to ensure that it does not have a significant impact on public safety, and we are confident there are no changes there that do that. In relation to who can open a range, what we never had, as I mentioned before, was an enrolment system. We now have that, and there are consequences if a gang member goes and starts up a range and does not enrol with New Zealand Police or the administrator that they have opened that range. That’s a consequence. Before this legislation, we did not have that, so I am at a loss as to why the left side of this House are constantly saying that we’re rolling back when, in actual fact, we are making things stronger.

Also, as part of that enrolment system, anyone that enrols a range must, as I mentioned earlier, fit the criteria that is required in order to be able to open up what is referred to as a temporary range. Anyone that wants to start a whole new range must also comply by having range standing orders implemented and approved at that time as well—actually, not approved, but they must show they’ve got range standing orders. Now, if there is an issue, and a safety issue, that does not stop the administrator or the regulator from allowing the administrator to go and have a look. Quite frankly, a lot of clubs—most of the clubs and ranges I’ve seen around—have put their hands up and want to comply, want to be a part of the solution, and what we are doing is ensuring they can, because they are finding difficulties in so many places. We have not removed the ability for ranges to be checked on, so I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that.

In relation to the tabled amendment—it’s amendment 12.30.02, and it’s about removing section 38XJ, deleting subsection (2)—I’m again quite shocked that the member actually wants to remove the ability for Police to be able to go and check on a range every five years, because that’s what it says. Section 38XJ(2) is talking about when a Commissioner is considering an application for certification or renewal of its certification in respect of a non-pistol range, “the Commissioner is considering an application for enrolment, and then at intervals of not less than 5 years.” By removing that subsection, we’re actually removing the ability for the range to be checked, and I’m at loss as to why, when the left are saying they’re looking at public safety, they would want to remove that provision. I will not be in favour of voting for that amendment, because I think that would create a public safety risk.

Madam Chair, thank you for the call. This is the first time I’ve had a chance to speak on this bill in this House, but certainly not the first time I’ve engaged with this legislation. Al Noor Mosque is in my electorate. I had friends that died on March 15. I have friends to this day who are walking around with lead in their bodies and are still undergoing surgeries to have that lead removed, so when I hear a Minister sitting in the chair talking about the burden, I want her to understand a very clear burden: and that is walking around with a body full of lead, or for children walking around without their parents, for wives walking around without their husbands, and for a community that is grieving.

My first question to the Minister is: Minister, what engagement will you commit to doing with the Christchurch Muslim community in terms of these changes? We know, and it’s a matter of public record, that that community feels they have not had the ability to talk to you as the Minister in charge of this legislation; that you have not engaged, you have not met, and you have not entered into dialogue with the people who are literally walking around with the burden of the consequence of us not having gun law right in this country. What commitments will you make to that?

One of the pieces that I want to talk to is a tabled amendment that is in the name of my colleague, the Hon Ginny Andersen, and that is to clause 5, new section 38XIA, and clause 2, after 38X(1), to insert that non-pistol shooting ranges are to comply with the Police Shooting Range Manual—non-pistol shooting ranges must comply with requirements and guidance set out in the Police Shooting Range Manual. I think that this is a really important amendment that my colleague has put forward and I’d like to hear the Minister’s views on it and whether she’ll comply with it. What my colleague Ginny Andersen is doing is inserting the police right back into the equation around our gun laws, as the changes that we made post-March 15—for a reason—did.

If the Minister had spent time with the Christchurch Muslim community and had entered into a dialogue with them for more than 15 minutes, what she would know is it is the police who have that trusted relationship with the Muslim community. It is the police that those communities look to for their assurance of their safety. It is the police who they feel are keeping them safe. The ability for the communities to understand that the police have a role with the clubs is vitally important for part of the work that needs to happen in terms of earning back the trust of a community.

We don’t have to look much further than the pages of the royal commission into March 15 when we hear that a few “members of the Bruce Rifle Club said three aspects of the individual’s”—that being the terrorist’s—“behaviour was slightly out of the ordinary and, with hindsight, [might] be significant: (a) The individual usually shot while standing up. He went through a large amount of ammunition and his primary interests appeared to be firing at extremely fast rates and changing magazines quickly. (b) The individual displayed considerable interest in the military background of one of the members, an interest that made that member uncomfortable. (c) Sometimes the individual made remarks that were interpreted as indications that he had access to a large capacity magazine. According to two members, the individual was of the view that it was lawful for him to own a large capacity magazine”. It’s important that I read those into the Hansard because it speaks directly—

Can I just ask the member: is that currently publicly available information? Because some of this is before the coroner, so—

Yes. No, it’s publicly available.

—if it’s publicly available, that’s fine.

It’s from the royal commission’s report that was released publicly, and what I thought the Minister would be familiar with given it is so pertinent to any changes that we would be making about gun law. I do encourage the Minister, if she has not read the report of the royal commission—they are chilling words but none the less they are important words and the very basis for why we have to make sure that our—[Time expired] Madam Chair?—the very basis for why we—I’ll just conclude—

Yep.

We have to make sure that our gun laws in this country are safe. It speaks directly to why I’m asking the Minister to support my colleague’s amendment that puts the police right back at the centre of what needs to happen to ensure the safety of our communities; and that the burden of that safety, keeping our communities safe, which is something that our gun laws need to do, is carried as well.

I’d also ask the Minister a very simple question: how many gun clubs have shut down since the change in law?

I understand the emotion there is around what occurred on March 15th, and I think what is really important to put into the Hansard right now is that those under 250,000 licensed firearm owners were not that one individual. Those 250,000 licensed owners—who have been checked by New Zealand Police, as I’ve mentioned, for fit and proper status every single day—is something that actually should be celebrated because these people have been seen to be fit and proper.

When we talk about March 15, we also need to actually weigh up the legislative changes that were made then and the impact that it’s had, including the confusion within certain Acts and the inability for people to be able to provide safe venues. What I hear from this side—and it’s unfortunate—is that they look at every licensed firearm owner like they are a criminal, and they are not. That’s just exactly what I have heard from the left-hand side. I have been to Christchurch, I have met with the Muslim community—

For 15 minutes.

—I did not meet with them for 15 minutes—and I have met with a number of groups. Not only that, we have a Muslim reference group that we meet with, as well. We have the firearms community advisory group. We also have the Minister’s Arms Advisory Group, which there are Muslim members on. I request, in respect for the Muslim community, that we actually look at moving forward instead of moving backwards, because the legislation that was put in place has errors in it. We’ve had judges, we’ve had lawyers, we’ve had barristers, and we’ve had people impacted by this saying that we are going to be in a not better place because of the legislation. We want to update it, upgrade it—this is part of phase two—and all that we want to do is increase public safety.

The member had made mention about the New Zealand Police, like we’re leaving them out of the equation—we are not. What we are removing from New Zealand Police is the administration and regulation of the Arms Act. New Zealand Police will still be there for the enforcement.

What we are doing is ensuring what Labour should have done in the last Government when they created the Firearms Safety Authority, which was make it the truly independent authority that the royal commission of inquiry—which I have read—outlines that it should be. Instead, it became an organisation that was run by police and staffed by police and it wasn’t really truly independent. Our goal is to ensure that that organisation still stays; it’s just going to be administered by another agency, and it will support New Zealand Police with the enforcement of the Arms Act. They are not being excluded in any way.

No one here wants to see the sort of atrocity that we saw on 15 March 2019, and, I think, certainly no firearms owner would either, but the reality is that the Arms Act is over 40 years old and it needs updating. This is part of the beginning of the reforms that this Government has promised to do. It will create part of the outcomes that we have said that we are after, which is increase public safety, which is make sure the regulatory requirements are fit for purpose and able to be complied with, which is looking at compliance, because once we have compliance, we have people within the box.

What that side have done is brought in a whole lot of legislation that has been hard to deal with, hard to implement, and is actually costing people their time and, of course, their money. Clubs are volunteers. I would like to see from that side of the House an agreement that we would be able to at least have the provision for some of those safety aspects that they have introduced remain, and allow and support clubs and ranges to be able to operate so that they can continue to provide oversight and safety, training, education, and handling, not only to firearm users but to their families, as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for engaging so well in attempting to answer so many of our questions. The area that I’d like a bit more information on—and we heard a lot of this at committee in terms of submitters—is around the lack of national standards for rifle and shotgun ranges. We did actually hear from a number of club members from different ranges who were advocating for having a standard. It was equated to a road code—like, one single standard of safety that would apply.

The Shooting Range Manual, which was issued by the Commissioner of Police, is seen as somewhat of a road code of how to use firearms safely. A lot of effort, I understand, went into compiling that and having that information in one central place. That seems to me, and I’d be interested to hear from the Minister, to be a very useful tool for firearm safety in New Zealand.

This bill undermines consistency and public confidence in those safety standards, because it removes the current adherence to national standards for non-pistol, rifle, and shotgun ranges. This, quite strangely, too, is at odds with pistol ranges, that must use the guidance issued by the Commissioner of Police. We have two different standards under this legislation: we have the pistol ranges that have to use those standards, but the non-pistol ranges don’t need to; they develop their own. It basically means that those non-pistol ranges will be able to set their own standards, and police will only get the ability to inspect them against the operator’s own rules—so they make their own rules up and police come and say, “Did you comply with your own rules or not?”

That doesn’t seem right. It is not any law or regulation set by Parliament; they are completely looking after themselves. On this side of the House, when we have a resource such as the Shooting Range Manual, issued by the Commissioner of Police, why would they not use that as a central reference, a road code for firearms safety in New Zealand? It seems strange that one half of ranges are required to use it, and the other one does not.

Also, I would like to point out as well that I think, as a bare minimum, they should be required to adhere to the ballistic safety guidelines in the Police Shooting Range Manual. That would seem to make good sense. We heard many examples of where stray bullets had gone into sheds or farms or other areas, and we heard instances where, under the previous regime, before it was regulated, there were unsafe areas where there were not barriers or banks built, so if someone was riding a horse or partaking in mountain bike riding at a distance, then there would be the risk that a stray bullet could potentially hurt a member of the public.

Those ballistic safety guidelines outlined in the Commissioner of Police - issued Shooting Range Manual protect the public who are operating in and around those ranges, so it is a real concern that this legislation removes the requirement for non-pistol ranges, which will be able to set their own standards. Many of those—not all of them, but a good few—members of those clubs actually thought there should be one code, one road map for firearm safety. We heard from those who supported the bill, but when we asked that question to them—“Do you think we should have non-pistol ranges to be able to use the guidance in that Shooting Range Manual?—many of them agreed with us, so I’m interested to know why the Minister is making that change.

The other point I’m interested to know about is that rifles and shotguns still present a serious safety risk; they’re still firearms. There are suggestions in the bill that pistols are more of a serious safety concern, and I think the rationale is—and correct me if I’m wrong—that they can be concealed, and so they are a higher safety risk and therefore they need to comply with this Shooting Range Manual. I don’t understand why that occurs when rifles and shotguns still have the ability to shoot over a long distance and also should require a shooting range to comply with some ballistic safety standards, particularly if things have changed around that area, or new developments have occurred.

The other point I’d like to make is that Police have publicly stated that about 70 percent of the firearms seized from criminals are the A category, or the non-prohibited firearms. That would include a .22 rifle or a normal rifle and shotgun. [Interruption] Madam Chair, can I just finish. I’ve only got a bit more to go.

Yes. Finish your question.

The Firearms Safety Code provides insight into the lethal risks from rifles and shotguns commonly used on non-pistol ranges. The long-range firing capacity is marked as a contrast to a pistol: a bullet fired from a common deer hunting rifle, such as a .308 rifle, can travel 4 kilometres; a .22 rifle, common for shooting possums and rabbits, can fire rounds that travel up to 2.5 kilometres. We need to be reassuring our communities that if these ranges are operating, there are adequate safety protections in terms of ballistic—looking at where bullets can go and making sure that there are banks, and that’s exactly what Police did when they issued a number of safety notices under the first regime. There were a number of ranges not complying with those safety requirements. We were reassured when police went in and looked and required them to make those changes so that those ranges were operating safely.

Under this legislation, they do not have to comply with ballistic safety. That is a risk for rural communities, it is a risk for people who are partaking in recreational activities in rural New Zealand, and it is a real risk that if they’re not complying and there’s a stray bullet, someone from the public could lose their life or be injured. I’m interested to understand the Minister’s rationale as to why pistol ranges have to comply with this requirement but non-pistol ranges do not.

I’ll start this by apologising to the member the Hon Megan Woods, because she asked me a question about this one as well and I didn’t address it in that one. So I thank the member for going further into this, because I think it’s actually quite an interesting topic and one that should be traversed.

The New Zealand Police Shooting Range Manual has been in existence—I think Inspector Joe Green was the one that first wrote it almost a couple of decades ago, and more recently, since March 2019, it has been updated. It has been and always will be a very good go-to guide for those that wish to start a range. The reason why we won’t be encouraging it to be the be-all and end-all is for exactly what the member had just been talking about, the different ballistics for different types of projectiles. When we do our licence certification as part of the safety training, we are told a .22 rifle has the ability to go 3 kilometres, not 2.5 kilometres, and a .308 rifle has the ability to go 4.5 kilometres if there is no backstop.

The ranges that are currently operating have always looked to their parent organisations who have the expertise and the skill set to know exactly what the cone of fire is for their particular range that they are going to be utilising and whether or not there needs to be a restriction on the calibre. For example, at Trentham Rifle Club, which shoots back to 1,000 yards, there is a massive, big hill behind there—the ballistics that are required being that anything over 8 millimetres cannot be shot on that range. The maximum amount of powder that you could possibly put into a case is also looked at and considered when they are establishing what the cone of fire needs to be. What that cone of fire is will not be the same cone of fire that would be required for a .22 Target Shooting New Zealand indoor range. In fact, the cone of fire is drastically different, and none of that can be put into a shooting range manual.

The Shooting Range Manual established by New Zealand Police gives you the basics—the basics of what your baseline establishment of a range should look like. The parent organisations, for example, for shotgun, for indoor .22 shooting, and for long-range outdoor shooting, that actually is established by those that have that expertise to know what is needed, and they did this before March 2019. In fact, many of these organisations, at their own expense, had volunteer range officers go through education and be qualified to certify the ranges in their own disciplines, and this is extremely important.

The member made quotes from what those in the select committee had suggested about the Shooting Range Manual. I think everyone who wants to establish a range will always go to that Shooting Range Manual in the first instance to see what is required. Everything else on top of that has actually been placed on them by those parent organisations. Where we have, perhaps in the future, someone who does not have a parent organisation and wants to operate a range, they must ensure they have range standing orders in place and that they meet the minimum requirements.

I would just like to make, I guess, a clarification, because I’m not sure if I said something incorrect. I’m just going to make a clarification to something that I said earlier. The range standing orders will be able to be approved by the governing body or the parent organisation, as I had expressed, that the range is affiliated to. This will mean that a shotgun range will not go to a 4 bore range and ask them to certify. If the shooting range isn’t affiliated to a governing body or a parent organisation, the Police must approve the range standing orders. And, of course, this means that we won’t just have these pop-ups unless there is somebody that has oversight about how they are to operate.

When we’re talking about safety notices, I did watch some of the submissions on this bill and I did see club members who were interviewed—and the member herself had asked them, “Have you been issued a safety improvement notice?” The answer to that question by a few of the submitters was, “Yes, I have.” When queried further, one example that was given was of a man who said, “We were told we had to put tyres as backstops in behind our range, so we spent $10,000 of club money to put these tyres in, and then, when we were reassessed and they came back to reassess what we’d done, they said, ‘Oh no, actually, you can’t have tyres there now.’” That was a waste of time, effort, and money for what was already in place, something that worked well and operated well.

What we need to ensure is that we’re not wasting this, that we actually support these clubs to continue to operate, and when there was not a problem that needed to be fixed in the first place, it’s allowing them to actually use that skillset, to use that expertise, and to put it into the club, because, as I mentioned earlier, no club wants to see their range closed. These are good people. These are really good people in our society, those that have been judged to be fit and proper by New Zealand Police. They are not criminals. They are not potential terrorists. When the finger is pointed at licensed firearms owners, the licensed firearms owners point back at who gives these people the licences and the fit and proper journey that must be maintained in the time that you have it.

When we’re talking ballistic safety guidelines, the reason why we cannot just have this one shooting manual is because, if we did that, we would create a public safety risk, because by only having that, we can’t put over the top of it the knowledge, the skills, the expertise, the extra danger zones that the parent organisations require of their members. I have seen a lot of good work that has been done by these volunteers to maintain their ranges so people have a place to go, especially when it comes to sighting in their rifles, because, quite frankly, if these ranges close, what we will see is people going down to the river bank to sight their rifles, people not getting oversight and safety education from those in the know, people who are not getting advice on the ballistics of their firearm and also the ammunition, and advice on what is the correct type to use.

There is so much that can be lost here but so much that can be gained, and that’s what this Government is going to ensure happens: that we gain public safety as a result of these changes.

I’m just going to make the comment, before I take the next call, that we’ve traversed a fair—I know this is a really important bill, and I’m not trying to cut anyone off at this point, but I just want to say that I want specific clauses and very specific questions from here on in, because it’s been quite a broad-ranging debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have listened carefully to Associate Minister of Justice McKee and been astonished sometimes to hear that this side of the House considers all firearm owners as criminals or terrorists—or something like that—when I am a firearm owner and I respect other firearm owners, certainly those who are correct in their practice and who are safe. This is not about condemning firearm owners, but I do take issue with the Minister who made the statement that all firearm owners are good people. Clearly that is false.

I didn’t actually say that.

Not all firearm owners are good people, otherwise we would not have shooting of other people in this country. We would not have 15 March.

The Minister has just—

I would like to come—

The Minister has just said that she didn’t make that second statement; she did make the first one. Thank you.

Yeah—it was a paraphrase; I can’t remember the exact words.

Words matter.

The words do matter, and they will be noted in the recording of this discussion.

I want to come back to replacement section 38XJ, the compliance section, “Inspections of shooting clubs and shooting ranges”, because we have had an amendment proposed, and I’m unclear how the proposed amendment would reduce safety. If I look at subsection (1), it says, “For the purpose of ensuring that a shooting club or shooting range is operated in accordance with this Act, a person who is a member of the Police and authorised in writing by the Commissioner may—(a) enter and inspect—(i) any shooting range (including any shooting club that is part of the range); and (ii) any place where the shooting club stores firearms or ammunition: (b) inspect, print, or copy documents that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be those of the shooting club or shooting range: (c) remove any hard copy documents that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be those of the shooting club or shooting range.”

Now that seems very sensible. What has been proposed is that subsection (2) is removed, and subsection (2) puts limits on when that can happen and ensures that Police can only do it when a commissioner is considering application for certification, or renewal of certification. It actually negates the safety aspects of that previous section. That’s why this proposed amendment is only about increasing safety. That’s my question to the Minister: why not accept an amendment that increases safety, that ensures that the good firearm owners are the people that we support, and that we have the ability to check? It is a very, very simple question. That’s my first question. I have a have a couple of others, but I’ll sit down now.

Fire ahead and ask—it’d be good if you could ask.

My further question is we’ve heard that there are costs and benefits in this bill, and that’s a question I’m not clear on—the size of those costs and benefits is something I’m really not clear on. I may have missed something. I’ve been looking for it; I can’t see any evidence of costs and benefits noted down. I’ve had arguments for it, but I would like the Minister to give us some idea of where they lie.

When you refer to the costs and benefits, the Minister’s unclear as to which section you’re referring to.

I’m actually referring to the regulatory impact statement, which says here that—is there an analysis available on the size and potential costs and benefits? We’re told that there is, yes. But I’m not aware of where that lies, and I’d like some information on it, please. Thank you.

In answer to the Green member Scott Willis’ first question, the effect of new section 38XJ(2) is to provide certainty to clubs and ranges on when their inspections are going to occur while still allowing the police to actually carry out those inspections. That could be in response to safety concerns that they may have or, as I mentioned in my opening speech, also in regard to a change in circumstances. The reason why I said that this could create a safety issue if it’s removed is because removing the clause creates uncertainty for those volunteers who run the clubs and ranges, and it places a regulatory burden on them. It also means that the police can’t go in there for those reasons, which is when there’s a change in circumstance or safety concerns. It does not allow them to go in and do it.

I’m going to actually, as I’ve mentioned before, come back to the fact that these are trusted people with expertise. If there was an issue, these ranges would have been shut down, and if we look at what happened with the Bruce Rifle Club, for example, they were not shut down. If you look at—

Some of them were. They were given 238 safety notices.

The member to my left is yelling out that there were 238 safety notices, and the majority of those safety notices were to do with administrative stuff. It had nothing to do with—

Ballistics.

No, it didn’t.

It did.

It had nothing to do with ballistics. I invite the member, again, to actually read the documentation. You’re so fixated on chastising the volunteers that keep our clubs and ranges and our communities safe, and you’re obviously not interested in supporting them to be able to do that. Those changes that were made in 2020 have had this flow-on effect, and the lack of support is expected from them.

Just while I may, while I’m on my feet, I’m looking also at the tabled amendment 1.50.03 about new section 38XI. I don’t agree with that amendment, which is making the Shooting Range Manual compulsory for everybody. Again, as I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s about guidance, and we would have safety issues if we made everyone conform to what is meant to be the basis and did not allow the oversight of those parent organisations to be a part of it. I do not support the amendment with regard to new section 38XJ(2), because I do believe that that would create safety issues, and I’ll come back to the Green member shortly on his second question that he asked me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to another amendment that I’ve put forward, and that’s in relation to the commencement of this Act. There’s a couple of points I would like to make in this space. Firstly, both in the Justice Committee and then again during scrutiny week, Police themselves made the comment that they would like an extended commencement date for this bill, and so that was important to enable—

The commencement date’s actually in Part 2.

Is in Part 2, sorry?

In clauses 1 and 2, sorry.

OK, I thought we were doing a general—we’re just not doing—

No, to my knowledge, no one’s agreed to take it as one part.

Sorry, I’ll make another point, Madam Speaker. What I would like to talk about—sorry, I thought we were doing it all as one. So not title and commencement?

No, we’re just on Part 1.

Part 1, OK, sorry about that, Madam Speaker. In terms of what I would like to discuss, then, is to talk about other matters as well? That’s as well?

Part 2.

OK, right, back into it. So, in terms of some of the issues that were raised with the select committee—and I’d really like the Associate Minister of Justice to answer in relation to the policy problem that’s been identified in the regulatory impact statement, and that was the fact that there would be a risk that the overburdened nature would cause clubs to close down. There was quite clear information provided both in the regulatory impact statement and also through advice of officials that there was no clear evidence that the additional administrative requirements put on volunteers would actually lead to any clubs closing.

Then, when further information was asked for, there was actually no evidence that any clubs had closed at all as a result of those additional administrative requirements that were put on clubs post-2019. The whole purpose of this piece of legislation is that it’s going to improve safety by stopping clubs shutting down, and if they shut down, then people would be practising with firearms in an unregulated or an unsupervised manner. The problem that we have on this side of the House is that we feel that the Minister has not demonstrated anywhere through the policy process or the legislative process that there is an actual problem here that needs to be solved, because what the officials said is that there was no clear evidence when they did their assessment in the regulatory impact statement. In fact, a lot of the evidence that they relied upon was the life experience of the Minister and information that the Minister herself had gleaned from going out and speaking with different rifle ranges. I think it’s important that, if we’re changing the law, if we’re changing safety requirements in and around firearms in New Zealand, we’re actually fixing a problem that has been identified.

The irony is that the same party that the Minister represents has got a Regulatory Standards Bill, and in that Regulatory Standards Bill—

I think we’re actually moving on to a bill that’s not relevant to—

I just wanted to highlight a contradiction that is problematic for this legislation.

Yeah, but I also want to point out that this has had the discretion of a select committee as well.

True, OK. Can I make this point?

One point.

One point. In the other bill, it says no law should be passed without showing what problem is being solved, whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and who pays the costs and gets the benefits. I apply that to this: can the Minister please tell us, for this bill, what is the problem that she’s actually trying to solve? Where is the evidence for the problem that she’s trying to solve? What are the benefits that outweigh the cost? On this side of the House, we actually think the costs lie with the general public, who have a greater risk of ballistics not being done properly and of people unsupervised on ranges. We believe that risk, that public safety risk, is far greater than the risk of a club potentially shutting, which hasn’t been done.

The final point in that same quote from the other bill is: who pays the costs and who gets the benefits? I would say that it’s that member’s supporters who get the benefits, and the cost is the safety of the New Zealand public.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Green member who asked me about the costs and benefits in the regulatory impact statement (RIS): information for the costs and benefits is available in the ministry’s RIS. I think what you were asking me is—there were actually no numbers there and you were looking for some numbers, have I got that right? Right, OK. There’s no additional costs for pistol clubs and their ranges, and the reason for that is it’s, basically, status quo.

The only thing that we’re changing there is their reporting date, so they have two months at the end of their financial year. There’s no cost in that, because they would be doing that anyway. The cost savings are actually for the regulator. The regulator, at the moment, has it within legislation where they can go and see every five years a particular club. Some of them have been turning up every six months, doing the same sort of thing—or not necessarily every six months, but in under the five years. This will actually relieve some of those costs.

Of course, my understanding is that before this comes in, those clubs that were waiting to be inspected should all be inspected by then, so I think that the cost savings for clubs and ranges is the certainty of when they have to interact with the regulator. Also it’s personal cost, because—I’ve mentioned that they were volunteers—they’ve been having to take days off work at their paid employment to turn up at the club whenever they’re asked to by the regulator.

There is a benefit to society—and this is speaking to the other member’s point as well—if we have these clubs and ranges operating. Two clubs have actually shut down, and there were a series of individuals who had approached me before the legislation came in to tell me they were shutting their clubs down as well. There is a cost to society if we don’t have safe places for people to be able to participate, to get safety education, to have the oversight of those with the expertise. There is a cost to society if we don’t have this implemented, and I think that far outweighs the cost of a regulator turning up outside of their five-year time frame. In my humble opinion, the cost to society by not having clubs and ranges operating is absolutely huge. The benefit of this legislation is to the public, and it has a public safety impact because we keep these ranges open.

These ranges are still looked at. This is not just “anyone can open up a range”. It clearly states within the bill how a range must be established, what oversight there must be—including the fact that those that do not have a parent organisation are actually still having to come under the umbrella and approval of New Zealand Police. I think this is a good thing. This is not about just allowing anyone to be able to open up a range. I think, again, I see the benefit to society by having these ranges open, and I think we should have more of them. They should be in every town all over New Zealand, because then we know where everybody is going to be and we know that the oversight and education that they get will also be consistent with the safety education that they get at the time of applying for their licence. You cannot put a number on that, but I’m hoping that just what I’ve expressed, whether or not the member agrees with it, explains a bit of it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to insert new section 38XIA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment clause 5 to delete subsection 2 in new section 38XJ be agreed to.

Members, during the committee’s debate on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, the Chair omitted to put the vote on clause 1 standing part. I will put this question now. The question is that clause 1 of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill stand part.

The question is agreed. The records of the House will reflect the committee’s decision.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 March. Safe travels.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.