Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 12 March 2025

Good morning members. The committee is resumed on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25 Emergency Response, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, and the Customer and Product Data Bill.

When we suspended last night, we were considering the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and had begun the debate on Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Kia orana, Mr Chair, good morning. It’s a pleasure to take the first call of the morning. Last night, where we ended up was, as you say, sir, in Part 1. There were a number of questions that we’d posed to the Minister in the chair and there were some responses there that certainly on this side of the committee we intend to delve into a little deeper. It’s worth noting that obviously the position of Labour has been in support of this bill up through its second reading, and there are a few issues that we’ve identified previously in the second reading speech that we do want to address in this committee stage, and there are a couple of Amendment Papers at this stage that I’m aware of, in my name, to address some of those concerns.

This is an issue that Labour in Government was very, very passionate about. Yes, it’s accepted that there were some issues about being able to effectively roll that out, the interpretation section of Part 1, where some of the questions that were touched on last night identified some of the changes that sought to roll that out. I asked the question of the Minister in the chair at the time about whether it was appropriate that the Minister of Police was the appropriate person. I have a question for the current Minister in the chair in that, further on, there is a requirement for, certainly, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Science to be consulted—whether it’s appropriate for there to be reference in Part 1 to those two executive members who hold those two particular warrants for those portfolios. Whilst the Minister is defined as the Minister of Police—I certainly concede that that perhaps is the most appropriate person to make the decision. However, what’s contained in the legislation, in the bill, is reference to two other Ministers. When we get on to Part 2, there’ll be a conversation about whether that should be added to or not—but when we’re looking at Part 1, whether that definition is appropriate.

One of the things that the Minister has yet to respond to is the concerns that the Attorney-General has raised in her report to the House, noting that the step that the Attorney-General took was a fairly unusual one—unusual in that it is not often something that is engaged where it comes to the House. Certainly, the Attorney-General does have that overriding responsibility to examine all bills and to ensure that they are consistent in this respect with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, there was a lot of conversation and questions put to the Minister last night around that issue. I think, from memory, there was a response, but it didn’t really delve into the specific concerns that had been raised. It may be that the Minister is relying on moving through to those parts beyond Part 1 to explore those opportunities, but, none the less, it has been an issue that has been raised by at least a couple, if not more, members.

I do have a question around the response that the Minister gave last night—that I have to say was quite surprising—and that was around the operational matters for the police. This is something that the select committee did grapple with a wee bit, and I note Mr Foster there, who chairs the committee, will be aware that one of the—

A fine chair.

He is a fine chair, actually; I certainly accept that. One of the issues that the committee did grapple with was the tension between the operational requirements of the police and the roll-out of these devices. Certainly my firm view is that this legislation should not be driven by procurement processes. This needs to be at a high-level set: what is it we’re seeking to achieve? It is a reduction of deaths, fatalities, and injuries on the roads. We certainly accept that; we’re 110 percent behind that.

What came as somewhat of a surprise from the Minister’s response last night was that the police Minister can consider relevant operational matters. Now, on a day-to-day basis—yeah, OK, you can consider those, but we’re talking about relying on a piece of legislation that is seeking to deliver change in the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries due to drug driving. That did come as a surprise because, throughout the select committee stage, that was mentioned—I accept that—but it wasn’t seen as, nor was it accepted by the committee as, the driving force or factor behind the decision.

I’m interested in those two responses from the Minister around the Attorney-General, but also the operational requirements of the police in relation to this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from last night’s discussion and what the Minister laid out for the committee of the whole House, which is an important part of this legislative process, because the two major parties are in agreement on this: we need to see this legislation through and we have been working very collaboratively in committee to make it a piece of legislation we can all support.

This committee stage represents something that is really necessary in this phase, and we have an amendment on the Table in the name of the Hon Chris Bishop where we are trying to, basically, do the same work—to make sure that it works. I asked the Minister a series of questions about how the Amendment Paper affected Part 1, and the response was around a new provision to allow an oral screening test to be paid for at the election of a person who was having, say, a second test. That was when the answers around the Minister having regard to operational requirements came out for the House, and so we need to really test, for the benefit of everyone here, what that means, because it was something which was really key to the cross-partisan support: understanding both the need, practically, to allow Police to run a procurement process that was as flexible as possible, because we need them to be able to deliver these services.

When you’ve got Ministers in the House at question time saying the Police are going to be rolling things out, these are things that people should expect to happen. There should be as much operational ability to be able to procure the right kinds of tests, and in as timely a fashion as possible to be able to do that, when people expect that this is coming. On the other hand, in the committee room, there were legitimate concerns around what was being reasonably proposed here for the procurement. No one in the committee thought that we would be procuring tests that would get someone on the side of the road for an hour—no one in the committee thought it would ever be reasonable to pull someone over for a longer time than that, or to do a more invasive test than the ones we saw used there—for a sample of saliva or a swab. That is also relevant, because that is what the Attorney-General thought when she considered the weighing-up exercise that is required and what is a reasonable curtailment of people’s rights and what is not.

When the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, told us that the Minister of Police would have regard to operational requirements when making a decision, we want to know what those operational requirements would be, and whether that, in fact, is the way that we will formulate the exercise of public power that the Minister is making there when he is the decision maker in this case. That’s not necessarily what the Attorney-General considered.

Last night, we had a really useful back and forth with the Hon James Meager about the reasonable balance of rights and the right kind of public policy reason for limiting rights—but not about actually what was being reasonably curtailed. That’s the question here, because if you have one oral test and then you introduce another oral test, and then you have a blood test, that is what’s being reasonably curtailed. Our questions are about, actually, well, if that’s the stepping out of the process and that’s what’s being amended here, then we need to know what is the likely time there. That is also something that the Attorney-General didn’t consider in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reporting that was brought to this House. We just want to step ourselves through and make it clear on the record what a reasonable time expectation is if we have this step which is being introduced by the Amendment Paper. We want to understand the step that is being introduced by the Amendment Paper, and that’s why we’ve been asking questions about the balancing exercise.

As well, Mr Chair, you will know that Opposition members will have more questions about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at a later part of this bill, and that it is not directly relevant to Part 1. What we are raising here is the reasonableness and the time expectation of what is being curtailed by the Amendment Paper that relates to Part 1. We have not had an opportunity to consider the Amendment Paper at committee, and so we just really want the Minister to walk us through how long we’re expecting this to take, because you’ll notice, if you do read through the Attorney-General’s report, that it is very practical. This isn’t a document which is high level. This isn’t some sort of arcane rights-balancing exercise; it’s very easy to read. What we’re saying here is it’s reasonable to pull someone over for a breathalyser test at the moment. We say that’s fine. We say that’s a reasonable search and a reasonable detainment on the side of the road, but—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, just to finish this—

You can finish but I’m just aware that the Amendment Paper—I know it relates to Part 2; I’ll need good context around Part 1, which you are doing, but, just, you’ll need to continue strongly to do that.

Understood, Mr Chair. Just to finish this point, the amendment that I’m asking about is the step to allow a person to elect to have an oral fluid sample sent to the lab at their own cost. We want to know whether that adds to the Attorney-General’s analysis and whether that was something new that the Attorney-General did not consider. We haven’t stepped through with the Minister what that process looks like, so we’re quite keen to have that stepped out. That’s why I asked the Minister as a first question—it sounded like a patsy—to walk us through the amendment. And it really is: you know, we believe in this, we want it to work, let’s all understand the Part 1 amendments in the Amendment Paper and whether they align with what the Attorney-General was considering when she gave us her rights’ analysis.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this question, and I can say with confidence that we do support safer roads and we support an evidence-based way of getting there. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Land Transport Act 1998 by changing the testing threshold from an oral fluid containing evidence of use to an oral fluid that indicates use of qualifying drugs.

My question, really, starts with: what is the evidence base we are using to see whether this is an effective way of ensuring safer roads? We’ve heard from the New Zealand Drug Foundation submission that there’s a proposed oral fluid screening regime—does not penalise driving while impaired by drugs. Instead, it penalises prior ingestion of certain qualifying substances, the majority of which are prescription medicines. My question to the Minister is: how are we going to avoid penalisation of those who have ingested prescription medicines? Particularly—I appreciate that the Minister we have in the chair at the moment lives rurally—because we know rural dwellers do tend to be high users of prescription drugs as well as other drugs. How are we going to tell the difference? How are we going to be able to choose between those prescription drugs and other drugs? That’s my first question here.

I think we’ve got a second question which comes from the Attorney-General’s concern about overhauling the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because this proposal is conducting screening tests in a very discriminatory manner. Why not use a less discriminatory manner such as the existing approach for universal screening at drink-driving checkpoints, which doesn’t target specific groups, doesn’t have an over-reliance on ethnicity—what we anticipate this bill could well do, as we know there are biases in the way we address things. My second question is really about how we’re going to ensure that this is not discriminatory, how we might apply it in a more universal manner such as the universal screening at drink-driving checkpoints.

Just to return to the first question, if we understand that the screening regime doesn’t penalise while impaired by drugs but does penalise any prior ingestion of qualifying substances, which include prescription medicines, how on earth are we going to make sure that we only get those who are impaired, and impaired by illegal substances? How on earth are we going to ensure that this is justified for all of those people who for one reason or another have to take prescription drugs, but are safe and are able to drive? How is this bill going to ensure that we are not simply acting in a way that is irresponsible for our communities and, particularly, for our rural communities, where we know that there are so many people who have been injured, who need care, and who are ingesting prescription drugs?

Two questions for the Minister; I would really appreciate an answer, if we could, and I can follow up later. Thank you.

I just will note that the actual methodology of stopping is mostly in Part 2 of this, as well. Members, I would ask, in considering your questions, it’s a relatively narrow part, so if we can keep it to that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to focus on the question that I asked last night that we still haven’t received the response from the Associate Minister of Transport on. This is to do with the definition for the “family of qualifying drugs”, as we see in clause 4 in Part 1, amending section 2.

Just a reminder to the Minister, going back to the question I had yesterday, that in the principal Act, Schedule 5 of Part 1, we do see the threshold for existing high-risk drugs and in terms of the amount that is considered a high risk. What we are not seeing is the fact that the definition here for qualifying drugs also includes other ones with a similar chemical structure, and it specifically names benzodiazepine and amphetamine as having some of the similar chemical structures.

Now, I mentioned before, as the Minister would be aware, that for a chemical compound to be considered to be a benzodiazepine, all it requires is to have a benzene ring as well as the diazepine ring. In these cases, it considers and covers other particular drugs, for example, that are not part of the list, such as bromazepam and other forms of anxiolytic. I’m just curious that there is nothing in this bill, nor is there an amendment, that suggests that other forms of drugs that are not currently listed under Schedule 5 of Part 1 of the principal Act do not actually have a corresponding amount or threshold in terms of what is considered high-risk.

If we are looking at specific drugs that are not part of that list but do have a similar chemical compound or similar chemical structure, like what I just said with bromazepam, what is the safe amount for those? An example to give is that there are other ADHD-treating drugs such as those that are CNS stimulants—central nervous system stimulants—that do contain or do have similar structures as amphetamine. With those also, what is the safety threshold for those as well? Again, it is not part of this bill or including this amendment.

The last question I have in terms of the definition for “family of qualifying drugs” is in section 2, which talks about qualifying drugs that have a similar effect, including pharmacological effects, on the user. Now, pharmacological effects on the user vary from user to user, because of the fact that the whole point of pharmacology is the way that the drug interacts with the human body, and human bodies interact differently depending on your own body make-up and genetics and all of those variables. Would the test be able to pick up on the nuance or specifically just pick up on the amount of drug that’s present in the system? And if we’re looking at something that has a pharmacological effect on the user, who and how is it determined what those pharmacological effects are going to be when a person is being pulled over?

Just around the context of the qualifying drugs, which seems to expand beyond the scope of the principal Act, and how that would look in practice—if the Minister wouldn’t mind answering those questions, that would be wonderful.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill during the committee of the whole House stage. I am pleased to see that a fellow Dunedinite is the Minister who is answering questions through this part.

Now, for this section, I would like to ask questions to test my understanding about the legislative intent of this bill. Obviously, I’m willing to take guidance from the chair as to whether these questions properly belong in this part of the bill. My question is around the legislative intent of it. I’ve read through the speeches during the first reading and second reading. In the first reading debate, it was the Hon Matt Doocey who said, during his speech, that part of the legislative intent was to keep New Zealanders safe on the roads. He alluded to the 65 lives that are being lost. During the second reading speech, the Hon Chris Bishop alluded to drug deterrence as one of the legislative intents of this bill.

During his introduction speech in this stage of the debate, the Hon James Meager—I’m not sure whether they’re honourable when they get inducted as Ministers or whether they have to be in Cabinet first; I am not sure what the rules are. I think he is an “Hon” at this stage. He mentioned deterrence, and he also mentioned fatal road crashes—

Point of order. I’d just ask for some guidance from you. I’m not sure entirely where the line sits, but, in terms of hearing a member questioning the honour of one of our Ministers, I just wonder what your guidance would be, sir.

That wasn’t what I heard. Just explain what you were—

I was wondering whether they become “Hon” when they become Ministers or whether they need to be promoted to Cabinet before they become “Hon”.

That is what I heard. He is an “Hon”, I can assure you, having welcomed the Minister—[Interruption] He is “the Hon”—to clarify that.

Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I would never question the honour of a former fellow Otago University Students’ Association exec member and a former Otago graduate no less.

The legislative intent seems to be, from these speeches, to reduce the death toll on the roads and to make the roads safer, and to deter and detect drug-driving. If, say, in five to 10 years, the incidences of drug-driving and safety incidents in New Zealand haven’t gone down, would this Government consider this legislation to have failed? The second part of the question is: has the Minister or their officials looked at what has happened in legislation that has occurred overseas since the introduction of drug-driving laws. Just for a little bit of context, for my sins I also worked for the Australian Greens in the New South Wales Parliament—

You must have sinned very deeply.

—yeah!—as a legislative staffer there, and one of the issues we talked about then was roadside drug-testing. I had a look this morning at what has happened to hospitalisations since the expansion of the mobile drug-testing regimes. In 2014, there was something like 10,800 hospitalisations from crashes, and from my last check, in 2023, which was when there was the last full year of statistics, the statistics covered around a similar number. Despite the expansion of one of the quite comprehensive drug-testing regimes, it doesn’t seem to have made the situation in New South Wales much safer. This has come at quite a substantial cost as well. I think the figures were something like $10 million or $15 million per annum for the cost of expanding these services.

Again, the question is: what is the criteria for success for this Government, in terms of introducing this legislation? And, if the legislation is either not reducing the incidence of drug-driving or reducing these sorts of fatalities and crashes on the road, will it revisit the legislation in train?

Mr Hernandez, I’d say there are some broader policy issues there that go a little bit away from—but the Minister looks like he’s keen to answer.

Mr Chair, thank you. I’ll address that last question first, because we’re deep in the weeds here in some of the technicalities of the bill, but let’s stretch it out here.

This is not a good thing having people driving around under the influence of drugs. We’re intending to do something about this. I think it’s something the previous Government looked at doing. We’re intending to deliver on that, and there are some technicalities around that. We are working through that today. Of course, I’m sure successive Governments will look upon making this as effective as they can, but these are the measures that we are putting in place at this time. We intend to deliver on them.

Can I just cover some of the points that have been made, the more substantive ones. To Arena Williams’ point on how the amendments in Part 2 impact Part 1 of the bill, we will cover that in Part 2. They are substantially Part 2 of the bill, and we’re not there yet. To Mr Ukele—Ukirere—can I ask for a—

The member for Palmerston North.

The member for Palmerston North—

Utikere.

—Tangi, my coal-shovelling colleague from Palmerston North, around the requirements: should there be requirements for the Minister of Transport and Minister of science to have a more defined say? Those definitions are already in the Land Transport Act and covered off the technicalities that you were looking at there.

Also, on the question around having regard to operational requirements when approving screening devices and what is involved, the bill does require the police Minister to consider two factors when approving a screening device: accuracy and positive device thresholds that are indicative of recent drug use. Other issues, such as the time it takes for a device to return a result, are operational matters that Police will consider before making a recommendation to the police Minister to approve a particular screening device. We did hear, yesterday, a rather alarming example of Mr Foster not being able to provide a test in time. We could call this the “Foster clause”. As examples of that come through and the Police are operationalising these matters, they will be able to inform the police Minister and make recommendations. That is how that clause will work.

Just addressing and refuting, actually, Mr Willis’ comments around bias, I think the New Zealand Police force are an incredibly professional force. We have absolutely backed them on this side of the House, and I think insinuations that they’d somehow be biased when operationalising this legislation we would refute.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I did have some questions last night that we were waiting on for answers from the Minister in the Chair at the time—that was a different Minister. I’ll just reiterate those: they are about the specific number of fatal and serious injury crashes that they expect to be prevented by the oral fluid roadside drug-testing regime, and noting that a lot of times the Government refers to the number of drivers in fatal crashes who tested positive for some substance. However, these oral fluid tests, we heard in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, will not test for all the substances, so they can only test for maybe five, but more likely they will only test for one or two. They won’t be preventing all of the fatal crashes that are involved with some level of substance being present.

The main issue I want to bring up and question in this part is under Subpart 2 of Part 1, clause 5(1). This is really the crux of the issue because, prior to this, the rules have been around responsibilities of drivers not to drive while impaired. And that is the key issue: not being impaired. Happily, when it comes to alcohol breath tests, there’s a really good correlation—there’s still some individual variation, but there’s very, very strong correlation between the blood levels of alcohol that the breath test picks up and impairment. But this subpart is saying that “Persons are not to drive or attempt to drive while blood contains evidence of” a qualifying drug or oral fluid indicates use of a qualifying drug. That’s quite different, because we heard substantial evidence, both with the original legislation that this is amending and this bill at select committee, about the difficulties in establishing impairment and about the possibility that some of the qualifying drugs can be present in blood and in oral fluid even when there’s no impairment.

I guess the question for the Minister and the Government is: how are we going to deal with this situation of the possibility that people can test positive? For example, we heard from the Drug Foundation that recent Australian research involving drivers who used either orally ingested or inhaled prescribed medicinal cannabis found no notable evidence of driving impairment, and this is despite drivers recording blood concentrations of THC which would be above the high-risk blood concentration level of three, up to six hours after taking that medication. This study suggests that medicinal cannabis, or medical cannabis, used as prescribed has a negligible impact on simulated driving performance, but despite no observable driving impairment, they will have detectable concentrations of THC in their oral fluid for a duration of up to six hours.

This is the crux of the issue when we bring in oral fluid tests: the research is not there to establish impairment. There’s a very good chance that people who are legally taking a prescribed medication can fail two oral fluid tests, then be banned from driving for 12 hours, and then have to potentially go through a lengthy process to ensure that they don’t have an infringement and demerit points. I mean, people can say they’ve been taking it as prescribed, but the issue is that if we are now saying that people need to not drive or attempt to drive while there’s any evidence of using a qualifying substance, how are people meant to know? Like, how will they know—if they’re legally taking prescription medication and they’re not impaired and they should be able to drive, but they’re not going to be able to drive because of this—

And their prescription says, “Don’t drive within eight hours.”—then they don’t drive within eight hours; it’s really simple. If it’s prescribed medication you’re worried about, then prescriptions are clear.

Well, take a call—we’d love to hear from Government members there.

I’d prefer if we can keep our conversations through the Chair, please.

If oral fluid testing is not accompanied by reliable impairment assessment—like when it comes to pain management and cannabis use, if they are not impaired, they’re not at risk at driving in a way that’s going to be dangerous but they’re still going to fail the oral fluid test and the blood test because they have to take the medication to be able to go on with their lives. We’ve heard that people take this medication to be able to live with chronic pain—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to address this point. It’s similar to ones made by Mr Xu-Nan and Mr Willis earlier. Of course there is—and Ms Genter referred to it in her question—the defence for prescription drugs. There is a process to go through. Obviously, it’s a bit messy. There’s a grey area there, potentially, that you don’t know if you’re in or out of, but there is a process to go through.

As has been pointed out by some of the commentary coming from my right, on the boxes, on the prescriptions, you get advice. It’s no different to the alcohol situation where there is some discretion that you have to use. You can still have a beer or a glass of wine and drive and still be within the limit, and it’s the same scenario we’re talking about here. There is the defence of the prescription, which I am sure will be utilised for those people who may be inadvertently caught out by these rules.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister for his answers to some of those questions that I did put. In particular, I want to thank him for the clarity around police operational consideration, because that is quite different. His response is quite different to the response that was given—well, actually, it wasn’t a response. It was basically part of the contribution from the Minister James Meager, who was in the chair last night, who basically indicated that the Minister would be required to consider “relevant operational matters”.

What today’s Minister, Minister Patterson, has very helpfully clarified is that that is not the case, that the operational matters will be considered by the Police in terms of what they propose as suitable or not to the Minister of Police. I think it is important that that has been clarified, because members certainly on this side of the House were very surprised to hear that from the Minister last night, that suddenly there would be this change that is not reflected in the transport Minister’s Amendment Paper 256 that has been tabled. I do thank the Minister for the clarity.

There was a question that I wanted to pose to the Minister that was in direct response to an answer that he gave last night. I do seek your guidance—if you wish to curtail my question and say that it needs to be in another part, I’m happy to do that. I raise it now—

It’s useful to relate it to the part that you’re actually pertaining to—

This is about the implications as to when things would be rolled out, because last night the Minister indicated that there was “the utmost confidence” that this Government would be able to effectively roll this out, and he indicated that it would be operational basically in time for Christmas, December, of this year. He cited that there had been a change to the date and that it was April. Now, I note that that is in the title and commencement section, so I’ll park that for further contribution.

It does raise some concerns about some of the issues that were brought to the attention of the select committee when considering how things would be defined—and they are contained in Part 1—as to how that would be rolled out. I can refer specifically to the definitions that are proposed to be changed. In Amendment Paper 256, in Minister Bishop’s name, he identifies a number of definitions there. Now, if we look at the actual Part 1, that’s where the definitions and interpretation are contained in their entirety. My question to the Minister is how the level of comfort exists that those things that are defined can actually find their way to, I guess, roll out by December or in December—well, by the end of this year, basically.

You have answered your own question. You are right. It does belong in the commencement.

Yes, that’s right. And I did indicate that I would talk about that when we got to the commencement, so thank you, sir.

When the Minister has responded to my colleague Arena Williams’ question about “Well, we’ll get to that in Part 2”, the question really is that what Minister Bishop is proposing as a change to Part 1 is contained in clause 4(2). There are not many changes that Minister Bishop seeks to implement here or to suggest a change, but one is a new definition and the definition is that of an elective oral fluid sample.

This is new. This is something completely new. This is not something that actually was provided at select committee. What has led to this may have been provided through select committee in the report, but we are yet to hear an answer to why the Minister has sought to introduce a new term called “elective oral fluid sample”. Now, it might mean because the person seeks to have that oral fluid sample elected as of right, which does go to mitigate some of the concerns of the Attorney-General—but we still have not heard a response or an answer around why he has decided to implement or suggest that particular change.

The other three changes in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 256 are in relation to clause 19, inserting new section 71D(2) and referencing also new section 71DE. I would be interested to hear from the Minister, please: what is the explanation of those particular changes? Because they are new, they haven’t been sort of explained to this committee as to what they seek to do—it might just be that it is a change in reference; it might not. Why is the Minister seeking those amendments or the Government seeking those amendments?

Thank you, Mr Chair. It does surprise me that Government members are taking closure motions in a bill which is supported around the House but is intended to be the best piece of legislation it can possibly be, and we still have a Minister who hasn’t answered questions about what this amendment does. The questions we have been posing to the Minister today, and the Minister in the chair last night, are about how the amended sections 71D and 71DG then work with the consequential amendments which have been put in and whether the new process meets the kind of—

Repetition.

And the members say “repetition”. It wouldn’t be repetition if the Minister had just stepped us through what those new sections introduce, because, members, what we are faced with here is a bunch of really practical, ordinary considerations about how you should detain people on the side of the road.

These aren’t criminals. These are not people that the ACT Party or the National Party want to put in jail because they’ve been bad and they’ve taken naughty drugs. They’re you and me because we’ve been pulled over at a stop or at a random check—just like drunk-driving—which we accept is completely normal, and we’re asking the Minister to step us through. Do his changes introduce more time into the system? Do his changes introduce a more invasive search into the system? If you’ve got more time and you’ve got a more invasive search, then you’ve got a different kind of thing than what the Attorney-General—your Attorney-General, your Cabinet Minister—considered when she considered the rights-based analysis that she went through.

We have these processes for a reason, and the reason we have these processes is because Parliament can’t do whatever it likes to people. It certainly can’t do whatever it likes to people who come with completely clean hands at the side of the road when they’re driving their kids in the back. Government members seem to think that it is completely normal for the Government to legislate over the top of ordinary citizens’ rights—who have a right to privacy, a right to not be searched randomly, a right to get home on time with the kids in the back of the car.

What’s your question?

We want the Minister to explain: has he introduced more time? Has he introduced a stricter sense of detention with these new amendments? They are to Part 1—their definitions are in Part 1. We haven’t had that answer. That is why we will continue to ask it until we have the right Minister who can answer it. We need to understand this, because it was key to the committee’s cross-partisan support that it was a reasonable amount of time, that it was a reasonable sort of detention. We want to make sure that what we are supporting here gives the police the right kind of powers that will stand up in court.

The other thing to take into account here is that we all want this to work; we don’t want tons of cases clogging up the court system about whether it was reasonable to even have this public exercise of decision making in the first place, that it was reasonable for police to procure a device that had a reasonable sort of time frame to it and required the right kind of pulling over on the side of the road. Because, actually, what we’ve got here—

Ms Williams, I will say that the actual practicality of the test is in the next section, Part 2. You are spending an inordinate amount of time on the next section.

Let me ask the Minister, then, a simple question which I think will go to the heart of these changes to Part 2. Minister, do the changes to the definition of “second oral fluid testing”, and its subsequent amendments—which are to Part 1—change the inputs into the Attorney-General’s analysis of rights? Given that sections 71D and 71DG create new processes, did the Attorney-General make her rights-based analysis on a similar sort of time frame and a similar sort of detention?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very grateful that the Minister did want to engage on the question of police bias previously, because I would particularly like the Minister to think about the August 2024 independent report Understanding Police Delivery, where it was reported that being Māori increased the likelihood of prosecution by 11 percent compared to New Zealand Europeans. Now, that was in August 2024. That was only last year—mid - last year—and these are findings that demonstrate inequities for Māori and other ethnic groups, and disabled people, in their interactions with the New Zealand Police.

Now, this is an independent report that the police themselves commissioned in March 2021—

Mr Willis, the Minister did bring this up, but he did bring it up in response to you bringing it up, and it wasn’t as part of this section. As I indicated before, you are now into an area well outside what we’re talking about in Part 1. Now, I know that the Minister mentioned it a bit. He was speaking in response to, actually, yourself, so you had actually introduced it into the argument outside the realm of Part 1.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Are you suggesting that I’ve been fishing for the Minister? I don’t believe that, and that’s not—I would never consider such a thing.

Well, I know that your fishing skills are apt, so I would expect that you may have been optimistic in doing that. If we can go back to Part 1, please, Mr Willis.

OK, OK. Look, I appreciate that, and I certainly would like a response to the suggestion that there isn’t bias, because what we do know is that there is a concern that by not having any universal screening such as happens in drink-driving situations, this will lead to that type of bias. My question, really, is about that screening ability in the bill. How on earth are we going to overcome—how can I put this another way—the lack of accuracy that might occur?

I’ll leave it there because I know my colleague has another question, but I would appreciate a response from the Minister, since it’s been part of our discussion to date, and it is an important point, nevertheless.

The honourable Minister—but the point is that we are now broadening out from Part 1, so be warned.

Thank you. I will address that last point first from Mr Willis. I’ve probably brought this upon myself by responding to his earlier allegation, because I thought it was very unfair on the New Zealand Police to make that allegation. I will point the member to the fact that this is an empirical test. You either pass or you don’t. It’s not something where bias can occur. The data is in the test, so ethnicity or gender has nothing to do with it.

Don’t belabour that point, please, any more, Minister, because it will invite more.

In response to Mr Utikere—hopefully that’s a bit of a better effort, Tangi, the very sensible member for Palmerston North—on why the definition of “elective oral fluid sample” was inserted. This is inserted to support the proposed changes in the Amendment Paper which provide for a person to provide an elective sample, if needed, for possible future independent testing. That is, of course, discussed further in Part 2.

To Arena Williams’ point on whether the Amendment Paper proposes a more invasive search, again, this is a Part 2 matter, but to get ahead of the play now, no. The Amendment Paper provides for an elective sample, if needed, to enable a person to seek independent analysis. It mitigates concerns in the bill reported back that it could require prolonged detention to attain a sample of oral fluids sufficient for both laboratory and independent analysis.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m still hoping that the Minister of Rural Communities, with assistance from the officials, can come back with some specific numbers on the estimated number of deaths and serious injuries that will be prevented by this policy. Also a further question to that: to what level would it have to be rolled out to achieve that reduction?

As we understand with alcohol breath testing, the deterrence aspect is the key rationale for it—it’s to stop people from driving under the influence of alcohol. That has to be done at a very large scale, and it can be done at a very large scale because alcohol breath testing doesn’t cost very much. It’s just a few cents, really, per test, compared to the oral fluid tests, which are several dollars per test at least, and the alcohol breath tests only take a short period of time—less than a minute—whereas we’ve seen lots of evidence that the oral fluid tests could be detaining people for well over 10 minutes.

I just want to refer to the Attorney-General’s section 7 report, which they found both unwarranted seizure on the basis of this bill as well as arbitrary detention, paragraph 62. “On balance, I consider that there is a real risk of arbitrary detention where an initial oral fluid screening test takes in excess of 15 minutes or where an individual is unable to provide a sufficient oral fluid sample and instead must provide a blood specimen.” And “the error rate of oral testing … could lead to prolonged detention of individuals on the basis of inaccurate [testing].” It says that “The bill provides inadequate safeguards in these situations.”

Can the Minister tell us if the amendments made at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee or the Amendment Paper that has been put forward for this committee stage addresses in any way—have we had any further feedback from the Attorney-General on whether it would provide a safeguard? I suspect the answer is no, but all of the Government’s rationale for the basis that this is warranted—people potentially losing their ability to drive for 12 hours—

Ms Genter, you’re well into the policy. You actually answered this yourself: the broader policy issues. If you can relate it to what we are debating here now, which is the actual test.

Well, we’re back to Subpart 2—

Also in the next part we’ll talk about the broader issues.

It’s Subpart 2, “Amendments to Part 2”, which is in Part 1 of this amendment bill—clause 5. Sorry, the Minister in the chair yesterday evening, the Associate Minister of Transport, did answer questions about this, but said that he believed it was justified on the basis that it would result in less harm on our roads. That’s why I come back to my question, which I’ve asked multiple times and no Minister in the chair has addressed my question, about the specific evidence that it actually will prevent harm. I think that should be answerable—that is a reasonable question to ask.

Just making the point that here we are changing the law to say that people cannot drive or attempt to drive, simply because of the presence of something. That’s quite a big difference from what it has previously been, and it means that people might lose their ability to drive; might be detained simply for taking their medication. The Drug Foundation said 19 out of 25 substances with legal blood thresholds under the amendment bill are prescription medications and that people can be—

What about the medical instructions they’re given?

Yeah, well they can be. For example, if the members want to read—well, (1) take a call; but (2) read the actual submissions in the evidence. It says they would not—so the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Medical aspects of fitness to drive: a guide for health practitioners states that “A[n individual] on an oral methadone treatment programme may continue to drive if [the individual is] stable on the programme and their methadone treatment is unlikely to affect their ability to drive safely.” They would not be considered impaired, despite blood and oral fluid levels potentially showing concentration of opioids that would be considered high for opioid-naïve individuals.

The issue is that these substances and their impact on people’s ability to drive is not the same as with alcohol, and you will, potentially, with this bill, be banning people from driving—which, in many parts of the country, they have no alternative—when they’re not impaired. Do we think this is a reasonable or a just thing to do? If people have oral fluid or blood levels of medicine that they are legally prescribed and they should be able to drive, they can still fail this oral fluid test, they can still be detained, they can still lose the ability to drive, and those members on the other side do not care. There’s no evidence that this is actually going to improve road safety or reduce deaths or serious injuries.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 256 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 25, “Amendments to Part 6 (driving offences involving drink or drugs, and penalties and procedures)”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I would like to take the opportunity to cover some of the issues around Part 2, because the committee has shown a willingness to prosecute this bill and make it into the best possible shape that it could be. In outlining the Government’s position on Part 2, this is the most substantial section of this bill in amending provisions to the Land Transport Act. It covers drug-driving offences, enforcement procedures, and the Minister of Police’s powers to make notices approving oral fluid screening devices and specifying listed qualifying drugs that can be tested by an approved analyst.

I draw attention to replacement section 71G, inserted by clause 22. This section sets out the approval criteria for oral fluid screening devices. The current section 71G in the Act prevented the implementation of a roadside testing regime as there was no commercially available testing device that met the approved criteria. Under the new approval criteria, the Minister of Police must consider the accuracy of the device in light of the requirements for screening oral fluid.

Devices are not 100 percent accurate. They can produce both false negative and false positive results. In recognition of this, there must be two positive roadside screening tests before a driver is prohibited from driving for 12 hours, which may address any road safety issue. There must be a positive laboratory test before an infringement notice is issued.

The police Minister must also consider the positive screening threshold used by the device and the extent to which the threshold indicates recent drug use. The regime targets recent drug use as a proxy for impairment. When considering this matter, the Minister must also have regard to any relevant standard. The current Australian and New Zealand standard for oral fluid testing sets out device cut-off thresholds for some drugs that are widely accepted as indicative of recent use.

Part 2 of the bill also includes enforcement procedures for the new regime. A police officer will be able to stop any driver or motor vehicle to administer an oral fluid screening test without the need to suspect drug use. The ability to stop any driver at any time is a critical component to an oral fluid testing regime. A driver that has a positive result from a first oral fluid screening test will be required to undergo a second test and an oral fluid sample or samples will be sent for laboratory analysis. A driver who receives two positive oral fluid screening tests will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours to address any immediate road safety risk but will only incur an infringement penalty following a positive result from a laboratory test.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee introduced an ability for a person who has been issued with an infringement notice to elect to have an oral fluid sample independently tested. This aligns with the existing blood testing regime for alcohol. If a person chooses to do this, they need to pay for this independent test.

Under the bill as reported back from select committee, drivers that test positive on first screening tests would need to provide a sufficient sample of oral fluid for laboratory and independent testing. Bear with me a minute, because these things are important. Given the device limitations and the potential amount of time it can take to obtain a sufficient oral fluid sample for both laboratory and independent testing, the Minister has tabled an Amendment Paper to allow drivers to choose to provide an elective oral fluid sample with the sample collected at roadside if it isn’t sufficient for independent testing. This has required some careful drafting of the enforcement provisions. The drafting changes introduce a number of potential pathways to allow possible future advances in device and laboratory testing technology that will enable a more streamlined approach in the future.

The Amendment Paper amends clause 19 to insert new section 71D and 71DE and set out three different processes following a positive first oral fluid screening test. The first is where there is sufficient oral fluid for both laboratory and private analysis that is obtained from the first or second screening test. No further oral sample is needed from the driver.

The second applies where there is sufficient oral fluid for laboratory analysis but not the private analysis. In this case, the driver will have the option of providing an elective oral fluid sample for possible future private analysis at their own expense. The person will have up to 10 minutes to decide whether to provide this elective sample.

The third is where the first or second oral fluid screening test do not provide an oral fluid sample sufficient for laboratory analysis. The person who provides one or more samples for laboratory analysis can opt to provide an elective oral fluid sample.

The bill provides that an enforcement officer may apply the applicable process after the first oral fluid test or after the second oral fluid screening test. This is intended to provide as much flexibility as possible for the New Zealand Police to implement the regime in the most sensible way, depending on the screening technology used. For this reason, the legislation also does not prescribe how many oral fluid samples are required for the new regime. This will depend on the screening devices and laboratory services used when the regime is implemented.

Replacement section 71E, inserted by clause 20, provides that a person who is unable to provide an oral fluid sample that is sufficient to carry out an oral fluid screening test or sufficient to carry out laboratory analysis following a positive first oral fluid screening test may be required to provide a blood sample. If a person is unable to provide a sufficient elective oral fluid sample, they won’t be able to request independent analysis if they are issued an infringement notice after positive laboratory test results. I hope that will clarify some of the provisions within Part 2. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for Rural Communities for providing a top-level response at the start of this part. On this side, we agree with him that this is the part that is the most substantial, so we do have a number of questions, and, obviously, there are some tabled amendments from us that are there as well.

I want to turn to clause 11. One of the real difficulties that the select committee had and that is contained in its report was this issue around how long someone could reasonably be expected to be effectively detained on the roadside for the purposes of an oral fluid screening test. It was something that we sought to get some advice on. The advice, for a number of reasons, was not as easily forthcoming as perhaps some members would have liked. This is in response to the Attorney-General raising two matters of concern.

It’s the one around arbitrary detention that I want to ask the Minister about. It is very clear in the Attorney-General’s report that she has formed the view that there is a real risk of arbitrary detention. It’s in paragraph 62 of her report on this matter, but she basically says that there is that risk, in her view, “where an initial oral fluid screening test takes in excess of 15 minutes or where an individual is unable to provide” what is to be known as “a sufficient oral fluid sample and instead must” then go down the track that the Minister has touched on. That’s the blood sample. Given that she has indicated anything beyond 15 minutes is considered a risk of arbitrary detention, and in the following paragraph, she identifies that, in her view, there are no safeguards in this bill to address that concern. My question to the Minister is whether he or his Government are seeking to amend that, because I do not see that listed in any of the Amendment Papers that have been tabled by the Government.

There is one in my name, and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, because this is something that Labour members certainly have quite an issue with. If we think about it, this is meant to be random, and we’ve been given guarantees that it will be a random form of roadside testing and that anyone, anytime, can basically come across a random checkpoint, at any time of the day, on New Zealand’s roads. The possibility is that they could, under the current bill as drafted, be detained for a huge period of time.

Now, we have the Attorney-General saying that anything beyond 15 minutes is a real risk of arbitrary detention and that there are no safeguards in this bill. There is only one piece of legislation in this country where there is a time limit in relation to land transport matters, and it is 15 minutes, and it’s for the police to basically obtain information to seek confirmation of the identity of an individual. They’ve got 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the individual is free to go. Why are there no safeguards being proposed by this Government—when this bill, if passed, is enacted—to mitigate the concerns that have directly been, effectively, identified by the Attorney-General?

In order to do that, the tabled amendment in my name is one that will provide, actually, not 15 minutes but 20 minutes. This is something that the select committee did hear about and grapple with as well. The reason why the tabled amendment has a period not exceeding 20 minutes is simply because the advice that was offered was unable to provide any information around that. There was some suggestion that there were other jurisdictions in Victoria that would have differing amounts of time as well.

My first question is around how the Government is seeking to mitigate the real concerns and risks that have been identified by the Attorney-General, and whether the Government is prepared to support an amendment that will basically ensure that there are protections for people in this country who are going about their lawful business so that they won’t expect to be arbitrarily detained for a period in excess of 20 minutes. That’s my first question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the explanation that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Patterson, gave us at the beginning of this part. I mean, this is a very substantial part of the bill, so I’m hoping to be able to canvas a few different areas.

I’m going to start with clause 22, which introduces a new section 71G. These are some pretty substantive changes from the original legislation and it’s about the approval of oral fluid screening devices. In new section 71G(2)(a)(i), it does make it very clear that a device can be approved if it only has one or more qualifying drugs, and the process around the decision making for the Minister of Police is changed. Instead of being satisfied that the test can meet a certain threshold, now they just must consider certain thresholds.

I guess that the question that I have is how the Government and the Minister approving the devices will be certain that the devices are accurate enough with these changes. Again, I’ve previously referred to the Attorney-General’s report; there is a real risk of arbitrary detention because of the time frame, but there’s also a real risk around the error rate of the oral testing devices. It’s not really specified, because of the changes in this Amendment Paper to the original legislation. It’s no longer the case that the Minister is going to be satisfied that the tests meet a reasonable threshold of accuracy; they just need to consider and balance up the different accuracy—in this new section 71G, which is in clause 22, in Part 2.

What work is the Government going to do to safeguard against unreasonably high rates of inaccuracy with the oral fluid testing devices? What recourse will the people of New Zealand have if oral fluid testing devices are approved that are found to have very high rates of inaccuracy or take such a long time that people are detained—assuming that the Government’s not going to support my colleague Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper, which I think is a good idea, and we will certainly be supporting that Amendment Paper. I guess, what will be the follow up, given that now we can approve devices that we can’t be assured ahead of time have the right accuracy? Will the Government have a monitoring programme? Will that be funded? Will there be regular reporting on accuracy rates of the devices used? If they do procure devices which are found to have unreasonably high inaccuracy rates, will they switch to a different oral fluid testing device?

I can understand why they’ve loosened it up in the legislation, because it was too hard to procure the right devices, but I think the point is that you want devices that are accurate and that are not taking too long and that are actually delivering the results so that we can have the deterrence effect and have the road safety outcomes that we all want. If the devices aren’t doing that, what is the recourse? How is the Government going to be assured?

Just in answer to Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper and the Government position on that, we will not be supporting that. We do understand the valid reasons that he has put this out: we don’t want to be impeding citizens unnecessarily. The Auditor-General has made some commentary around that, but there are some practicalities around this.

This is not as seamless as an alcohol breath test; we are dealing with emerging technologies, to Ms Genter’s point, and evolving as to how we address what we all, or most of us, in the House agree is a very real issue. We want to be able to stop people that are driving around impaired. Perfect is the enemy of good here. We do need to get a regime in place. We will be looking to best practice around the world, and provisions in the bill do provide for that.

The reason we don’t support a 20-minute cut-off, as proposed in the Amendment Paper, is because it does take some time for these devices to return a result. There are some issues in how cooperative a driver might be, and we did hear, actually—I understand the select committee undertook these tests where Arena Williams described the process last night. One of the members in the committee was unable to provide a test—I believe it might have even been my own colleague Andy Foster, who I was a little bit alarmed to hear this about. He seems like he’s OK, so that’s good news. There are some actual practical reasons why this might take a period of time.

The other part to that is if someone is pulled over and they are genuinely impaired, if there is a 20-minute cut-off, as proposed in the Amendment Paper, that’s a stop clock: you can play for time. As indicated, if you’ve got a driver who’s not cooperative or refuses to give the sufficient volume of sample, even if they were able to—so there’s a chance there that the system would be gamed. It’s quite likely that that would be the case, so 20 minutes—we don’t support that. We do think there needs to be operational discretion from the police. We do have confidence in the police that they will roll this out in an appropriate manner.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for those answers. It’s interesting: the conversation in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did touch on whether there should be a legislative time restraint to really take into account the serious concerns which were raised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 7 report from the Attorney-General. ACT is rather concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this bill, so I would like to hear some answers from the Minister to a couple of concerns which I have, and I also have some further concerns to raise after this contribution.

One of my concerns, Minister, is you’ve defined a stop clock: if you set a time limit, we’ll end up with a stop clock. I mean, I think section 114 of the Land Transport Act says you’re only allowed to stop a driver for 15 minutes without cause before needing to move to another piece of legislation or another contributing factor—so if you suspect them of something else, you can move to another piece of legislation. Did the Government and did the Minister think about maybe having, say, a 15 minute or—as Mr Utikere has proposed—a 20-minute time, and then having an automatic progression, as in some kind of a mandatory sample? Did you look into that in any way, Minister? I think that would negate the stop clock, because who’s really going to try and play for time if they know as soon as that time runs out, the police officer who has that person stopped can use suspicion of cause to go on to another process? I think that is an issue that I’d like to hear the Minister’s comment on.

The other issue that came up in select committee—and I’m less concerned about this after discussion with the police, but it is still a concern that I’d like even just to have the Minister on record saying what he would and would not expect to happen in the real world—is amended section 59, inserted by clause 10, and that is failure or refusal to remain in a specified place or to accompany an enforcement officer. We had advice in the committee that this would be used only for, as an example, moving a driver from a somewhat unsafe, dangerous position—maybe on the road—to a shoulder, a berm, or off the road just so that there is a safer place to actually conduct one of these tests. I’m a little bit concerned that there isn’t a limit on how far that can go. How far can an officer take somebody with them—you know, required to “accompany enforcement officer”? Would that be—say, as a police officer—I’ve pulled this person over, I don’t have the test with me but I think I’d like to do a random test; you will need to now accompany me to the station 20 minutes, 50 kilometres, down the road. Our rural communities wouldn’t want to be going through that, as the Minister, I’m sure, can empathise as the Minister for Rural Communities.

Look, let’s be fair, police do great work, but they are humans. We don’t want to have issues arise where there’s a gap in the law that could be exploited in that sort of position. I’d like to hear on that—“accompany an … officer”.

I’d also like to hear the Minister really, really answer the question I’ve just proposed about having a next step after a cut off, rather than just having, as it was described just now, a target for a person of ill motivation to try and get to avoid doing a random roadside oral fluid screening test. I’d just like to make the point that this is for the first test—this is a screening test. It is the first test which somebody does; we should not be expecting this to be taking 20 minutes. For the future, when courts or others are looking back on what’s happened in this Chamber today, I think they would like to see something from the executive, something from the Minister, saying, “Look, if I saw a case of 20 minutes, I would be seriously concerned.”—something along those lines, Minister, just to give some guidance to future New Zealanders looking back on what we’re doing here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually have a similar point to the previous speaker, Cameron Luxton, around a particular point, and this is clause 10(5). Basically, it says, after section 59(2), insert new subsection (3)—and I’m looking at paragraph (b)—which is when a person committing an infringement offence “fails or refuses to accompany without delay an enforcement officer”.

Now, I know there might be other people who would like to ask more around the question of enforcement officers, but my first question—and I’m also just signalling to the Chair that there are a lot of subparts to Part 2, and I would personally be looking at doing it, methodologically, from Subpart 1 to Subpart 6. I think, on Subpart 1, for this particular question—I know there are other people who might be more interested in terms of some of the conditions and circumstances around enforcement officers—my question is around the power that is being granted to an enforcement officer to be able to issue that infringement notice if a person fails or refuses to accompany without delay.

I am sure the Minister for Rural Communities is aware of the obiter dictum that was part of the landmark case of Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board in 1984 through the Court of Appeal. In that particular instance, just for context, essentially it was a person who had a car full of thousands of eggs and was stopped by a poultry farmer officer on multiple occasions, where they were asked where their eggs came from and the person refused to answer and was issued with an infringement notice as well as a $700 fine.

It came from a chicken.

It came from a chicken, but where is that chicken from? But, anyway, the point is that that particular thing went all the way up to the Court of Appeal, and it became a fundamental question around a person’s privilege in terms of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, I had a look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, particularly the section 7 report, and I am a little bit alarmed that neither section 23(4), 25(e), or 27(1) were a part of that report. I think, in this case, it is absolutely vital that we address those three particular sections, because it all comes down to a person’s privilege against self-incrimination. The reason I raise that case and I want to mention this point is that, for a person to have committed an infringement notice, it’s “fail or refuse to accompany without delay”, because they refused to accompany on the basis that what they would need to do when they are accompanying the enforcement officer will be subject to self-incrimination. That is quite a serious New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, and that is quite a serious right, in terms of the fundamental rights that we have as members and people of Aotearoa.

The reason that that case was so important, and why we are seeing it again here, is on the basis that there is a general concern around a person’s liberty and their being able to travel freely and be able to not self-incriminate in these sorts of situations. There was a genuine concern, as part of that case, around the fact that we are looking at too much power being granted to the executive, or, in this case, to the enforcement officers to be undertaking—

Can you just repeat the case again?

Yes, it is Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board. It is a Court of Appeal case from 1984.

Is this in the Green Party talking points?

We are the legislature; of course, we’re going to be mentioning case law that is pertinent to the way we make bills. It’s one of the things, particularly for the committee stage, with the Hansard—I mean, the member would understand, with the Hansard, when lawyers are taking certain cases to the court or if someone, anyone, challenges this bill on a matter of fact and a matter of one’s privilege against self-incrimination, they will be going to the Hansard, and they will be looking at the ministerial intent as part of the statutory interpretation process, which I am sure that member is well aware of.

I’ll be letting the poultry farmers know.

Yes, please do, because it is quite an exciting case. I would highly recommend that any member who hasn’t seen the case or hasn’t read that case brief to go and have a look. But the point here is: what is the power being granted to an enforcement officer under clause 10—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take on a couple of the points that have been raised. I know everyone wants to get to the Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board case, but I will deal with Julie Anne Genter’s points around approving devices and the accuracy of devices.

We know that the screening tests now are about 95 percent accurate and the laboratory tests are almost 100 percent accurate, so there is a high degree of accuracy. An infringement is only found on the basis of the laboratory testing. A positive result at the roadside triggers that laboratory analysis, and we expect police to monitor the effectiveness of those devices over time as technology overseas in similar jurisdictions evolves. We have provisioned for that in the bill and we have discussed that earlier on in these deliberations.

To the points that Cameron Luxton and Lawrence Xu-Nan made, in substance raising the same issue, I must say the Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board case, discussed regularly at the Coach and Horses on a Friday night, is seared into the consciousness of rural New Zealand. It is essentially the civil liberties element, the failure to remain in place or accompany an officer, and how far can an officer take a driver. Those are substantive questions that came from Mr Luxton and Mr Xu-Nan. There are existing powers that the police have within the alcohol enforcement laws, and we expect that the police will conduct themselves in exactly the same way with the drug testing as they do with the alcohol provisions on those matters.

Thank you to the Minister for Rural Communities for that response, but I think that doesn’t actually reassure—I know it doesn’t reassure me; I don’t know if Mr Cameron Luxton would have other thoughts around this.

Yes, it is true that under the primary legislation, or including this amendment bill, enforcement officers would have the power to do that, but, again, it comes down to the lack of specificity or unless there is specific secondary legislation that will be specifying the powers that are granted to an enforcement officer. The reason I mention about the level of specificity is when it comes to something as important as our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, often when it does get challenged in a court of law, it favours the side that did not draft the bill, and it doesn’t favour the side that doesn’t have any level of specificity.

One of the reasons why I raise this particular case is because of what we’ve seen from subsequent case law as a result of the case that I just mentioned, as well as the comment that was made as part of the obiter dictum in that particular case. What I’m curious about, and, I guess, slightly concerned about, is that what we are seeing here is that by granting and by not having that level of reassurance around the testing itself and having enforcement officers granting those powers, what we might actually see is more people being able to challenge the enforcement officer or the relevant enforcement agency on the matter of privilege, and on the matter of privilege against self-incrimination because of the fact that there isn’t a level of specificity that comes down to the extent of the power granted to enforcement officers.

It was mainly a question of when it comes to enforcement officers. I understand that both the primary legislation, as well as this bill, may confer certain powers, but what those powers extend to—does it extend to, for example, we’ve seen the enforcement officer being able to detain; does it extend to the enforcement officer being able to issue a fine? What are the limitations of that fine? What are the ways that the person who commits the offence will be able to, I guess, receive that—orally or by writing? Again, the more specific that we make the legislation, the fewer chances there will be for people to be able to challenge that, because of the fact that it is all laid out in a high degree of detail.

That was mainly in response to what the Minister said, and, again, I appreciate the Minister answering the questions. Those powers are conferred within the primary legislation, but I just want some clarity around whether there will be additional notices provided or additional secondary legislation created by Order in Council that allows us to see that in the context of this bill that is addressed. I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of the high degree of accuracy, etc., but, again, the difference we’re seeing with this bill is the context that it is not about drink-driving; it’s about drug-driving.

For drink-driving, we’re looking at possibly—correct me if I’m wrong—one specific compound, which is ethanol, whereas with drug-driving, we’re looking at a whole myriad of different potential comedowns, different levels, and, again, it comes down to the idea that, yes, there is the level of accuracy, but different people have different pharmacological effects as a part of that, and the first-pass effect, in terms of how your liver functions, all factors into that. In a sense, there is potentially this sense that it is unquantifiable, which is why I was asking the Minister before about the pharmacological effect.

In the context of this, I’m just wanting some clarifications around whether there will be other secondary legislation as a result of this particular bill that’s introduced.

Thank you. I take my first call on this particular bill. Just after the last speaker’s presentation to the committee, it gives another meaning to “fried” in regards to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. We should put “Fried” in there, just because he’s brought up the eggs in his speech.

Look, I just want to make a short contribution to this, Minister, and I’m looking forward to your contribution to the questions that I have and the concerns that I have in regards to this bill. I will touch on Part 2—replacement section 59, inserted by clause 10, and replacement section 60A, inserted by clause 11—in terms of the powers of enforcement officers. As we know and if we follow the data, Māori are four times more likely to receive a conviction for drug possession. How far does the testing go in terms of the powers of an enforcement officer? Are we just testing for what appears to be somebody who is under the influence, or does it allow, then, for the fishing expedition of that particular person who has been pulled over? I don’t see anything in the legislation that isolates this as just an isolated case.

If we look at the data, Māori men are more likely to be stopped, tasered, and prosecuted by the police due to bias and structural racism. That was a report that came out, and the name of the report is Understanding Policing Delivery, and Māori men are stopped because of their—and in the report, it actually talks about their physical appearance, their size, their gender, their age, and the perception of aggressive behaviour—perception. Now, to some people, their perception of aggressive behaviour or even ability to be intimidated could be somebody wearing gang regalia. That’s not a public place, in a vehicle, right? That’s a private vehicle. Some people deem that as that, and we’ve seen legislation being moved in this House to that fact. I have concerns about the particular sections that I have mentioned, on the powers of enforcement officers, because of the data and the many reports that have been presented and that have been done and the and the structural racism and bias that continues to go towards Māori in this particular fashion.

I do have concerns in regards to that. I don’t see any protective measures put in place. I do like the amendment proposed by the member Tangi Utikere. You don’t want people there all day. As this bill goes through and we debate the amendments, I do think there should be some protective measures. There are no protective measures in here. There are no protective measures, and how far can the powers of the enforcement officer go? Are we just testing, or are we then going to search the vehicles, and are we then going to search the person? The implications of that means that other laws then kick in and, again, supports the report Understanding Policing Delivery of their bias and structural racism. That’s the fact.

These are the questions that I ask of the Minister. What protective measures does this piece of legislation have in place to ensure that there isn’t the bias, that there isn’t the structural racism, that, following the report, Māori are not stereotyped, because of their physical appearance, size, gender, age, and the perception of aggressive behaviour? Those are the questions that I have for the Minister, and I look forward to his answers. Kia ora tātou.

Kia orana Mr Chair, and thank you. I am disappointed to learn that some parties might be seeking to adopt a position that, effectively, provides restrictions on the free movement and liberty of people of this country, or anyone, actually, who is driving a motor vehicle. Mr Waititi identified the lack of protective measures, which is in line with what the Attorney-General has identified as well, and it is the position that we take on this side of the House in leaning into—

Great minds think alike.

—absolutely—some of those amendments. I have to signal the real concern that we would have if there was nothing put in this bill to address the specific concerns that the Attorney-General has raised, because as it stands—I actually like the term “the Foster clause”, which Mr Patterson referred to. What it identifies is that where someone is perhaps in the circumstance where they have an inability to legitimately not provide a suitable sample, they would be able to be detained—anyone would be able to be detained—for an indefinite period of time. Mr Luxton has identified concerns that are very real. I mean, we’d expect that people are able to move around this country on our roads without any unfair limitation.

Now, everyone accepts that when you rock on up to a breath-alcohol screening point, that is perhaps, for some, going to be a mild inconvenience, but you do not expect to be waiting there for 20 minutes for a screening test. It’s a matter of seconds, right? I think that most people in this House would have experienced a breath-alcohol screening test. It’s very, very simple and is some impediment, but not in excess of 20 minutes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for this to have a protective measure that actually is in excess of the only other time limit that exists in land transport legislation, which is 15 minutes.

If we have a look at the amendment, for the benefit of other members of the committee of the whole House, what it seeks to do is to say that a person required to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to administer an oral fluid screening test cannot be required to remain stopped for a period that exceeds 20 minutes. Members might ask, “Well, when would the 20 minutes actually commence?” Well, we’ve got an answer for you: it’s the next one that comes. Subsection (1B) would provide that the 20-minute period contained in the subsection commences when an enforcement officer informs the driver of the requirement to undertake an oral fluid screening test, which would be the initial one.

The moment that an enforcement officer informs the driver that there is a requirement for them to undertake an oral fluid screening test, that is the very first one. From that point, the 20 minutes starts. It doesn’t start from the moment that a vehicle is stopped and is waiting in a queue—as we have all experienced—but the clock would start the moment the enforcement officer is, effectively, informing the driver of the reason as to why they are stopped and the requirement to undertake the oral fluid screening test. We don’t think that that is unreasonable.

Now, there has been a suggestion that drivers would be able to game the system. The good thing about this legislation is that it actually provides flexibility around the compulsory impairment test (CIT). Currently, the police are restricted as to when they can engage that CIT. This provides much flexibility to the police to actually divert, when they need to, to engage that. If they have real cause to believe that there is impairment, then they can go down that route. We will come to the CIT later on because there are particular things that need to happen with that, but I have real concerns that the Parliament would allow to go through this change in legislation that, effectively, would allow for citizens, residents, and visitors going about their normal business to be detained for a period in excess of 20 minutes—in excess of 20 minutes.

We hear about the changing technologies and all that sort of stuff, and we hear that there are practical reasons—do not roll this out until those issues are sorted. The procurement of devices and how that works needs to be sorted, and it needs to not limit the reasonable movement of citizens beyond a period of 20 minutes. I ask the Minister in the chair why he thinks that it is appropriate to have limitations to that extent.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I thought I would just address a couple of questions that are bit of a hangover from last night.

One of them was from Julie Anne Genter. Ms Genter asked a question around fatal crashes and some evidence around that, and I’m advised that the provisions in the bill are intended to improve the detection and deterrence of drug driving on our roads. Of course, the impact at this stage in New Zealand is unknown because we’ve never done this before, but the officials in Police and the ministry will be closely monitoring deaths and serious injuries where a driver involved in a crash had consumed impairing drugs. We know from statistics that one in three deaths on our roads is influenced by this kind of behaviour. We would assume that any impaired driving or driving under the influence we can take off the road would have some impact, but it awaits to be seen, because we actually have to introduce the measures first before we can undertake the testing.

The second question from Ms Genter was: will it be possible that the drivers know the substances that the oral fluid test will be testing for at the time they are in operation? The answer to that is yes. The bill does require the police Minister to approve the oral fluid screening devices by notice, and that notice must specify the qualifying drugs or families of drugs that the devices will be used to detect and the concentration level of the drug or drugs that will return a positive result.

There were some further questions last night from Lawrence Xu-Nan. Mr Xu-Nan, after his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) questions and benzo questions, asked: do we think the tests are reliable enough or accurate enough to warrant limitation under BORA? Yes, we do. The devices are about 95 percent accurate in correctly detecting the presence of some drugs, although there is some variation and there is some recourse beyond that to address the issue. The regime does require two positive tests at the roadside before a person is stood down for 12 hours and a positive laboratory test before an infringement notice is issued. We think that’s adequate and sufficient protection in place.

Just finally, there’s the amendment from Tangi Utikere amending new sections 71G(3) and 71GA(2), inserted by clause 22. We don’t support these amendments. The sections require the police Minister to consult the Minister of Transport and the science Minister. If the police Minister considers it appropriate to do that, they can do it; there’s no need for the bill to provide mandatory consultation for this discretionary action.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you. I really thank the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Transport, for his answers to my questions yesterday. There is a follow-up question from what the Minister just said. The Minister of Police will be required to let people know which substances will be tested for in the oral fluid devices. My understanding from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that it’s unlikely that they would be testing for more than two or three substances at one time, because the more substances you’re testing for, the longer it takes to get a result.

We have been, in this section, in this Part 2, talking about the issues around the length of time that drivers might need to be detained, so I guess the question that flows from the answers that the Minister just gave is: if drivers know that certain substances will be tested for, it’s also the case that a whole lot of other—dozens of other—substances won’t be tested for. What is to stop people from switching the substance so that maybe they’re using less of the substance that’s being tested for but still using other impairing substances that won’t be tested for? How can we have the policy objective of deterring people from driving impaired if we’re only testing for two or three substances and drivers know what those are—when we know there’s many, many more substances that can impair driving?

I guess it’s just a question around what is the Government going to do about the fact that they can only test for a few substances at one time; there are many, many impairing substances that presumably are represented in the statistics the Minister made reference to.

Then, otherwise, in this part, I guess the other question is: will the Government be seeking to test for more substances? You know, maybe six—I don’t think you can test for more than six. And, I guess, the more substances that are in the devices that are procures, the longer the wait-time to get a result. I think this does, again, question whether—because the Attorney-General did mention there’s real risk of arbitrary detention that will increase if you’re testing for more substances. It would be great if the Minister did have an answer to that, although I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given so far.

I believe we’ve really only covered a few of the subparts in Part 2, so expecting, Mr Chair, that we’ll be able to drill down into the detail of further subparts after this.

Just to quickly address those questions from the member: of course, we don’t test for any substances now, so any addition to that process will be a good start and I think we could always look at adding more substances later on if the member encouraged us to do so. I’m aware that we’ve already covered this off in the previous part, so don’t want to labour those issues too much longer, I think, as we are now in Part 2.

There was a question there from Mr Waititi about the protective measures the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill has against bias and discrimination. The bill does enable enforcement officers to stop any driver to administer oral fluid screening tests without the need to suspect. That’s an important part of the regime. It’s an important component so that there are no, I guess, unreasonable factors preventing police from doing that. But, I mean, police can do that generally; unlike other jurisdictions around the world, there are no reasons police need to provide for stopping the driver. There are a whole range of things that police stop drivers for.

We are primarily concerned about stopping harmful behaviour on the road. Police will consider issues raised when operating the regime but, of course, we’ve got utmost faith that our police operate with integrity and we have high confidence in our police, the men and women of the New Zealand Police force—that they will treat every individual that they come across with the dignity and respect they deserve, regardless of what they look like. That’s the expectation of this Government: that we treat people as individuals; we don’t treat people by the colour of the skin but, rather, we acknowledge the content of their character, so to speak, and we treat everyone equally. That’s the expectation that the Government applies to Government agencies and that’s the expectation that we would apply to the police as well.

I wanted to touch on Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper around timing; I think the previous Minister’s already addressed some of the answers to the questions around that so I won’t labour it too much longer, but I understand that specifying a time frame in legislation may incentivise drivers to prolong the process to avoid undergoing a screening test, which would undermine the effectiveness of the regime. I think the previous Minister’s mentioned that before so we don’t need to go into it too much longer.

Finally, there was a comment there about needing to be very cautious about restricting people’s movements, particularly in vehicles, and, of course, we agree. We agree that those limitations on free movement around the country should only be done for very, very important reasons. We think that the prevention of death and injury on the roads due to impairment is a very important reason and, like the previous Government who took significant steps to stop individuals travelling around the country for very good health reasons, we think this is a very good law and order reason—and health reason—to put some minor preventions in place to stop those people driving on our roads and causing horrific harm and injury to innocent New Zealanders going about their everyday business.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I just want to signal to you, Mr Chair, that this is the substantial portion of this bill, with 20 pages and eight subparts, and it is also a bill that has a section 7 report, which then deserves greater scrutiny. I’ve been kind of taking things methodically and moving through from one subpart to another and there is still very much to say about this particular bill, despite the fact that the Associate Minister of Transport may suggest that some of them have been covered under the previous part. I also want to signal to the Minister that there are some very specific clauses that we would like to address as part of Part 2.

The first question to the Minister, kind of in response to what the Minister has said—I think that fundamentally, based on the independent police report from August last year, it signals that the police themselves, as well as the independent report, suggests that there is a level of bias when we’re looking at basically stopping people to administer that drug test. I agree with the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Patterson, to say that, yes, the test itself doesn’t discriminate but the way that the people who are being waved down or being stopped very much has a level of bias, particularly towards Māori, ethnic communities, and disabled whānau. That is precisely the question that—

Where’s your evidence of that, Lawrence?

Oh, the independent report from August 2024. If you haven’t seen it, have a look. It’s really enlightening. This very much also supports the question that our colleague from Te Pāti Māori, Rawiri Waititi, was asking as well regarding some of that bias.

My question to the Associate Minister of Transport is on replacement section 64(6), inserted by clause 12(3). Now, it does say that the element of defence is something that is incredibly important for people to have as a part of this whole process. Again, someone having that level of defence is incredibly important when we’re looking at certain rights that are being restricted as a result of this bill.

I am interested to know why that element of defence that has been corrected only talks about an error in terms of the proportion of a qualifying drug, but unlike the previous definition of a qualifying drug, it doesn’t take into consideration the pharmacological effects of that drug. Would pharmacological effects be considered as an aspect of an error that doesn’t prevent someone from having that defence, or is it just simply in terms of the proportionality itself?

I know that I’ve also held back on a number of questions around the determination of the qualifying drug. I think that is coming up later when we’re looking further into Subparts 6, 7, and 8, but I also want to raise the fact that what we are also seeing here is one major Amendment Paper that has been dropped by the Government as part of this process that didn’t go through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and potentially addresses some of the issues and concerns that the select committee raised, but then we also see the new Amendment Paper that is being dropped by the Hon Chris Bishop in terms of clause 16. So I think I’ll move on to that particular clause.

This is replacement section 71A(8)(b)(iia)(A), inserted by clause 16(5), in the Hon Chris Bishop’s Amendment Paper 256, and this is in conjunction with Amendment Paper 257. I wanted to check with the Minister that we are seeing that the provision with the capital “(A)” here, “may be issued with an infringement notice” has been removed as part of the Hon Chris Bishop’s amendment. I wanted to check with the Minister if that was partly to do with the fact that what you have is a situation where the person who has a positive oral fluid sample should not be issued with an infringement notice before they have a chance to provide a level of defence when it comes to being allowed a private analyst to analyse that sample at the same time. I think one of the things I want to check was the rationale behind the removal of the capital “(A)” of that particular subclause.

The second question I have for the Minister is what sort of analysis is being done that “at the person’s own expense” isn’t going to disadvantage people from lower socio-economic areas that do not have the money or the resources to be able to pay for their own tests at their own expense.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just want to quickly address one of the points the member who just took his seat, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, raised around bias. I think we’ve well and truly covered this topic. We have the utmost faith in the New Zealand Police that they will treat everyone fairly and equally, and I think to continue to labour the point might border on repetitive. I wouldn’t want that to be something that the member engages in in this debate because we love fresh content and new questions, and repetitive questions obviously are not something that I’m overly interested in either.

Just in terms of Miss Genter’s question from before, that I partially answered—I just wanted to make sure I give a full answer. This was around what is deterring drivers from switching to using substances not currently tested for. The devices do only test for a defined list of qualifying drugs—they will be kept under review—but also just to note that if a police officer does suspect the driver has consumed a drug and is impaired, the officer can require the driver to undergo a compulsory impairment test.

I’d like to have some clarification in relation to giving blood under Part 2. New section 72 of the changes talks about when you are taking either blood or saliva from somebody. What would happen, I’m interested, in parts of rural New Zealand where the officer and the person pulled over may be some distance from a place where blood can be taken or where the extra test can be done, even if the person isn’t able to drive their car? That’s if they’ve done two saliva tests, both are proving to be positive, the car is unable to be driven by that person, and the lab test still has not come back.

In situations like that, what happens with the vehicle a long distance from a police station or a tow-truck driver? I’m assuming that the police officer would be able to escort the driver, who can no longer drive, back to a town or a city centre, or that there’s a system to be able to call a taxi or an Uber, I’m assuming, if there’s one available. But if the car is then left at the side of the road, is it then the responsibility of that driver to have the car towed or to find other ways? Where does that responsibility lie?

My point becomes: if those two tests, which have tested positive through the saliva test, then come back not confirmed through a lab test, is it fair that the driver of the vehicle is then required to pay for the towing or taxi or Uber fares for themselves when the lab test has proven that there’s no conclusive evidence that a prohibited substance was detected in that final test?

Further to that, it would be also really helpful to know, in situations where someone refuses to take a test at the side—I understand that incurs a penalty—whether they are able to change their mind down the track? If they refuse and they get the penalty, it will just be useful—and I apologise if this has been covered, but if you’re, again, in parts of rural New Zealand when you’re not on a main State highway or you’re away from bright lights and you’ve got a single police officer who’s dealing with an individual and there are issues in terms of accessing either a police station, transport, or additional backup testing, I’m just wondering if there’s been some consideration in the operational practicalities of how that would apply to parts of rural New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll respond to a couple of the points raised by members. A very quick one from Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked why new section 71A(8)(b)(iia)(A) was deleted. It was deleted because it repeats a matter already covered in the previous subparagraph and it fixes a drafting area, so hopefully that sorts that one.

The questions from the member Ginny Andersen around the impact on rural New Zealand—I think they raised relatively good points. My expectation would be that we treat the situation exactly the same as how we treat drink-drivers, and that is that we have zero tolerance for the harm caused by drink- and drug-drivers on our communities, in particular in our rural communities, where deaths on our rural roads have a significantly large, disproportionate impact on those communities because often one death on those roads means it impacts so many families and so many communities in those areas where almost literally everyone in that road and in that community will know that person.

We take a very low-risk approach to having drink-drivers and drug-drivers on our rural roads. The member’s very good with her maths. She can do the calculations of the likelihood of two false positives: it’s very, very low. On the case where there are two false positives and a laboratory test comes back with a negative, that may well cause some inconvenience or some issues with those individuals that are picked up, but the likelihood of that happening is very, very low and it’s worth the trade-off, for us, in order to reduce and eliminate the risk of drug-drivers and drink-drivers on our rural roads who cause havoc, cause chaos, destroy families, and rip communities apart. That’s not what we stand for on this side of the House, so that’s why we’re progressing with this part of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know the Associate Minister of Transport is a new Minister but he has yet to address the second point that the Attorney-General has raised as a concern. Now, there has been some conversation about the arbitrary detention point, but the unreasonable search and seizure point that the Attorney-General has raised in her report is something that the Government really do need to respond to.

This hangs on the taking of saliva or the requirement for someone to provide saliva on the roadside, but further than that is the taking of blood, because there will be circumstances where there will be a requirement for someone to have their blood taken, and that is when someone effectively fails, with all good intent and reason, to be able to provide an adequate sample. Is it correct, Minister, that the only option available to that person then would be to provide a sample of blood, effectively forcing them into that position? He’s nodding his head so maybe that is not the case. When someone is unable to provide two samples, oral fluid samples, is it correct that the only option for them then would be to go and have their blood taken? Of course, they could refuse to do that, but in terms of taking a sample for the purposes of checking or having it analysed, is that the case?

For someone who is wishing to comply with all requests in a situation where they provide the saliva but is just not able to provide the reading or analysis on the roadside, what are the options available to them? That is the first question.

The second question is when it comes to the blood test fee, could the Minister please provide some response to the committee around who meets that cost? I think the bill is silent, in which case it might then fall on the police or the Crown to meet that cost. Minister Bishop has introduced an Amendment Paper that changes the election of a private individual to go and have the oral fluid analysed, and that’s at the person’s individual cost—I understand that; that’s a change. There are two things on that, though. One is that if the private analysis comes back to indicate that, actually, no, it was not a positive reading, is that money for the fee somehow reimbursed or returned to the individual?

The other part of that for the Minister is: in the circumstance where one qualifying drug or family of qualifying drugs is detected upon analysis but a private analysis is elected and taken through and it comes up with a different response to a different qualifying drug or family of drugs, what is the situation of the infringement there? Does it still stand, or does it relate purely to the original family of qualifying drugs that was tested for and turned up a positive result for?

The other question that I have is related to replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16, which states that “if the analysis establishes that the person’s oral fluid sample is positive for 1 or more listed qualifying drugs, the person may be issued with an infringement notice:”. Can the Minister provide a response as to why it is “may” and why it is not “will”? Are there circumstances where an infringement may not follow, and what are those circumstances within which that infringement will not follow? I’m happy to give the Minister the reference again. It is replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16.

The other question that I have, given that this is the substantive part of the bill and there are many other clauses, relates to a clause that has not been touched on yet, one that I am interested in, and that is clause 17. I’m referring to replacement section 71B(1A)(b)(i), inserted by clause 17. This is about the requirement to accompany the enforcement officer to a place. It has already been raised by a couple of members today, including Mr Luxton. There is a distinct difference around booze buses in your locality. These are what are unknown technologies at this stage for the roll-out. Are there any parameters around what that place would be defined as? Is there, for example, a requirement as to a limitation on a distance, particularly if you are travelling with family members or others who would have to remain in situ in the vehicle whilst that work is undertaken?

Just to address the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan around replacement section 64(3A)(a), inserted by clause 12; he asked me to explain the amendments. The amendment maintains the existing defence provisions. It replaces the use of “oral fluid test” with “oral fluid screening test” to acknowledge the change in the use of devices, and that helps clarify that prosecutions regarding offences for drugs in the blood are not affected by the results of a roadside screening test.

Just to address the first part of Mr Utikere’s questions, who is re-litigating the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) arguments that we’ve gone over a couple of times previously—in fact, twice last night. I’ll repeat it again in case Mr Utikere wasn’t there to hear it—

BORA is boring.

Oh, it’s pretty important.

Well, it is very important. At the risk of not wanting to—[Interruption]

I’d like to hear the Minister’s answer, please.

—provide a legal opinion while there are distinguished professors in the Chamber who no doubt could offer much more insightful views in mind, the BORA tests require us to satisfy a number of aspects.

We on this side of the Chamber think that this is a sufficiently important purpose, which is protecting New Zealanders from the risks and harm of drink- and drug-drivers. We think that the policy to do this—that is testing those individuals for the presence of drugs in their system to prevent them from driving—is sufficiently connected to preventing that harm. We think that there are no other ways, or minimal ways, that we could implement this policy. We think this is pretty much the basic level of things you could do to test for drugs in the system to avoid those horrific accidents and horrific deaths that kill so many New Zealanders on our roads. Overall, we think it is proportional to the response.

We think that, in terms of the requirement to test for those substances, we’re in a pretty reasonable space and we think it is a justified limit on people’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Hopefully, that gives us a pretty good round-up on NZ BORA.

Just finally, we will come back to some of the other questions around—the one thing in there that I can, I think, address now from Mr Utikere was: will people be forced to undertake blood samples? No, I understand in no legislation in this country are people required to undertake medical treatment or be provided to give blood tests. Thank you.

Before I take another question—and the Associate Minister of Transport has just indicated that he’s got some other answers that he will come back on—I want to hear specific questions rather than speeches. I understand Dr Xu-Nan is going through some of the clauses, so I don’t want any repetitive questions from other parts that I’ve heard, please. I’ve been watching very carefully and I do find some of the calls are speeches and perhaps—and I’m not referring to the member that’s currently on his feet, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but just in general—repetitive, and I want to hear specific questions rather than speeches.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that—I will be signalling very clearly in terms of which section that I’m referring to. I’m currently referring to replacement section 71GA, inserted by clause 22, but before that, I think I just want to make a note that, again, one of the things I heard before from the Government members that is quite concerning is someone shouted out that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is boring. I would like to raise that this is a fundamental constitutional document of Aotearoa New Zealand and it should be by no means regarded as boring.

On to the actual section, this partially—actually, because I didn’t hear a response from any of the Ministers—answers some of my questions in terms of the threshold, and particularly the positive evidential threshold, for some of the new qualifying drugs that will be introduced as part of that. I have a question on this section in general. The first question is around replacement section 71GA(1)(b), inserted by clause 22. It says, “specify … for each listed qualifying drug,”, so the Minister of Police may be able to specify under secondary legislation the concentration level of the drug in the person.

The Minister already mentioned that the test itself has a 95 percent accuracy, and two tests would have an even greater accuracy—I get that and understand that. Is the test sufficient to detect concentration levels up to a particular threshold, or is the detection of 95 percent accuracy simply being able to detect a particular kind of drug? That, hopefully, is reasonably straightforward and simple question.

Now, my next question is to do with replacement section 71GA(2), which is: “Before making a notice, the Minister of Police must consult the Minister of Transport and the Science Minister.”, which is understandable and fair. We have mentioned and touched on the fact that certain drugs aren’t part of the listed drugs currently. I have mentioned other compounds that have a similar chemical structure as benzodiazepines and other forms of anxiolytics. Some of those drugs are incredibly important to people with anxiety, depression, and forms of neurodiversity. Will the Minister consider also consulting other organisations?

My concern is that just consulting the Minister of Transport and the science Minister may not actually address the real concern that we hear from our communities, particularly from those who are suffering from, let’s say, depression, anxiety, or even who are neurodivergent. Would that be a part of the consideration as part of the consultation?

The last question I have is to do with replacement section 71GA(4)(c), which is: if the positive evidential threshold does not align with the applicable threshold in relevant standards or if there isn’t any, the Minister of Police may nevertheless be satisfied. What does the Minister consider to be satisfactory in that case when there isn’t an identifiable standard, either domestic or international?

I do notice that two of the standards have been highlighted in replacement section 71G(7A), inserted by clause 22—some of the standards have been listed there—but when it doesn’t align, does it mean it doesn’t align because what the Minister wants is a higher threshold or a lower threshold, if he doesn’t align with that? And, if it doesn’t, what is the definition of “satisfied”? What are some of the criteria and some of the processes that the Minister will use in consultation with the Minister of Transport and the science Minister when determining that alignment in terms of a positive evidential threshold?

I have three questions. Does the test include concentration level? Will the Minister consult with other organisations, particularly from a perspective of those on anxiolytics for those suffering from depression and anxiety? And what does “underlying” mean, and what does “satisfy” mean?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the questions from Tangi Utikere around why does replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16, provide that an officer may issue an infringement notice if a laboratory test comes back positive. The answer to that is that police have a discretion to issue infringements in all contexts, and that aligns with the standard practice of police across the board.

I’ll address very quickly one of the questions raised by Dr Xu-Nan around whether or not neurodiversity is part of the Minister’s requirements or part of the Minister’s practice or intentions when he undertakes consultation. Now, I can’t speak for the Minister of Police, but I’m aware that the Minister of Police is very much an in-touch, progressive, sensitive Minister, aware of lots of different unique situations and circumstances. He comes into contact with many, many different people in the course of his career and I’m sure he will maintain the discretion to continue that in his consideration as well.

Just finally, just to touch on Dr Xu-Nan’s point around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), again we’re relitigating something we’ve been over quite a few times and I don’t want to labour the point. Of course BORA is a very important part of our statutory framework, but relitigating that issue that has been well and truly covered off is boring and I would hope that we can move on pretty quickly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll take a call from Tangi Utikere. Please keep it relevant and use new information.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to touch on three areas that have not been touched on yet, but, before I do, can I ask the Associate Minister of Transport whether he is intending to give a response to my question about the fee for blood being taken. Actually, I do think the committee deserves a response around who will foot that bill in circumstances where blood is the only option available to some.

I want to turn to replacement section 71B(1A)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 17(2). This is about the new opportunity for an enforcement officer to, effectively, engage a compulsory impairment test (CIT). One of the things that the select committee did hear about is the specialised training that goes into that particular test and that not all police officers are able to actually undertake that test. My question to the Minister, in that context, is: has he received any advice around the ability for this to adequately be engaged as something that is complementary as part of this roll-out regime? The select committee initiated these changes to allow further tools in the toolkit for enforcement officers to deal with impairment, which is what this particular bill goes to the heart to, and seeking to address that.

That is not going to be any more helpful if the number of officers, particularly in rural communities, is not actually going to increase in being able to deliver on the CIT, because it’s not just any person; there is specified, specific training and certification that is required for these CITs. My question is about how confident the Minister is, or whether he has any advice that actually there are going to be changes to the roll-out of that programme to ensure that it can actually work hand in hand in trying to bring down impairment, which absolutely, on this side of the House, we want to do and want to achieve.

The other is in clause 18, and I want to seek clarity from the Minister. This is a section that relates to the requirement for a person to undergo a further oral test if either the first or the second screening test fails to produce a result, either because, I don’t know, there’s something faulty or something breaks, or whatever it might be. If there is a malfunction with the first or the second screening test, as this bill indicates, and as I understand it, there would be a requirement for one further test to be given. Can the Minister confirm that, in those circumstances, the maximum number of oral fluid screening tests that any individual who is stopped at the roadside would undertake is a maximum of three—that there would be no more than three? If they’ve done the first one and then the second one is a malfunction or a failure or what have you, this particular clause is engaged to permit the additional one. And, if that is the case, what happens after the third test and, for example, there’s another malfunction? Is it that the individual is simply free to go? Is it that the enforcement officer may engage some of those other provisions that exist?

My other, final point is around the tabled amendment in my name that I have not spoken to yet. I note the Minister, in a very early contribution, indicated that the Government was not supportive of it. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on that. I take his point that the requirement is for the Minister of Police—and we accept here that the Minister of Police is the most appropriate person to be making these decisions—to consult with both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Science. What the tabled amendment does is add in there an opportunity for the Minister to, effectively, consult with any other Ministers that he, she, or they may consider as appropriate. The Minister has said, “Well, the Minister can do that anyway.” The former Minister has also cited changing technologies in relation to this regime. This would just provide an opportunity for the Minister to turn their mind to other portfolio areas for warranted Ministers, where that might be appropriate. Those are new areas, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I completely addressed the couple of questions raised by the member. I don’t think we need further advice on that. New section 71D sets out the process for obtaining oral fluid samples that are required to be provided. You would never set a maximum limit as to the number of times you want to try to administer a test, because, for example, what happens if in the process of administering the test, the particular device or implement is dropped on the ground? You’re, obviously, not wanting to use that particular device or test, because it could be contaminated. And then what happens if it happens again and again? There might be a slippery condition—on rural roads, there’s lots of gravel around, and people can slip and slide here and there, so we’d never want to put a maximum in place, but we did put reasonable expectations on the process, and that’s all outlined in proposed new section 71DE, inserted by clause 19, in terms of maximum numbers of tests that actually work.

How confident am I that changes to the roll-out will work to bring down impairment? I’m incredibly confident that these changes will work. We have a high level of confidence in our police service. They are a tremendous group of men and women who serve our country fantastically well. I’m very proud to be supportive of the police in the role that they do in keeping our roads safe, particularly in rural and regional New Zealand where the causes of accidents and deaths on our roads can have a disproportionately high impact, especially in a community which isn’t particularly rife with drugs. Some of those issues raised around the rural sector, hopefully, have been well and truly covered off.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 256 set out on Amendment Paper 257 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 256 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 22 be agreed to.

Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 26 to 31, “Amendments to Parts 7, 9, 11, and 15 and Schedule 1”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just quickly go back one sec—well, it was a few seconds now. There was some consternation on the other side of the Chamber around some of the answers to whether or not there would be maximums put in place for the number of tests you can take. I was referring to the fact that you would never put a specific maximum in terms of attempts at tests or anything like that. Of course, under new section 71C(4), in clause 18, a person may be required to undergo only one further oral fluid test under this section, only if the first or second screening test fails to produce a result.

What we don’t want is to get into a situation where some sort of technical administrative failure such as dropping a test on the ground would be seen to count as a failed test. I don’t think anyone would see that as being a sensible approach to this regime, in the same way that if you were taking an oral breath test, if the particular device fell on the ground, that wouldn’t be counted as the first test, I’m sure. Hopefully, we can clear that one up.

Now, Part 3—I just had a recap of the part and it’s a very, very straightforward part, only a couple of pages, and it does some very, very succinct simple things. It inserts new section 94A into the Act, and that’s through clause 27, which is the substantive clause. This is the provision that requires an enforcement officer to forbid a person to drive a motor vehicle for 12 hours in certain circumstances, and now this will also include where a driver has tested positive in both roadside screening tests or where the driver fails or refuses to undergo the oral fluid screening process.

The Amendment Paper in the name of Minister Bishop adds a further ground which will require mandatory prohibition from driving where the person fails or refuses to provide an oral fluid sample without delay for laboratory testing. That’s where a sufficient sample has not been obtained from a screening test, and that harks back to some of our conversations last night around the adequacy of certain individuals’ ability to produce oral fluid samples.

Part 3 also inserts a new regulation-making power, which will be of interest to any members of the Regulations Review Committee, to prescribe the procedure for taking, handling, retaining, transferring, or disposing of an oral fluid sample. Now, these procedures will be influenced by the screening devices and laboratory services that police will use and procure under the new regime. They will be developed after the procurement process takes place and so therefore it is appropriate for those to be issued under regulation.

Finally, Part 3 inserts new Part 9 into “Skedule 1”, or Schedule 1, of the Act, depending on which part of the country you come from. This requires the Minister of Transport to appoint a reviewer to review amendments made by this bill and may also consider any amendments made by the earlier Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2022, passed under the previous Government. The review, which will be tabled in the House for us to consider, must be completed within five years of the commencement of this bill.

It’s important to keep the regime under regular review, given that it is a relatively complex regime. It’s new to us in New Zealand. It’s taken a while for us to get to this stage, so it’s important that we get through, get it in place, keep New Zealanders safe on our road, and provide some certainty about procurement and deployment of oral fluid screening devices. The review provides this House an opportunity to see how things are going, where the tweaks need to be made, and addresses a lot of the concerns raised by some members in the Chamber today.

Hopefully, a very, very straightforward part—hopefully, well understood by all members who have read the bill—and I am looking forward to getting through to Part 4 next, which is a very interesting part indeed.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you very much to the Minister for that explanation. I have two issues that I’d like to speak to and I might not be able to in one call on Part 3.

The first one is to do with people being able to be banned from driving for 12 hours simply if the results of their two oral fluid screening tests are positive. Previously, Ministers in the chair have made the point that a driver won’t receive an infringement unless the laboratory sample confirms that the level is beyond the threshold. However, I don’t believe there is sufficient time, so this part means that whether or not the laboratory analysis of the oral fluid later confirms the tests were correct, they’ll be mandatorily removed from driving for 12 hours. That was one of the issues that the Attorney-General raised, and said that they didn’t think it was deemed justified for the seizure. It’s also holding people up if they’re unable to travel to some place they need to travel to by driving during that 12-hour period.

I’m wondering if the Minister can just help us understand. One of the changes being brought in by this amendment legislation is the laboratory analysis to confirm the accuracy of the oral fluid screening device, but that is only going to apply to the infringement; it’s not going to be the case that that is needed to ban someone from driving for 12 hours. I’m just wondering if the Minister can speak to the issues raised by the Attorney-General around that. Has the Minister considered other alternatives, because there still are issues with the accuracy of the tests, as has been raised by the Ministers in the chair, the Attorney-General, and many submitters during the select committee period? What remedy is there for someone who does fail two oral fluid screening tests but then that is not confirmed by the laboratory analysis and they were prevented from driving for 12 hours? Is there any remedy they can seek for the State having taken away their ability to move freely with a motor vehicle at that time?

Since I do still have two minutes in this call, I’ll just raise the question about new Part 9. Part 9, which was inserted, was actually due to an amendment that I proposed when the previous legislation passed, and there was quite a lot of detail specifying what must be considered in the review. What new Part 9 seems to be doing is removing a bunch of that detail. There’s very little direction given to the Minister and the reviewer about what should be covered by the review.

I’m wondering why that change has been made, because, surely, previously, Parliament had considered that the bits that are being deleted, like “The review … must … consider the following matters: (a) the impact of the amendments: (b) the reliability of oral fluid screening tests, laboratory analysis of oral fluid samples, and blood tests in assessing a person’s impairment: (c) whether appropriate thresholds and impairment levels have been set”—you know, there’s a whole range of factors that were specified under the Act, and now that seems to be being removed, and so all that’s specified is that there is a review that may consider amendments and must report no later than five years, and that the Minister must respond to it. There’s no specifying what factors need to be considered in that review.

I don’t understand the purpose of this change. Why wouldn’t it be appropriate for it to be specified in legislation what should be considered, given that, as the Minister in the chair has himself said, we don’t yet know what the impact of this legislation will be and if it will achieve the intended outcome of reducing deaths and serious injuries, if it will achieve deterrence of impaired driving? It’s entirely possible that it won’t, that it can’t be rolled out at scale, and that impaired driving with other substances that aren’t able to be tested for on oral fluid devices will increase as a result of having oral fluid screening for only certain substances. There’s a whole lot of other issues that have been raised about whether these could have a disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika people.

I think it’s really important, and the Minister himself has said this review is very important to Parliament’s and the people of New Zealand’s confidence in this regime, so why have all these considerations been deleted by this part of the bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to give members some confidence that we will try and address all of the questions that are relevant and pertinent, I just want to very quickly address a question from Tangi Utikere in the previous part. With the consideration of the Chair, I think it’s important to try and address those questions where we can.

If a person is required to provide a blood sample because they’re unable to provide sufficient oral fluid, are they required to pay a fee? Section 67 of the Act will provide that the person is liable to pay the fee. This maintains the status quo in the Act—which already exists and, of course, which was passed by the previous Government—where a person would have a blood test if they couldn’t undertake a roadside test. In practice, police only apply this to recover the fee if the driver is convicted of a criminal offence as part of court-ordered costs on sentencing. Hopefully, that provides some assurances to the member.

Secondly, I will just briefly touch on Ms Genter’s questions. Again, we raised the issue of the Attorney-General’s report and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I would hope that we wouldn’t need to traverse our position on why we think the limits placed on people’s freedoms are justifiably limited by the particular importance of the purpose of the bill. I can rehash them again for the committee if they’d like to hear them again.

No, it’s OK.

OK, I’m hearing “No” from one side—

Go on then!

—and “Yes” from the other, but I think it’s just generally important that we recognise that this is a really important piece of legislation. We are trying to prevent drug-drivers from—

There’s no evidence.

—causing havoc and chaos on our roads. The member says there’s no evidence for that. Well, Governments often do a lot of things when they try and make positive change, and sometimes those things work and sometimes those things don’t work.

The Minister’s opening up a larger debate.

I think we’ve seen significant examples of that over the past six years where a number of things haven’t worked. We are trying to do something which we think will work. If we can remove people who are testing positive for drugs in their system from the road, either temporarily or in some cases for a significant period of time, we think that will lead to fewer deaths and less carnage on the road.

I received some advice late last night while I was the Minister in the chair that we have pretty much free rein to do whatever we like, but I won’t be taking up that advice for fear of expanding the debate too far beyond the very narrow scope of the part that we have already outlined here this morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister, James Meager, for those comments, because part of the committee stage is to also respond to matters that the Minister has raised as they are pertinent to the bill. Now, he touched on the fact that this is a Government and this is a bill that is seeking to make sure that what works, works well, basically, which is exactly why Labour, whilst in Government, introduced legislation to address this issue. We can talk about the practicalities of how that’s rolled out and how that might be reviewed, and that’s pertinent to the new Part 9 that is to be inserted into Schedule 1, which I’ll touch on in a moment.

I want to thank the Minister for his response to the question around blood-sample testing. It’s unfortunate that we can’t kind of delve into that as that may have had an impact as to how other parties may have voted on the previous part, but I do sort of cite that there is a little bit of a disconnect in the Minister’s response under the existing regime when it comes to blood-alcohol testing, which relies on a conviction for cost recovery or non - cost recovery. This is not about criminal convictions; this is about infringements and it’s about demerit points. They are two different things.

There is a provision in the bill that does lead itself down a criminal conviction pathway, but for the overwhelming majority of people for whom this will have an impact, they will not end up with a criminal conviction, unless that is changed—and that is a question for the Minister. Is that a new position, where criminal convictions will now come into the fray? Whilst there is a requirement for people to have to pay for a blood sample to be tested, his response there was that, actually, the cost being recovered, or not, can be sought through criminal proceedings. I know that the Minister has a legal background in this particular framework. Anyway, I will leave that there and I will move on to Part 3.

Let’s not embellish too much.

Sorry?

I said let’s not embellish my legal career too much.

I’ll leave it for others to form their views on that. In terms of Part 3, this does provide for the 12-hour period.

Now, we certainly are not opposed to having a prohibition on driving for a period of time. Can the Minister sort of provide some reassurance that the 12 hours is based on something, and is it that it’s actually consistent with other mechanisms for forbidding someone to drive a vehicle? Of course, there are others that have a much longer length of time. If someone is pulled over and they don’t have a driver’s licence, then they’re forbidden to drive until they get one, and in many circumstances, that is not 12 hours. If the Minister could just provide what the basis for the 12-hour period is, that would be quite helpful.

We see a lot of this phrase “without delay”. There’s a new proposal that’s in Minister Chris Bishop’s Amendment Paper 256, and it’s new section 94A(1)(ca) in clause 27, which says, “fails or refuses to provide an oral fluid sample without delay”. Now, how is that defined, because a delay to me, I’m sure, will be a delay to—well, someone else’s delay is different. We talk of Kāinga Ora houses being delayed in my electorate, and that definition, perhaps, is different from others. My question is: what does that mean? Is it context-dependent? Is it related to a time frame—although I sense that the Government is not keen on having time frames when it comes to particular hours or minutes, or those sorts of things.

I want to pick up on the new Part 9 that is to be inserted in Schedule 1, because, I have to say, I agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter, and I was surprised to learn that what had been proposed is a bit of a change. I know that that’s what has come through in the select committee process, but there were a number of concerns that were raised by submitters. I look at one that’s proposed to be deleted under what was the old clause 29(3)(e), and that’s “whether the amendments have had a disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika people:”. Now, these were specific concerns that were raised through the select committee stage and that element of bias, which has also been raised in the debate already, and so my question is why is it that the Government is seeking to, basically, not have some level of specificity around some of the concerns that have been raised.

It’s all good that there’s going to be a review. Perhaps the five years is actually going to be a little bit too long, and we’ll talk about that in terms of commencement when we get on to that, but the proposed review and terms of reference, if we can call it that, is very, very broad. There are none. It’s, basically, going to review everything. I’m interested and I’m wondering whether the Minister—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, let that be a lesson to me to try in good faith to answer questions, that have previously gone by, for fear of back-tracking on previous parts already considered. Point well taken by the member not to extend that gratitude in the future.

Now, I will answer the questions from Julie Anne Genter. Ms Genter asked a question about the matters being raised by the review; there’s no mandatory matters to consider. The bill as reported back by the select committee has simplified the statutory review provision. The statutory review can be wide ranging but does not prescribe certain matters to be considered. I think that’s a sensible approach so that future Governments aren’t restrained by statute in terms of what they can actually review in the Act, and we wouldn’t want to have to go back to amend the bill to add or remove things to be considered just so that we could then review the bill that we’re amending in order to undertake a review. It’s kind of a circular argument, but that’s the position there.

The second question from Ms Genter was: is there any remedy for persons who are stood down from driving from two oral fluid screening tests but this is not confirmed by the laboratory analysis? The 12-hour stand down from driving for a person who tests positive twice at the roadside is a road safety measure. This also addresses Mr Utikere’s question. It’s intended to address immediate risks of impairment from those drug-drivers who drive on our roads, cause accidents, and kill innocent New Zealanders. The requirement for two positive tests is intended to reduce the chance of a person being stood down based on two false positive tests. I think that is most of the questions that have been already raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to remind the Minister that, despite the fact that we do sometimes go back to specific reports, we asked you to contextualise it in situ to the particular subsection that we are referring to. I think it is important that we do discuss and may go back to certain evidence like the regulatory impact statement when we’re referring to this bill. That’s just to remind the Minister that, just because the Minister responded in the same way, it does not mean that the question we ask is not of relevance or is repetitive.

Now, in light of that, my first question to the Minister is around clause 27(2), Part 3, and, broadly, with the replacement of section 94A(1). In the current legislation, as it stands, the only criteria for an enforcement officer to have to—because that’s what “must” means—forbid a person from driving is if the person has undergone two oral fluid screen tests and the results of both tests are positive. That is in the current legislation. However, what we have seen here, as part of this bill, is that the Government has added a whole list of one, two, three, four, five, six—six additional criteria where an enforcement officer is able to forbid a person from driving for 12 hours. Some just include, potentially, non-compliance. This is an incredible expansion of the scope of power of the enforcement officer.

I haven’t seen in any of the regulatory statements, etc., where it talks about the fact that that expansion of power for the enforcement officer has any benefit in terms of the policy intent of this bill, which is that we want to see fewer people on the street who are drug driving—which I get—but things that are not compliant are simply to fail or refuse to provide, because, like I said previously, from the perspective of privilege against self-incrimination, that’s incredibly serious as a ban from driving. I wanted to check with the Minister what the intent is behind expanding the scope of power to the enforcement officer by allowing them to also ban driving under another six additional purposes. That is my first question.

Also, in light of that, when we’re looking at section 94A(3) of the principal Act, it also means that we are seeing an enforcement officer, if one is applicable, is able to conduct arrest without warrant. That is even more severe in terms of the power that’s been granted to the enforcement officer. For someone to be non-compliant with wanting to provide a sample, is the Minister saying that they are able to be arrested without warrant? Because that is something else totally. That’s my first two-part question: what is the rationale behind the expansion of the scope of power, and does that mean that, if anyone fails this, they could also be arrested without warrant?

My second question is in relation to the Schedule, which is in relation to clause 31(2), Part 3. It is very important that we do have a review period. That is good to see. I am looking for, in terms of new Part 9 of Schedule 1, clause 29(5), “The reviewer must report to the Minister on the review no later than 5 years after the commencement”. However, my general understanding from the committee stage we have been discussing is that these tests won’t be available until the end of this year. Even though it is no later than five years after the commencement date, does that mean it is actually no later than four years after the test has been implemented? No real reason—that’s just a clarification from the Minister. Those are my three questions. Thank you.

Very quickly, just to go back to Mr Utikere’s questions, he raised the question that he understands that the regime only results in infringement offences; when would a driver receive a criminal conviction? I’m advised that if a driver is required to provide a blood sample, this could result in a criminal offence if the drug concentration is at the high-risk level currently set out in the Act, as determined through the laboratory test. An oral fluid test will only result in an infringement offence, and this has not changed. Mr Utikere also raised the interesting point that if you’re pulled over and you don’t have a licence, you’re forbidden to drive until you get a licence. Well, the default status is you can’t drive on the roads without a licence in the first instance, so I’m not sure if that’s a comparable situation to draw on.

Then Mr Xu-Nan’s questions right now—raising points about arrest without warrant. I don’t think that’s particularly unusual. Police officers arrest people all the time without warrants, so I’m not quite sure where that one’s heading to. Also, Mr Xu-Nan raises a point about why we would extend this control over people who fail or refuse to provide oral fluid screening tests or refuse to accompany an officer. Well, that aligns with the current regime around drink-driving. It is to ensure that, in the absence of those positive tests, the assumption is that there could be some impairment. From a risk safety perspective, the prohibition against driving for 12 hours takes that low-risk approach to ensure that people who possibly are driving around our roads with drugs in their system, causing havoc, causing chaos, and killing innocent New Zealanders, aren’t able to do so. That’s the main thrust and point of the bill. That’s the main thrust and point of this part. I think it’s something that we’ve, hopefully, well and truly traversed.

Madam Chair.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter, is this a new point?

Yes.

It’s a small part, and I just want to say, despite what’s being said, I think we have a Minister who’s in the chair on behalf of another Minister on his first foray into this and I think he’s really actually made an effort to answer the questions as largely as possible. I don’t want to go back and repeat where we’ve already been.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I commend the Minister in the chair for his ability to address all of the questions at least, and for his willingness to engage. It’s very encouraging. We’d love to see that from all Ministers in the chair.

Look, I just wanted to go a little bit further into Part 9 and the changes recommended by the select committee, which I did not agree with. The Greens put in a differing view on this. I do wonder if the Minister and the Government could consider going back to the original Part 9, because there was flexibility in that Part 9 to recommend through an Order in Council that some of the items are listed out in clause—sorry, I get confused on the subclause numbers—29(1A)(3).

The most important thing, I think, is that it was, really, laid out for good reason. That was because this is a new policy, it’s a new approach, and a lot of concerns were raised by submitters, both with the original legislation and in the amendment bill—that we make sure that the reviewer is totally independent of the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport and that all of those different factors that are specified are included in the review unless the Minister had a good reason and could have, through Order in Council—the Governor-General could have said it shouldn’t consider one of these factors.

I think the real risk with the simplified requirements around the review is that a future Government could have a review that doesn’t consider any of these relevant factors. Then they’re complying with the law, but they’re not actually addressing the issue of ensuring that the data is there, that we’re addressing all of the different concerns that were raised by submitters and that are legitimate concerns. I personally think it’s a real mistake to simplify Part 9. Parliament will not be able to guarantee that a future Government will do a substantive and meaningful review.

That’s the whole point of the review. Why do a review if it’s not going to cover the specific factors that a previous Parliament thought should be considered and that submitters have raised? We just have no guarantee that this—and the whole point of the Government’s agenda with this legislation is to get a certain outcome. It’s not to have drug testing for the sake of it; it’s to result in a certain outcome which is reduced death and serious injury. We have no evidence from other jurisdictions that random roadside drug testing does reduce death and serious injury. We do have a lot of people raising issues around people being wrongly held up. We have the Attorney-General saying it’s not justified. I do think that having a really robust and thorough review specified in legislation is worthwhile, and that already the original Part 9 had plenty of flexibility for the Government to decide that a factor shouldn’t be considered by the review if there was good reason.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 256 be agreed to.

Members, we now come to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 32 to 36, “Related and consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to members of this committee of the whole House for the discussion that’s taken place already this morning. Part 4 is really related and consequential amendments—so the policy decisions that have now been agreed by the committee effectively, now, need to be put into effect by way of regulation change. I won’t spell all those out, but suffice to say, they very much flow from those decisions having been made earlier in the legislation, for example, with the new infringement offence of failing or refusing to undergo an oral fluid screening test.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. I know that we’re on the last part. I have one question to do with clause 36(5), which is to do with the amendments to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. In subclause (5), it does say that after section 59(1) of the Land Transport Act, insert three additional offences for penalty when it comes to demerit points. Now, we have discussed this in terms of the other forms of offences, banning driving, etc., but I think this is the section where we’re talking about some of the additional penalties that a person who is non-compliant in terms of wanting to undertake the oral test will face, both in terms of maximum penalty infringement fines or, alternatively, demerit points.

I just want to check with the Minister, in regards to these three additional sections that are introduced: are they in line with other parts of that particular schedule in terms of demerit points? Seventy-five demerit points is reasonably significant, so for that to be simply due to non-compliance seems to be a very high penalty for, comparatively speaking, a lower offence, in comparison to some others that I’m seeing in terms of Schedule 2. I guess the rationale is around what benchmarking or consistency measures the Minister or the officials took when determining the 75 demerit points.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the question from the member. In lieu of any, or perhaps pending any, detailed advice that I might receive in terms of the extent to which these penalties of 75 demerit points would be considered to be in line with other demerit point levels or penalties more generally, I think, if I may say, that the point is really more that the Government views the seriousness of those offences—for example, failing or refusing to remain at a specified place or to accompany an enforcement officer without delay—as being sufficiently serious to merit that degree of penalty with those 75 demerit points.

In terms of alignment relative to other penalties that are existing within the regulations, I think the point is more so that we want to send a signal that these are actions or behaviours that we don’t wish to condone, and so a sufficiently serious message should be sent in respect of those.

We now come to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.

Members, we now come to our final debate, and that is on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title, commencement, and principal Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, we are at the final stages of this bill through committee and I don’t intend to trifle with the title. I think the title should always generally be what it appears to seek to deliver, and the title as proposed there, I think, is a sensible one.

The questions that I do want to pose to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, are around commencement. Now, Minister Bishop, in his Amendment Paper 256, has proposed a change in date for when this would come into effect. Well, no, it doesn’t actually propose a change in when it would come into effect; it proposes a change if the Order in Council is not made in the time frame by which it comes into effect. What was originally proposed was that it would be by the first anniversary of Royal assent. That is suggested to be changed to 1 April 2026, which could give the Government a little bit more time, perhaps, to roll that out, although we’re talking a matter of weeks here, if that is in fact the case.

My question to the Minister is: is he comfortable that everything is all lined up in order to deliver on commencement? We have heard from Minister Meager, who was initially in the chair last night, that operationally this should come into play by Christmas or by December, and so there were questions around that. It might be that the Minister may need to take advice on this. I’m not too sure. He’s a very astute Minister, so maybe he won’t. I think it is important to understand what the possible implications will be and why it is that the transport Minister has sought to extend this, albeit by a shorter period of time. That would be the first one.

I don’t think there is any benefit in seeking to litigate the principal Act. This simply will amend the Land Transport Act 1998, but really I am interested in when this will, basically, kick in. I get that there needs to be a lead-in period for this. We are talking about the procurement of devices. This is something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did turn its mind to when it was progressing through this.

One of the concerns that members on this side of the House do have and continue to have is that this legislation should never be driven by procurement of devices, but is the genesis in making the change an admission of sorts that actually there might be some issue with procuring devices? Maybe not. The Minister might be in a position, based on officials’ advice, to indicate that, actually, no, everything is well on track to deliver things come Christmas, but commencing things to ensure that 1 April 2026 is a change, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts around that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Tangi Utikere for his nuanced but important question. My understanding is—acknowledging the point he’s made around the pragmatic considerations as to procurement, introduction of technology, and so on—that a certain amount of time is, of course, necessary for this legislation to become effective.

Of course, the structure of the commencement clause is such that an Order in Council could bring forward, or introduce, as soon as reasonably possible, such measures—pending that technology being purchased, available, presumably tested, and so on—but competing those traditional tensions between flexibility and certainty, allowing some sort of backstop provision by having in the second part of the commencement provision a date by which we know the legislation will come into effect, regardless of whether an Order in Council has been provided in the meantime, explains why there is a particular date at clause 2(2).

As the member has rightly noted, there is, in fact, a slight difference between the original intention being the first anniversary of Royal assent having been given on the one hand and—as now being proposed—1 April 2026. We think—it seems to me—that in these cases, almost always it’s the fact that with a particular calendar date, you provide certainty and clarity in a way that doesn’t require the presupposition that a person would know when Royal assent has been given and then needing to add 12 months to that. I think it’s maximum clarity, but also that flexibility of being able to introduce the law as soon as possible, notwithstanding that the expectation is very much that that would have taken place by 1 April next year.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a few questions and I’ll be really quick about it. Following up from the questions around procurement, I guess the first part, I think, going back to the procurement issue in general: is there a requirement for this bill to be passed before procurement is able to be procured? That’s the first question.

The second question is: what is the current level of conversation around the commencement date, noting that probably a lot of that hinges on procurement. As we see, as part of the debate on this bill—particularly I’m looking at the newly introduced 71G(6) and (7), in clause 22—there are specific requirements for how that procurement needs to be done, as well as in terms of things like labelling or appearance on printed matter accompanying the device. I wondered if there’s any conversation that’s been already discussed; either a decision has already been made from a procurement perspective that what we will be procuring already meets the requirement under that particular section, or there’s a conversation yet to be had with potential sources for this procurement, understanding there’s a level of confidentiality around the contract.

I just want to check with the Minister: has there been a conversation with potential sources of procurement around whether they are already going to be compliant with the requirements of this bill, or is that conversation yet to be had in anticipation for this bill being commenced and being passed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for this latest question. I think, while I would be unwise to speculate on the extent to which discussions around procurement are advanced sufficiently to know exactly how that will play out, I do observe that sometimes there’s a chicken and egg proposition whereby if procurement only should take place in accordance with the requirements of the law, as determined by legislation, the earliest one needs to pass the legislation in order to set those wheels in motion—but one is doing that, I guess, somewhat blind, to the extent that we don’t know exactly what will be available in terms of that equipment.

I’m very confident, and I’m sure that the Minister in whose shoes I’m standing, metaphorically, would be confident, that the procurement is going to take place in an orderly fashion, and I’d be surprised if at least some awareness of the market and the opportunities in this space isn’t already held within our Government, because, of course, that is somewhat presupposed by the idea that we can introduce this legislation, and, of course, be able to meet those Government aims, and the aims of every right-thinking New Zealander and member of this House, that we avoid the evil that is drug-driving and the danger that it poses to us.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 256 be agreed to.

Members, we now turn to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 115, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007”. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought it might be useful—because this debate had been interrupted—that we might just reappraise ourselves of where we’re at and, in particular, Part 2 of this quite significant piece of legislation.

For the benefit of members in committee today, Part 2 of the bill contains amendments to the Income Tax Act of 2007, and as such this part includes improvements to the approved insurer levy debt investment rules, the generic response measures for emergency events, simplifications for transferring overseas pensions to New Zealand, and the increases to the thresholds for exempt employee share schemes.

There are a range of, in fact, many other smaller remedial changes that are included in this part of the bill, and there is also an Amendment Paper that includes a few changes to this part, as well. Those matters will include measures, for instance, to ensure that the appropriate tax outcomes for artists who receive resale royalties are achieved, and it grants the Auckland Future Fund, which is connected to Auckland Council, an exemption from income tax. It also adds the NZ Memorial Museum Trust - Le Quesnoy to the list of overseas donee organisations and makes some minor technical changes to items that are already included in the bill.

I’d just like to thank the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for that summary of some of the issues that are in Part 2. I do just want to traverse a little bit of where we were at in the debate, and what we were working through is we’re making a quite methodical process through Part 2, going clause by clause—of course, not particularly concentrating on clauses which just involved, say, substituting a heading or putting a new heading to a section, because that would be a little ridiculous, but we were working through the substantive issues that are contained within this tax bill. I do note, as the Minister said, there are some substantial issues in this part of the bill and particularly the emergency provisions, which we haven’t quite worked our way towards yet. I am looking forward to discussing those in depth.

There are, however, some clauses that come in before those new emergency provisions come in, and we do want to work our way through them bit by bit by bit. I think the furthest that we had gotten in the debate last—it was last Wednesday night? That would be right, last Wednesday night, so some time ago now. The furthest that we had gotten to, I think, was my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds discussing clause 16B and I had been concerning myself with some of the issues in clause 20. Now, I understand my colleague Megan Woods may have a question or two more on clause 20, but I want to move just one step further—just one step further; add a “1” to that—and we’re going to go to clause 21. That is the measures around the thresholds for exempt employee share schemes.

Now, the interesting thing is that these exempt employee share schemes will often be used with start-up companies and the like, as a way of remunerating employees, and in that space. It’s a way of incentivising employees; it’s a way of ensuring that people have a stake beyond a job—a stake in the firm that they are working for. That seems, on the whole, to be a good thing. The curious thing is that when we were last discussing this bill, it was on a day when the Government had asserted that they were all about growth—or growth, growth, growth. Or growth, growth, growth, growth, growth—if you say it enough times, it really happens! We were interested and we asked several questions of the Minister of Revenue as to the measures in this bill that could be considered to be growth measures. The Minister came back with the approved issuer levy amendments, which is pretty trivial.

There’s a couple of questions here. Given that it was the only measure that the Minister came up with at the time—

They’ve had more time now.

They have. I, having had a little bit of time to reflect on how growth, growth, growth, growth, growth gets to be done, whether the Minister regards this particular amendment in the tax bill—it’s proposed in the tax bill where we are increasing the thresholds for exempt employee share schemes—as a measure designed to promote growth, growth, growth, growth, growth too, or whether it is just one of those annual sort of inflation adjustments that happens from time to time. I would like the Minister to talk—to comment, perhaps—on whether or not it is a growth measure, what it’s going to add to growth, how it might promote the New Zealand economy. It does seem to me that it could probably fit within that space.

Then the curious thing is why the Minister focused on the approved issuer levy last week instead of talking about this as a growth measure. Now, I did ask the Minister in the debate last week and I did foreshadow I was going to ask this again. I did ask the Minister to come back to us with whether there had been any assessment of the revenue impact of the changes to the approved issuer levy, because he had asserted it would lead to growth in the economy and I said it would be nice to see some numbers to back that up. I’m hoping that the officials have had time to work those numbers up and that the Minister will come back to us on that approved issuer levy.

The other thing I would like to know is—so two questions there. One: is it a growth measure? Two: if so, why didn’t the Minister mention it last week? Then the third question here is: what is the assessment of how much growth might come about as a result of this particular change in the Income Tax Act?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s, again, another big privilege to be able to stand up and to continue the debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill. Again, I acknowledge the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ earlier comments around some of the more significant policy issues in the bill, but also I want to affirm where we got up to with the debate a week ago. At the time, I was currently debating with the Minister and had a number of questions around clause 16B of the bill.

Just to recap, for some members, the bill obviously is an omnibus tax bill. It has a number of both substantive policy issues, which the Minister outlined earlier in his comments, but also it has a number of remedials, and some of the remedials that we started to discuss in the last part of the debate were around the land rules remedials. These are the remedials which are covered within clause 16B. Members will note in the revision-tracked version of the bill that, actually, clause 16 has been totally wiped out. In the original bill, when it was introduced, we had a clause 16; that has totally been revised during our select committee process, and we now have this new clause 16B which looks to amend section CW 3C of the Income Tax Act.

As a recap, those land use rules are remedials, however they are important remedials because there was a change in an earlier tax bill around the brightline test. The brightline test, for those members who can remember, was introduced by John Key at two years. It was then extended to five years, extended to 10 years by the Labour Government and then one of the first tax bills that came in under this new Government removed it from 10 years back to two years. It’s quite clear that the remedials which are contained in this bill try to fix some of those corrections from some of those changes.

Those land rule remedials ensure that the brightline period is not restarted when a co-owner acquires land from another co-owner on partition or subdivision. I did talk about that a little bit in the previous part of this debate, ensuring the new brightline test does not apply to transfers of inherited land by a beneficiary of an estate. The policy intention behind that, when the Rt Hon John Key put those provisions in in 2015, was to ensure that there was rollover relief, particularly in a transfer of an estate.

The other remedials in this bill also include ensuring that the provisions that provide rollover relief for the brightline test apply to those in civil unions, in de facto relationships, as well as marriages. Again, it was just around if there is a divorce or separation, it is relationship property and there is some rollover relief in that particular circumstance. The remedials also ensure that the rules apply when land is acquired on a subdivision between co-owners and is subsequently disposed of as operators intended.

Going back specifically to some of the drafting for clause 16B, because I did ask the Minister—it was a very big change that was recommended; a very big change—and we weren’t able to go back to submitters to cross-check some of those changes. It really was up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to basically trust officials that how it’s being drafted both affirms what submitters had come through with, but also was technically correct. I asked the Minister for his assurance around this big change.

He obviously provided it at the time, but there was one particular issue—which, I think, upon reading and having a bit more time to read that particular clause, and it was an issue that was raised by the New Zealand Law Society, and which officials at the time believed shouldn’t be changed. I want to clarify with the Minister, particularly around that drafting—given it was a huge drafting change in the new clause 16B—whether he’s received any additional advice from officials since we have now reported it back around this drafting and also to see whether the Minister has had any more official advice around it. I can see why the Law Society believe it’s a drafting error. That’s around the rollover provisions and the application of section FC 9(4) in the Income Tax Act to these provisions.

Under section FD 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007, the Act states that the section applies for the purposes of section CB 6A—that is the brightline test, section CB 16A, and Part D of the Income Tax Act. However, section FD 1 of the Income Tax Act also applies for the purposes of section FC 9(4). The question that the Law Society had, and which I just want to get confirmation from the Minister on, from his officials, is whether that section FD 1(1) should actually include a reference to section FC 9(4).

I think the Law Society, obviously, submit on a number of bills. They actually have a specialised group within the Law Society, a tax advisory group who review all the different types of bills and provide submissions. They’re very senior law practitioners and very respected law practitioners, too. They raise the issue about whether it should apply for the purposes of the brightline test and whether the bill should be amended to include it.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he’s received any additional advice since the bill has been reported back on whether that change should be done, as recommended by the Law Society, and what advice does he stand upon. Officials have declined their submission, but I think it’s actually a relevant question, particularly for the drafting and particularly because we weren’t able to take back the revision-tracked version of the bill to submitters to again ensure that the drafting was both accurate or that it actually still made sense.

It is a minor question in the scheme of things, but it’s one that I think, given we haven’t had an opportunity to retest it, I just would like to seek some more reassurance on from the Minister.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to thank both the Hon Deborah Russell and the Hon Barbara Edmonds for their contributions in this debate. Just starting with the last question from Barbara Edmonds, I’m advised that the Minister has not received any further advice on the drafting of clause 16B, notwithstanding the submission from the Law Society.

I want to come to the issues raised by the Hon Deborah Russell relating to growth, growth, growth. I’m very pleased that she’s on message, on track, and she is receiving loud and clear what this Government is all about. These changes actually will assist, for instance, exempt employees in terms of their share schemes. The purpose of the change is actually to make it easier for companies to attract talent and keep talent. That is what it’s all about. In a time when New Zealand needs to attract talent, when companies and entities need to grow and thrive, the retention and recruitment of talent is an important part of it. That’s a very simple example of how this relatively simple but important change can help with the growth, growth, growth strategy of this Government.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair for his answers to the questions. As my colleagues have indicated, we are going through this clause by clause.

On the answer to the question that my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds put about whether or not the Minister had sought advice, it’s useful for us to understand, now, that the Minister hasn’t sought advice on the Law Society submission, but we would like to know: will the Minister be, in the future, seeking advice around that advice? As my colleague intimated, this is a very expert group of tax professionals that have highlighted what could be some significant drafting errors. Is this something that the Minister intends to pursue and look at and think about whether or not this does need a fix in the future?

As my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell intimated, the clause that I’ve got some specific questions around is clause 20. Now, this is part of a suite of clauses that are covering off emergency events. Of course, as a Parliament, and over a number of years across multiple Governments, we’ve responded to emergency events in quite ad hoc ways. We have significant experience, of course, in how that was dealt with in the Canterbury earthquake sequences and how the emergency provisions applied here.

Clause 20 inserts new section CW 19B around “Certain amounts derived by employees during emergency events” and “exempt income”. This is a prelude to some of the meatier emergency provisions, which we’ll get on to in questions around subsequent clauses as we go through, but this is an important one none the less. This is around income that is associated with accommodation and workers that need to come in and have accommodation in the event of a significant emergency event. One of the things that this says is: “Income that satisfies section FP 20 (Certain amounts derived by employees during emergency events) is exempt income to the extent to which the income is—(a) accommodation: (b) less than or equal to $5,000 in total, if the income is in a form other than accommodation.”

Now, this is both an insertion, but then there’s been a redrafting through the committee in terms of the track-changed bill. In terms of drafting questions that go with this, now, we all know, in this Chamber, that a colon is used to introduce what follows. It serves two functions, and this is important in terms of the drafting of this clause 20 of the bill. It can be used as a list or an explanation, but it doesn’t necessarily link two independent clauses. The question is whether that $5,000 is, indeed, a cap if accommodation is directly paid by an employer or whether it is an either/or in terms of, obviously, the second point there, which is around the instance of reimbursing—so whether it’s income in the form other than accommodation. Obviously, you wouldn’t want to be taxing people that have gone into help in the aftermath of an emergency situation.

I think, given that there has been quite a change in the drafting there, it would be useful for us to know what purpose that colon is serving in this clause and whether or not this is indeed a cap that has been introduced. And, if it is related to the direct payment of accommodation as well as the reimbursement, what would the justification for that be? Indeed, what is the justification when you’re talking about a reimbursement? There are emergency events that have differing durations, and it’s possible for us to imagine an employee that is actually going to need more than $5,000 of accommodation. We’re talking about an entire tax year, and there may be a long period of time that will be required in terms of that. What exceptions can there be to that cap if there is still scope to have flexibility to respond to the nature of the disaster?

Of course, we are entirely supportive of us having a more streamlined way in which we deal with natural disasters and to the tax relief that needs to apply there. I look forward to the answers from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of really specific questions for the Minister on clause 19 of Part 2, which is the new section CW 17D on payments relating to health and safety. Understanding the current system pertaining to this clause, particularly in what has been referred to in section CX 24 of the Income Tax Act 2007 around how the benefit has to be—the fringe tax is exempted if it’s referring to managing health and safety, but it’s particularly to do with things that the employer may be providing for the employee.

However, what we’re seeing here is that, under new subclause CW 17D(1), it says it applies to when the “employer pays an amount to, or on behalf of,” relating to the health and safety. I kind of wanted to check, in terms of “pays an amount to, or on behalf of”—is this to do with, I guess, a financial or actual monetary amount that’s being provided to an employee so that way they are able to keep themselves safe at work or managing the risk to health and safety in the workplace? I guess the question there is: is this amount, which may be monetary, being given to the employee for them to buy equipment that they can then use as part of their health and safety and mitigating risks at the workplace, or is it some sort of other payment? Understanding that we are also looking at the fact that this amount is exempted income under new subclause CW 17D(2), the question there, and in terms of exempted from fringe tax, is for a benefit that would be excluded by section CX 24.

Now, the issue with section CX 24 is that there are three paragraphs when you’re looking at the benefit that is to be provided to an employee. It “is not a fringe benefit to the extent” and paragraph (c) of that, and each of those clauses is in conjunction—it’s “and”, “and”, so you have to have all three. But part of that, in terms of section CX 24(c), talks about the fact that it is “excluded by section CX 23 from being a fringe benefit if provided on the employer’s premises.” If we’re taking the fundamental element of the exemption from fringe tax being “on the employer’s premises”, how does it relate to new subclause CW 17D(1) where it says it “pays an amount to, or on behalf of, an employee” when that amount may be off premises?

Those are just kind of some questions around the context of why this particular section was introduced, the circumstance it was introduced. Are we looking at “pays an amount to, or on behalf of,” in order for the employee to be able to purchase equipment that will manage risks to their health and safety or the company’s or the employer’s health and safety as a person conducting a business or undertaking under the Health and Safety at Work Act? Also, in terms of new subclause CW 17D(2), if we’re seeing that one of the criteria for exemption of fringe benefit under section CX 24 is that the benefit must be provided on premises, how then would it relate to the payment amount when that payment amount to the person may be used off-premises? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to, again, thank members for their useful and probing questions, particularly the Hon Megan Woods, who knows well from her personal experience of being in Government that Ministers receive information, advice, and supportive submissions from a variety of sources and organisations—not least of which is the Law Society—on a very regular basis. She can take assurance from that, I think, that notwithstanding the formal process, organisations such as the Law Society are never backward in coming forward in terms of offering advice to Ministers or Governments.

She asked some questions specifically around emergency events. The whole purpose of the clause 20 changes are to actually provide certainty. I think any legislation that assists in providing certainty, depending on the nature of the event—which can sometimes be uncertain—is helpful. The drafting is intended to provide in that subsequent recovery phase some certainty for people who are involved.

Lawrence Xu-Nan asked some questions around clause 19, particularly in relation to fringe benefit tax. There were some good questions in that, particularly relating to the fringe benefit tax liability if a benefit occurs on an employer’s premises. I can remember from my own days of being in business situations where, for instance, providing a barbecue and sausage sizzle at the end of the working week—was that considered a fringe benefit - type contribution to the employee? I think some of this is a matter of degree and some of it is actually a matter of just good judgment.

Members, the Government has indicated that it wishes to lift urgency, so I will be reporting progress. Thank you.

Progress to be reported.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also further considered the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill, and the committee has also considered the Customer and Product Data Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

The House is now adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.48 p.m. (Wednesday)

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.

Members, I’ve received a letter from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s changes to Whānau Ora. Every statement in a letter seeking an urgent debate must be authenticated. This application had no authenticating material. Speakers Arthur, Hunt, Wilson, Smith, and Mallard have all ruled that applications for urgent debates that are not accompanied by authenticating material will be declined on that ground—Speakers’ ruling 214/5, which I concur with and uphold. The application is declined.

No papers have been presented. Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Issie Mullen-Winiata requesting that the House make it mandatory for employers to contribute to KiwiSaver for all workers under 18

petition of Kathleen Walsh requesting that the House urge the Government to urgently review the decision to downgrade maternity services at the Whakatāne Hospital.

Those two petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 202324 annual reviews of the New Zealand Customs Service and the Border Executive Board.

No bills have been introduced.

to the Minister for Rail

Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding the Cook Strait ferries?

Yes, and by my statement that a project in 2020 with $400.1 million in Government funding and the balance coming from KiwiRail and the ports somehow blew out by billions by 2023 and the Treasury warning the last Government it was on track to go above $4 billion. We are hard at work on a cost-effective solution. It’s possible to bring new ships to New Zealand and take a pragmatic approach to infrastructure, so watch this space.

What feedback has the Government had in its engagement with commercial shipyards?

We are in a worldwide search for a good commercial deal. Good business people seek multiple quotes towards a competitive price, and also treat prospective partners with the utmost respect. That’s why we met with Hyundai and it’s why we directly approached many shipyards around the world. We intend to narrow our list very shortly to a selection of capable shipbuilders, and the final cost will be a massive saving to the New Zealand people.

How is the work on the infrastructure element of this programme tracking?

As former Labour Minister Maharey would say, more good news. Extremely well; we have been to see CentrePort, we’re in contact with Port Marlborough and we’ll visit them directly soon, and are regularly working with KiwiRail and our new company Ferry Holdings Ltd. It was curious to see reports in the media yesterday suggesting that ports were reluctant to work with KiwiRail. In our experience, both ports and KiwiRail have worked constructively, collaboratively, and collegially to focus on cost-effective infrastructure. In a few weeks’ time, this House will see just how productive work can be when the Government is disciplined in its objectives.

Who has the Government appointed to the Ferry Holdings Ltd board?

Again, more good news. Chris Mackenzie, with a deep operational knowledge of rail and ferries; Heather Simpson—

One of your good mates.

No, not Willie Jackson. No, no, no. Don’t be alarmed. It’s Heather Simpson, with strong competence in economics and the workings of Government; Greg Lowe, a qualified marine engineer and former global head of Beca; Katherine Rich, an industry body chief executive with a firm understanding of the freight supply chain and customer needs; and Captain Iain MacLeod, an experienced mariner and shipmaster who has driven ships on the Cook Strait and across the Pacific.

to the Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, “We don’t want a globalised sell-out of New Zealand, which is what many of the neo-liberals have recommended”, or is his disagreement with Winston Peters the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been barred from speaking at his international investor summit?

No—the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to be here tomorrow, ensuring that the Government maintains control of this House. Then, in the evening, he will be on a plane to the United States to ensure that the best representation possible in our country’s interests—hopefully in a bipartisan way—is put to the American people.

Will the Prime Minister be indicating to international investors tomorrow that his Government is open to the privatisation of school and hospital buildings?

The reality is that the Prime Minister is giving a speech today setting out what the coverage and span of the two days—the 13th and 14th—will be. That should be asked of the Prime Minister because that’s covered in his speech—

I just did.

Well, can I just say, yes, but the timing is later today. And unlike an undisciplined party, we stick to form, we stick in our lane, and we make sure that things are done chronologically and sequentially.

When the Prime Minister said on Monday that there’s $6 billion of hospital building work in the pipeline he’d be presenting to international investors tomorrow, was he indicating that the Government is open to private investors owning those hospital buildings?

The Prime Minister was indicating that he inherited a wrecked economy where the main mantra was borrow and hope, and that if we’re to turn this around, we need international investment and we need it now. Our job is to provide the international investors with the answers as to why New Zealand is the right place to invest. That’s why we hope to have agreement across political parties on the essentialities now brought upon us by an infrugal, wasteful, spendthrift Government.

Does health Minister Simeon Brown’s statement that he wants as much elective surgery as possible to be done in private hospitals reflect Government policy?

The wisdom of Simeon Brown is that he understands one thing: the patient’s everything—the patient’s everything. How they get the operation is not helped by blind, stupid ideology.

Does he agree with David Seymour, “If you partially privatise corporations and allow private shareholders to own part of them, the company is much more accountable”; if so, how does he explain the mixed-ownership - model power companies decreasing their investment in new generation, increasing power prices, and withdrawing record profits following that partial privatisation?

If one has a grasp on this country’s political history, going all the way back to Dick Seddon, that was always understood to be the case.

Is the Government considering relaxing the foreign home-buyer ban as part of its bid to attract more wealthy foreign investors; if so, what happened to putting New Zealanders first?

But that’s not what the Government’s doing. So why is he speculating on something that his party was prepared to do? His party, for example, is the only one that in 2002 signed a deal with Singapore and sold that right down the drain. And I had to go across there and try and change it.

Has the Prime Minister and his Government had a “good look” at my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, as he promised me that he would do in response to my questions in this House on 11 December last year?

I believe the Prime Minister’s kept his word on that matter. And we’re also waiting for a good look at that member’s response to the 7 October violent terrorist attack that saw so many thousands of people killed or abducted at the same time. I’m still waiting to see that member’s response to that.

Does the Prime Minister stand by Aotearoa’s vote at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2024, which called on all States to implement sanctions in response to Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, and, if so, what is he doing about it?

No such vote at the United Nations in that country’s name has ever been given. That’s what we’re doing about it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a ruling in this House that “Aotearoa” and “New Zealand” could be used interchangeably, so I would expect an answer to that question from the acting Prime Minister.

Well, with all due respect—

If we go to the record of the United Nations, no such country was recorded as casting a vote.

Will the Prime Minister join the Greens, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori in supporting my member’s bill to implement sanctions and trade measures against Israel for their continued, ceaseless, and violent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, just like we did against Russia for its unlawful occupation of Ukraine?

This side of the House has always believed in a two-State solution and is awaiting that member’s petition regarding the terrorist atrocity that happened in October so many years ago and until this time has only been responded to by members on this side of the House and some members of the Opposition but not by the Green Party or that member.

Will the Prime Minister commit to retaining our nuclear-free status under this Government?

I’ve got no idea where that question is coming from, because nowhere and anywhere in this House has a comment been made about that. [Interruption] Beg your pardon?

It’s a question. It’s about your trip to the States.

Yeah, the primary question is statements and actions. If the acting Prime Minister is saying there has been no statement, there is no action, then the question doesn’t stand. You can ask another question.

Mr Speaker, can I have a point of order? There is a certain rudimentary training required for members of Parliament that they understand the Standing Orders and know what the parameters are. We’ve seen somebody being ruled out today, bringing a request for an urgent debate—no evidence to back it up. All the fundamentals that are laid out in the Speakers’ rulings are not even observed. That was a classic question there: no evidence to bring the question up and she just expects to get an answer.

Well, I just ruled that way.

A further supplementary, Mr Speaker, as you offered me another: is the Government committed to our status as a nuclear-free Aotearoa New Zealand and a nuclear-free Pacific, and does he support Pacific efforts to revitalise the Treaty of Rarotonga to close the loopholes left for the United States to pilot nuclear submarines through the Pacific?

So here is the problem with that question as well. There has to be an action or a statement by the Government to bring it back to the primary question. I did give the member another chance, but we’ll move on to Laura McClure.

to the Associate Minister of Agriculture

What recent announcements has he made about positive health outcomes for pets?

Yesterday, I announced a regulatory change to allow non-veterinarians to carry out certain dental procedures on cats and dogs when authorised by a vet. As a farmer, I know how busy vets are around the country and that we have talented vet nurses who are capable of doing subgingival procedures like teeth scaling. This change will give them the legal protection to do that. Animals’ dental health is a really good marker for overall health and so expanding the number of people that can provide this service will lead to really positive outcomes for pets. And we actually give a toss about pets over here.

There are two members having a conversation that would be better carried out out of the House, and I will facilitate that for them if it continues.

Why was this change necessary?

Well, these changes were necessary because of an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act made by the previous Government that was nothing short of a “cat-tastrophe”. It meant that surgical procedures can only be provided by a vet. Vet nurses were routinely conducting subgingival dental procedures prior to the law change. These regulations will restore that right and mean that pets who have potentially serious health concerns don’t have to wait for a vet and can be seen more quickly.

How will this be “paws-itive” for pet owners? [Interruption]

Sorry, end of the puns, I promise. The hope is that over time we will see a reduction in cost for this sort of procedure. It will still be done by trained, capable, professional, clinical staff, but not necessarily by a registered vet. But most of all, it’ll go some way to freeing up vets’ time so that they can be more available to pet owners who need them for more complex procedures. The overall ability of vets to provide services to their clients will therefore improve.

How will this change support vets and vet nurses?

This will be welcome news to vets and vet nurses. I would like to acknowledge the work of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the New Zealand Veterinary Nurses Association who have been advocating for their sector in this area since 2021. In addition to freeing up vets’ time, I’m sure that vet nurses will be relishing the opportunity to use their skills to care for even more animals when this regulation comes into force on 10 April this year.

to the Minister for Energy

Is he concerned that two international offshore wind investors have now withdrawn or paused their New Zealand projects, citing current Government policy as their reason; if not, why not?

No, I am confident in the work this Government is doing to enable offshore wind. When we came into office, there was no regime or legislation to enable offshore wind, but thanks to this Government, we will soon have both.

Is he concerned that international investors are telling his Government that their investment is at risk because of his Government’s policies that could cost New Zealand, by PricewaterhouseCoopers’ estimations, between 5,000 and 30,000 highly skilled, well-paid jobs?

No, I’m not. We’ve actually got over 100 of those investors currently in the country telling us and telling this Government that they want to invest in this country, and we are a Government that’s going to ensure that the red and green tape that is currently in place is out of the way so that they can invest in our country and make Kiwis’ lives better.

Has he, the Prime Minister, or any other Minister met with Sumitomo Corporation following their letter on 11 October to the Prime Minister and other Ministers seeking reconsideration of Government policies, and, if not, why has the Government not worked to ensure international investment in New Zealand has not been paused because of their policies?

I’ve been the Minister for Energy for just under four weeks, and I haven’t had a request from that organisation to meet. But I do meet regularly with a large number of investors who are looking at opportunities to build renewable generation in this country. That is one of the single-biggest things that this country can do in order to improve livelihoods and our economy. More renewable generation will aid energy security and affordability, and grow our economy.

Can I ask the Minister as to whether his job has been exacerbated by the closure of Marsden Point, and who was responsible for doing that?

That’s probably just a little bit wide of the wicket.

No, no—

It’s got to relate to the primary—

Supplementary?

Just a minute—when I’m ready. I can’t knock out a question because it doesn’t relate to the primary, only to allow a question that also is very, very far wide of the wicket from the primary.

Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who, in question time yesterday, said, “We know we need the investment, because it’s actually capital to grow our businesses, which actually creates higher-income jobs and more jobs for people.”, and has he had a conversation with the Prime Minister to say, actually, in the case of offshore wind, it’s his Government’s policy settings that are driving away international investment that would lead to well-paid jobs in New Zealand?

Well, I obviously always agree with our Prime Minister, but what I also agree with is the fact that this country needs more abundant and affordable energy, and this is a Government who is taking the steps to put in place the legislative regime to make that a reality. I will reinforce: we had no legislative framework in place when we came into Government, but we will do by the end of this year, and that is good for New Zealand and it’s good for the New Zealand economy.

Does he agree with Infrastructure New Zealand, who has pointed out the delays from this Government and the work that the previous Government had under way to establish a regulatory regime for offshore wind?

I only go back to what I noted in my primary response, which is: when we came in, that regulatory regime was not in place. You cannot build offshore wind in this country today, because the regulations are not in place. This Government is taking the action to make sure it is in place, and this Government will deliver upon that promise.

to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made on increasing penalties for illicit drug use?

Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has agreed to progress with stronger drug classifications to crack down on harmful substances and protect New Zealanders from the devastating impact of illicit drugs. Proposed changes include classifying three fentanyl analogues as class A drugs as part of stronger controls on 23 harmful substances, which will lead to tougher penalties for offenders. Peddlers of illicit drugs cause significant harm in our communities and inflict misery on our streets. Our Government is committed to keeping Kiwis safe from dangerous substances.

Why is the Government proposing to increase controls on 23 illicit drugs?

Well, the Government is responding to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which recommended to limit the risk of harmful and potential misuse of drugs to include these classifications. This will enable police and Customs to take preventative action and allow harsher penalties for those caught making or possessing these drugs.

What substances besides fentanyl analogues are being more tightly controlled?

Our Government is proposing to impose stricter controls on a number of illicit substances. This includes synthetic cathinones, often marketed as bath salts; synthetic cannabinoids; and amphetamine precursors, used in the manufacture of meth. We know how important it is to reduce the impact of drug harm. Ensuring there are stronger controls in place for these harmful substances is a step towards our goal.

When will these new drug laws come into effect?

Well, good news. The process to strengthen drug controls is already under way. The planned changes have been approved by Cabinet and will now be drafted as an Order in Council, tabled in Parliament, and considered by the Health Committee before again being referred back to Cabinet. If agreed, these changes will come into force by mid-year, ensuring stronger protections against harmful substances as soon as possible.

to the Minister of Education

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

I absolutely stand by actions to build a world-leading education system that delivers equitable and excellent outcomes for every child—in particular, this Government’s introduction of phonics checks in English and te reo Māori. So far this year, more than 800 teachers have already completed their training module, and feedback I’ve received from teachers has been extraordinarily positive. One wrote that “The phonics check is an easy-to-administer assessment that provides teachers with valuable information about a child’s phonics knowledge and their ability to blend sounds and read words. It enables teachers to target their instructions to meet their children’s needs.”

Did the Government receive official advice that its changes to the school lunch programme weren’t going to work, and, if so, why did she agree to them?

While I am kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, this area of school lunches, as you know, is delegated to Minister Seymour, and detailed questions should be directed to Mr Seymour.

Did she put in place a contingency plan in case something went wrong, such as a provider going into liquidation, and, if not, why not?

I will respond to that question by reiterating the previous answer: while I’m kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, those questions need to be directed to Minister Seymour.

When did she first find out about issues with Libelle, and when did she tell Minister Seymour, if at all?

In answer to that question, Minister Seymour informed me of some high-level supply challenges relating to Libelle on 11 February.

Can the Minister confirm that yesterday, when one subcontractor, Libelle, went into liquidation, the on-time, in-full delivery for the school lunch programme was 99.96 percent, and if that’s not a contingency plan to deal with a subcontractor—

Just a question.

—going into liquidation, I’m not sure what is.

The answer to that question is yes.

Why didn’t she, as Minister of Education, act when she found out that hundreds of thousands of school lunches were at risk due to Libelle’s issues?

I only found out about these issues recently. This is a delegation for Minister Seymour, and I know that these are very challenging and complex issues that he is working through, and I’ve offered him my full support in anything that he might need.

to the Minister of Immigration

What recent changes have been made to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to support businesses to access the skills and experience they need?

This week, we’ve implemented a number of changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to help support businesses access the skills and experience they need to help us grow the economy. These changes include removing the median wage threshold, reducing the minimum experience required for level 4 and 5 roles to two years, and increasing the visa duration for new applicants in level 4 to 5 roles from two to three years. This Government has listened to businesses and stakeholders from around the country, and these changes will support businesses to grow the economy so that all New Zealanders can thrive.

Supplementary. [Pauses]

Yeah.

Why were these changes made?

These changes were made because the success of New Zealand’s businesses is critical to growing our economy. Removing the median wage was a Government coalition agreement as it has distorted the labour market and meant that in some instances New Zealanders were being paid less than their migrant colleagues doing the same job. As Minister, it was also clear to me that some of the settings around relevant work experience and visa lengths could be improved. Our focus remains on attracting higher-skilled workers while managing migration responsibly to help Kiwi businesses expand and help grow the economy.

Supplementary. [Pauses]

Yeah. Just—hang on. You’re not going to have your name called. You’ve called it once. Don’t do that. Just get on with your question.

What was the impact of these changes?

These changes will support the right balance of ensuring Kiwis are prioritised for job opportunities while providing a more fit for purpose visa so New Zealanders can have access to the skills they need to grow the economy. Richard McIntyre from Federated Farmers said, “These changes are a significant step forward and will be welcome news for many farming families across New Zealand”. And it, “… will cut thousands of dollars in costs for farmers, but will also mean a lot less stress and uncertainty for both the farmer and the employee who just want to get on with … farming.”

What feedback has the Minister seen?

I have seen lots of positive feedback. BusinessNZ chief executive Katherine Rich said, “The changes are a positive start to what will need to be a continuing programme of refinement to immigration settings to ensure that businesses can get the skills they need to support economic recovery and growth.” And, “It is positive to see [this] Government signalling greater responsiveness to business needs…”.

to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology

Does he agree with the Science System Advisory Group’s finding, “Note the critical importance of the science and innovation workforce, and that actions will be needed at multiple levels to develop and retain a high calibre workforce of researchers, scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: On behalf of the Minister, yes. That’s why we are reforming the science system so that scientists can have world-class careers right here in New Zealand. Our scientists are not just employed in Crown research institutes; we are focused on creating career pathways from universities, into the broader science, innovation, and technology industry. For example, the Government has recently announced a $20 million investment over five years for an applied PhD programme to equip students with the practical skills that they need to apply their knowledge to real-world problems within ambitious businesses.

Can he confirm that the 40 people in the applied technology teams at Callaghan Innovation—the very people we should be hiring more of—will still be made redundant?

What I can confirm is that the priority for the Government, in terms of the science system, is the commercialisation so that we can create economic growth. Economic growth, of course, means more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders.

What consideration has the Minister given to the flow-on effects to businesses, including start-up businesses, which rely on Callaghan Innovation support and expertise, now that they may not be able to continue operating?

On behalf of the Minister, what we do know, unfortunately, is some of the roles that were undertaken by Callaghan Innovation that were fee-for-service were actually underutilised and highly subsidised by the Government, so clearly weren’t delivering value for business.

What advice does he have for the scientists and support staff at Callaghan Innovation who have had their employment terminated and are now actively applying for jobs in the Netherlands and Australia?

On behalf of the Minister, anyone who is in the position where their job has changed is, of course—it’s challenging for them as individuals. What we have to do as a Government, though, is make sure that across every Government agency, we are getting the outcomes that taxpayers are expecting. The refocusing of the science system, as I said before, was around commercialisation so that it directly leads to business and economic growth, so that we have more jobs available and we have higher wages.

How does he expect to generate “world-class careers in science” when 570 jobs have gone from the science sector since this Government took office, there are no clear career pathways for scientists at Callaghan, and our best and our brightest are now applying for jobs outside of New Zealand?

On behalf of the Minister, I would refute the statements that that member has made. If you think about the reshaping of the science system and the ability for scientists to gain intellectual property, they financially will benefit directly. That actually provides greater opportunities, greater career opportunities, and financial opportunities for them here in New Zealand.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Āe.

Does the Prime Minister care about productivity or just growth, and, if so, how exactly does relying on offshore money from big corporates attending his privatisation festival address New Zealand’s productivity crisis, which is created by entrenched social inequality?

To the manifestation of a number of questions, first two questions, both the answers—tahi, rua—are āe and āe.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his statement that “We have a fair tax system”, and, if so, why has the OECD consistently said that New Zealand’s productivity and equity is hampered by “shares, land, and residential property being tax favoured”?

The Prime Minister agrees with the statement, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it. On the second thing: the OECD’s had a lot of suggestions for this country, but if you look at it, the former Government went through this experience and decided in the opposite and, in fact, in the bonfire of inanities, the present leader of the Labour Party got rid of them.

Is he concerned that people who earn their money from work pay a higher effective tax rate than those who make money off wealth?

Being the only parties in this House that give a hoot about the working man and woman in this country: yes, we most certainly do.

Is he concerned that wealthy New Zealanders pay 9.5 percent tax on their economic income while New Zealanders who earn a salary of $80,000 pay around 29 percent?

If one is going to do the analysis from the book Das Kapital, you’ll arrive at that sort of calculation, but nobody else has.

Should cleaners, caterers, and security guards working on projects procured by the Government be guaranteed a living wage; if so, why did he remove paying these workers a living wage in the new Government procurement rules?

As someone who has ensured in the last 50 years to raise the minimum wage more than any other political influence in this country, the answer to that is we’re working on it, but at the present time the wage rises are actually in excess of the inflation rises and the worker is still in front.

to the Minister of State for Trade and Investment

What actions has the Government taken to support trade with South-east Asia?

Vietnam is a valued member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—or RCEP, as it’s commonly known—and a partner for New Zealand, and this year we are celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations. South-east Asia, of course, is home to 9 percent of the world’s population and is critical to maintaining and building New Zealand’s prosperity. Our Government has prioritised re-energising the relationship with Vietnam, and, recently, I joined the Prime Minister in a business delegation on a trade mission there to elevate our relationship. During that trip, the PM announced a major upgrade of the relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership—the highest level available with Vietnam—making New Zealand just the 10th country in the world to achieve that.

Why is this comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam significant?

Vietnam is our 14th-largest trading partner and the fastest-growing economy in ASEAN, therefore providing huge opportunities to us here in New Zealand. Over the last five years, two-way trade with Vietnam has grown a substantial 40 percent, and this new partnership, of course, has potential to increase it further. In New Zealand, there are great opportunities to build on partnerships with high-value sectors like premium food and beverages, agritech, technology, innovation, and renewable energy.

What was achieved on this trade mission?

Heaps. During the trade mission to Vietnam, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has estimated that over $130 million of potential export value over the next three years was secured across 16 export deals and commercial partnerships. It’s also been announced that the airline VietJet will be developing a new commercial route here to strengthen connectivity and build better people-to-people links. And, of course, finally, we have increased the number of Government scholarships available to Vietnamese students by 56 percent, further growing our education links with Vietnam.

How does our partnership with Vietnam benefit New Zealanders?

Like trade partnerships with any other nation, strengthening our relationship with Vietnam is incredibly important to New Zealand’s economic future, with more opportunities for businesses here. As Vietnam gets wealthier, Vietnamese people want to buy high-quality products from around the world, and we, of course, have some of the best food and beverage producers and innovative businesses around. The more we trade with the world, the more we grow our economy, which translates to more jobs, higher incomes, and more money in the back pockets of everyday New Zealanders.

to the Minister of Health

Is he committed to the same health outcomes for Māori as his immediate predecessor?

My focus, as was the focus of my predecessor, is on ensuring that all New Zealanders, including Māori, have access to timely, quality healthcare. We know that too many New Zealanders are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, receive first specialist assessments, and have elective surgeries. Unlike the previous Government, our approach is putting patients first and backing our health system to get health back on track. This starts with bringing back our critical health targets, which the previous Government removed, to drive better outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Does the Minister agree with the Hon Dr Shane Reti when he said, “I want to see iwi Māori partnership boards powered up to support the health outcomes for your whānau and your communities.”; if so, what does powering up iwi Māori partnership boards mean?

Well, my predecessor was very clear, about independent Māori partnership boards, that they should be providing consistent advice around health needs for Māori across the country and that these partnership boards should not be commissioning agencies.

Has the Minister seen the overwhelming evidence that Māori die seven years earlier, that Māori are twice as likely to die from cardiovascular disease, and that Māori are more likely to get type 2 diabetes, and, if so, why do none of his health targets specifically address any of these issues?

Well, the five health targets that this Government put back in place, which the last Government removed, are for all New Zealanders. Every New Zealander expects to be able to turn up to an emergency department and be able to be seen in a timely manner. All New Zealanders expect that if they require elective surgery, they’re able to receive that in a timely manner. This Government is focused on timely, quality access for all New Zealanders, which includes Māori.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just wait for a moment. OK.

Does healthcare for all New Zealanders mean raising the life expectancy for Māori or lowering the life expectancy for non-Māori?

Well, the Government’s focus is on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, for Māori and for non-Māori, and I’d just make this point to the other side: they removed health targets, and every single one went backwards for non-Māori and for Māori. All New Zealanders were worse off because of what they did when they decided to rearrange the health system in the middle of a pandemic. Shame on them.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those are actually relatively straightforward questions from Peeni Henare on a relatively—actually, a very serious topic about the fact that Māori have lower life expectancy than non-Māori. You’ll note that there’s not any political insult in the question; it’s asking for Government policy on that. Instead, we’ve just had a diatribe from the Minister about health targets and the actions of the previous Government. It’s not unreasonable to ask that he address what are straight and serious questions.

The question you suggest is serious asked if the Government’s policy was to raise the life expectancy of Māori or lower the life expectancy of non-Māori. I think that, inside that, there was then enormous scope for answer. It wasn’t a totally straight-up question at all, in my opinion. However, the Minister may like to address the question that was asked. If you wanted to shorten it, I’ll give you the chance to shorten it, so we don’t get the flick at the end.

Does healthcare for all New Zealanders, for this Government, mean making the life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori the same?

Yes.

Does the Minister give any—

Up or down? Which one’s going to move?

Just a minute. Sorry, start again. Please go ahead.

No, she’ll be interested in this question. Does the Minister give any credence to the fact that, internationally, diet is the most important thing towards longevity, as proven by populations like Japan, and we could do far more in terms of changing the Māori health outcomes by getting serious dietary change?

Well, as members of this House know, there is a range of factors which impact on health outcomes, and it’s critically important we’re focused on them, but what I would say is we are focused on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

to the Minister for Whānau Ora

How many audits and reviews has Whānau Ora failed since its establishment in 2010, if any?

on behalf of the Minister for Whānau Ora: Whānau Ora commissioning arrangements, like other Government-funded initiatives, have been subject to a number of audits and reviews since their establishment in 2014. Audits and reviews do not issue passes or fails. They are conducted periodically to determine if settings are fit for purpose, delivering outcomes for New Zealand, and highlight where changes may be needed to improve these.

Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given that there is unclarity on how many audits Whānau Ora has passed, 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General audit and a ministerial review?

I’m going to ask you to do that question again. There is far too much chatter on the Government side of the House.

Sure. Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given the Minister doesn’t know Whānau Ora has passed 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General review and a ministerial review?

On behalf of the Minister, this is the first time in 10 years that Te Puni Kōkiri have gone to market for the supply of Whānau Ora commissioning services. This is not an overhaul; this is a re-letting of the contracts for the commissioning agencies. It should be noted that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recommends that all Government contracts should be reviewed and re-let every four to five years. This is a normal business process.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. We’ve got a member asking pointed questions about a process in which one of the major losers appears to be a prominent member of her own political party. I just wonder if there’s any need to declare such a conflict of interest before asking such questions.

Well, if it wasn’t declared and understood, the member wouldn’t have taken the point of order.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

Do you want to talk about party presidents, David?

Just a moment. That doesn’t help order in the House. So we’ll now go into total silence. [Interruption] Someone’s going to go, Willie. We’ll go to total silence.

Hey, he should have name suppression—

Don’t make it hard. Total silence for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s questioning to continue.

Kia ora. Why has the Minister decided to completely cut and replace the current provider, the commissioning agency, given that Whānau Ora has supported over 4 million whānau since its establishment, has delivered over a million COVID-19 vaccines during the peak of the pandemic, and has provided evidence that it can get into homes that no one else can?

On behalf of the Minister, let me be very clear to the House: our Government has supported and is very keen to see Whānau Ora progress and actually go wider and deliver more outcomes for Māori than it has. It is a very normal process to go to market with the services to see if the providers who are currently providing the service are the best ones available in the market. It’s a very normal process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken. And as I said at the start, this is about ensuring that we deliver even greater Whānau Ora services to Māori who need it.

Does a provider that has banked over $100 million in profit not suggest that the taxpayers’ money has not gone for the purpose in which it was given in the first place—right?

I don’t think that’s something the Minister should speculate on.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m not speculating on that at all. That is public knowledge. I just want to know whether the Minister thinks that the money given over to that provider has got to where it was given in the first place and spent for the purpose it was given.

Well, that’s—

It’s public knowledge.

Yeah, and that is certainly a lot clearer than the implication that was in the question, which, as you know, under 371 is not allowed. But given that clarification, the Minister may make a comment.

On behalf of the Minister, this is a process that Te Puni Kōkiri have run, as recommended by MBIE, that every contract that the Government has should go to market every four to five years to test the market to see if there are other providers available. They have criteria. They apply that criteria. They select those that are best positioned to deliver the service for New Zealanders.

What does Minister Potaka have to say to the 1,800 kaimahi who will lose their jobs as a result of his decision?

On behalf of the Minister, firstly, let me say, it is a decision that is based on criteria by Te Puni Kōkiri, and, in terms of any changes that will result from the new providers, it is too early to tell. Those contracts are being negotiated as we speak. What I do know, having had experience with the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, is their deep commitment to serving whānau in need, and I do know that in terms of the transition, I have every confidence that they will do their best to ensure continuity of service for those who need it the most.

How will the Minister ensure that the 540,000 whānau who currently access Whānau Ora services will not be negatively impacted by the sudden change in commissioning agencies?

On behalf of the Minister, I do want to say that this is a process that’s been under way for many, many months, as is what normally happens when the Government puts a contract out for tender. And I want to say again: it is absolutely important that the transition is managed well. That is why, at the Minister for Whānau Ora’s request, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service Commission are working closely with Te Puni Kōkiri to manage the transition and to ensure a smooth continuity of service for the whānau receiving services.

Does the Minister agree with the Auditor-General’s statement from February 2003 that “the public service needs clear expectations for progressing whānau-centred approaches where appropriate. [In addition] Te Puni Kōkiri needs a clearer and stronger mandate for broadening whānau-centred approaches.”?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, and that is why the key shifts in commissioning the next round of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies are based on a greater service reach, strength in the evidence base, a data-driven investment planning, improved front-line workforce development and retention, and strengthened risk management processes. I would say that’s an improvement.

If the Minister agrees with this statement, how can he justify cutting $500,000 from Whānau Ora through last year’s Budget?

On behalf of the Minister, every Minister across this Government is focused on the taxpayers who get up and go to work every day and pay tax. We have a responsibility to them to ensure that the tax they pay is spent effectively, and in every area—including Whānau Ora—we want to make sure that the services reach those who have the highest needs and the money gets to them as closely as possible.

Given that Whānau Ora is a proven success and that the Auditor-General has recommended that its whānau-centred approach should be expanded, why did the Minister decide to gut and replace the current commissioning agencies instead of increasing Whānau Ora funding to incorporate new commissioning agencies alongside the already established ones?

Because it was political and personal.

On behalf of the Minister, there is nothing in this process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken that shows that we do not support Whānau Ora—quite the opposite. I have laid out what the shifts are. We are very clear about the fact that Whānau Ora is an amazing model for delivering to whānau with the most complex and challenging lives, and it is very, very successful. That’s why we are continuing. That is why we are ensuring, in terms of this process for commissioning agencies—we want even better results and even greater outcomes for the whānau it serves.

Point of order. As usual, I hesitate to raise this, but we’ve had continual barracking from the Te Pāti Māori co-leader that the Minister’s decision was quite personal and political. That’s a direct reflection and an accusation that the Minister has acted improperly. I would have thought that’s the sort of comment that should be withdrawn for bringing down the reputation of the House.

Well, I was listening, and what I could say is that it’s not unusual that there are questions raised at various times about the actions of Ministers. If we’re going to get down to a point where we are so sanitised that we can’t have interjections of any type—given that that is at the lower end of what might be said in this House, and, frankly, has been said by a number of people in this House—then I think we’d be in some sort of difficulty.

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.

The Budget Policy Statement released in December set out four priorities for Budget 2025. They are: (1) lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges; (2) implementing a social investment approach to drive better results from the Government’s investment in social services and thereby improve life outcomes for people with high needs; (3) keeping tight control of Government spending, while funding a limited number of high-priority Government policy commitments and cost pressures that cannot be met by reprioritisation; and (4) developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments.

As the Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, said at the time, on 17 December, progress has already been made in all of these areas, and, as this Government has demonstrated with great and unprecedented urgency since January, our work across all fronts continues. As has been well-established, the Government has refocused the education system on the core skills of reading, writing, and mathematics; fast-track legislation has been introduced to speed the consenting of major projects; bureaucratic red tape is being reduced; a new agency has been established to drive social investment; Government spending has been brought back under control; and an infrastructure pipeline is being developed. More on all of this will be said in the lead-up to Budget 2025.

December’s economic and fiscal data highlighted both the scale of the challenge and the extent of the opportunity that New Zealand faces. The Finance and Expenditure Committee has now reported back on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.

As part of our scrutiny, we heard from 12 public submitters in February and we had a hearing with the Minister of Finance and Treasury officials on 29 January. At that hearing, the Minister of Finance announced that Budget day will be Thursday, 22 February—of May. Otherwise, it’s already been—I feel like I’m reading it. Budget day will be Thursday, 22 May—for the benefit of the Hansard—2025.

She told the committee that in addition to the traditional decisions on spending and savings, Budget 2025 will also contain “several legislative and regulatory measures to encourage economic growth”. She described economic growth as “the single biggest thing that we can do to improve New Zealanders’ financial position, but also the state of the Government’s books”. The Minister made clear that it is unsustainable for the Government to grow the economy by borrowing money, noting the consequences of inflation.

The finance Minister described how economic growth is necessary for job creation, wage increases, and the sustainable funding of public services, and noted the importance of these outcomes to low-income New Zealanders. Making clear that productivity will support longer-term growth, the Minister of Finance identified five areas this Government is focused on to improve productivity: (1) education and skills; (2) regulation, including as it relates to competition; (3) overseas investment and trade; (4) science, technology, and innovation; and (5) infrastructure.

This latest policy Budget Policy Statement, or BPS, proves one thing: the Minister of Finance and the coalition Government has a plan to take New Zealand’s economy forward. Inflation is back within the target band at 2.2 percent, compared to 7 percent in December 2022 under the previous Government—2.2 percent inflation compared to over 7 percent under the last Government. In short, our Government’s economic discipline is making life more affordable for New Zealanders. In turn, lower inflation translates into lower interest rates, relieving financial pressure on households and businesses.

With the official cash rate now down to 3.75 percent, saving real money each week in mortgage payments for families across New Zealand is a reality. In fact, recently, Infometrics estimated that by the end of this year, New Zealand households will have another $45 million to spend every week due to lower mortgage interest costs. To give one example, a family with a $500,000 mortgage on a 25year term could expect to be about $180 a fortnight better off than it was a few months ago if its rate dropped from 7 percent to 5.75 percent. As we can see now, most fixed mortgage rates in New Zealand now have the magic “5” at the start of it—not at 7 percent, as we have seen a year or two or three ago. That is good news for Kiwi families, who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and the high interest rates required to bring that cost of living crisis under control.

At the same time, farmer confidence is at an all-time high—the highest since 2016, according to a recent Federated Farmers survey—with the farm-gate milk price for our 12,000 dairy farmers topping $10 this season. As well as growth, growth, growth—

Growth, growth.

—this coalition Government is focused on trade, trade, trade.

Trade, trade.

So we’ve got growth, growth, growth—

Growth, growth.

—and trade, trade, trade.

Trade, trade, trade.

That’s enough of that.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will travel to India next week, accompanied by a very large delegation. Strengthening our relationship with India is the key priority for this Government, unlike the last one.

This week—tomorrow in fact, and the next day—is New Zealand’s Infrastructure Investment Summit. The Prime Minister and key Ministers will showcase New Zealand’s infrastructure pipeline, with some exciting growth sectors, to companies—get this number—managing about $6 trillion in capital. There will be companies in that room collectively managing $6 million trillion, or $6 trillion in capital—not $6 million trillion, but $6 trillion. How much is $6 million trillion? Well, let’s not work that out, but this is $6 trillion in capital.

The Budget Policy Statement reflects the determination and directional intent of this Government. It is a road map—it is a road map—for growth and stability.

Let me just take members through one more time the five priorities of this Budget Policy Statement as we head to Budget day on 22 May 2025.

It’s May.

It’s 22 May—have we got that record straight? We are: (1) lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges, (2) implementing a social investment approach to drive results from the Government’s investment in social services, (3) keeping tight control of the Government’s spending, and (4) developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments.

This is a Budget Policy Statement that directly addresses Kiwis’ top priorities: fixing the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better health and education. I commend this statement to the House.

I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s speech, but let me just say that the sort of general supporting commentary from around his colleagues is not going to be tolerated too much more. This is a Parliament; not a revivalist tent, so let’s just have the speaker—alone—speaking.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on this special debate on the Budget Policy Statement. I do promise no revivalism in my speech, because this actually—

The roof might fall in if you did.

Well, Mr Speaker, it will be far more mainstream, to which you and I are both accustomed. This is a serious debate and one this Parliament should take seriously, because the Budget Policy Statement and its examination at the Finance and Expenditure Committee is an important part of the parliamentary process. It is where the Government of the day sets out what the priorities for spending for the coming year will be—sets the economic context for the Budget that it’s going to deliver. Yes, it announces the date, but within a Budget Policy Statement there is a lot of detail, and it actually does reflect the priorities of the Government of the day.

I think, if we have a look at the Budget Policy Statement that was delivered and examined at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, rather than seeing a narrative of growth, growth, growth as the opposition will tell us, it is nothing more than a pretty grim read in cuts, cuts, cuts. One of the important things that a Budget Policy Statement sets out is the operating allowance. This is how much money a Government is going to have to allocate at the forthcoming Budget—what that looks like—and we can see, in the Government’s own Budget Policy Statement, on page 3 of that document, that there’s going to be a high bar for new initiatives. I think, when we say a high bar, we say an insurmountable bar. While there’s an operating allowance in the forthcoming Budget of $2.4 billion, after you take out the pre-commitments that have already been made—that is things that the Government didn’t fund in the last Budget and realised that they needed to do some political fix-ups on in between Budgets—we’re left with an operating allowance of $700 million.

I cannot emphasise to New Zealanders how low that is. That is for everything other than health. That is to fund the cost pressures that we see in education. That is to fund what we might want to see in new initiatives in health. That is to fund any increase we might like to have in the paltry allocation we’ve had to housing in the previous Budget. There are not going to be new initiatives. There is the highest of bars that has been set by the Government in this. Second, not only is there not going to be new initiatives, what this Budget Policy Statement lays absolutely bare is that there are going to be more cuts and they are going to be deeper. I read from the document where it says, “Second, savings will need to be found, beyond those already identified in the previous Budget.” What I say to New Zealanders is: brace yourself; there is more coming. You thought Budget 2024 was savage. Hot on its heels is coming Budget 2025.

What it makes absolutely clear, in case colleagues thinking of making their bids didn’t realise just how brutal this Budget was going to be, is it says, “with a small number of exceptions, government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget.” What we can see is that this is austerity laid bare. This is no new funding going in, but, worse than that, it is more cuts. If we are looking for what we need to do to fix our health system, to deal with the rising levels of homelessness that we are seeing throughout New Zealand, by once again investing in housing, you will not see it in Budget 2025. The Budget Policy Statement makes that abundantly clear. If we are looking for what we need to do to stimulate and drive growth—the kinds of initiatives that we might want to see in economic development—there will not be funding for that. That is not the kind of thing we’ll see.

We know—we just need to look at the economic indicators—just how tough it is out there. We can take our pick of figures to look at that. Net core Crown debt will peak at 46.5 percent of GDP. Last time it was this high was in 1994. And, when we come to think about the increased borrowing, let’s take our thinking back to Budget 2024 and just how irresponsible it was of a Government to borrow to fund tax cuts. That is becoming abundantly clear. We’ll see that net core Crown debt is 3.5 percentage points higher than it was forecast in the Budget. Between May and December, we’ve seen that increase, in terms of what net core Crown debt has done, so when this Government tries to blame it all on the previous Governments, it’s time for them to stand up and take responsibility for the Budgets that they have delivered.

We also see—and I think this is one of the most concerning things for us on this side of the House—what this translates to for ordinary people. Nowhere is that more debilitating than the rising number of unemployed that we are seeing in this country. That is higher in every year of the forecast, and that is what the Budget Policy Statement shows us. There are 20,000 more people forecast to be on the jobseeker benefit and support by 2026, and that is a direct response of the kinds of cuts that we saw in Budget ’24 and that we are being told to brace ourselves for in Budget 2025. Those cuts will be deeper. We are not going to see the level of spending that we need to start addressing some of these issues that New Zealand is facing.

The other, I guess, notable thing about the Budget Policy Statement, and an item that the select committee spent a substantial amount of time delving into, of course, was “OBEGALx”, the new economic measure that was introduced by the Minister of Finance. One of the reasons that we spent time talking to both the Minister of Finance and Treasury officials about it, of course, is because Treasury had advised against the introduction of this new measure, and they had advised against the introduction of this new measure because it would not allow for the continuity and ongoing comparison of the Crown account. “When you can’t make surplus, you just take some stuff out to make it better” would be the short and easy description of what OBEGALx is, and there is a reason why Treasury advised against doing this. For Treasury, the ability for us to do year-on-year comparisons and to look at the economic situation across years is an important part of how we prudently manage fiscal arrangements in New Zealand.

We heard from Treasury that their advice to the Minister was that changing those short-term indicators soon after setting them could weaken the Government’s fiscal strategy credibility, especially at the time when the fiscal outlook had deteriorated. They were particularly concerned that it was a change to those fiscal indicators in the face of a deterioration in terms of what they were projecting. Now, we know globally at the moment that modelling and projections are challenging, and we have seen that over the last five years. I think that what we have seen over the last five years is that we have seen economists and central banks struggling to understand the different factors at play. Even more alarmingly, what we also heard in the course of this hearing was just how uncertain a place the world is at the moment and how hard it is to factor in all of the moving parts that we’re seeing moving around the world. To change our fiscal indicators, and being told by Treasury that it could weaken a Government’s fiscal credibility, I think is a bold move for a Minister of Finance and for a Government to agree to do.

What New Zealanders need to see in this Budget Policy Statement is an indication that we are going to have a Budget in 2025 that will start supporting New Zealanders into work, that it will make jobs and incomes a priority, that it will make housing an absolute priority, giving people the security of the homes they need in the kinds of communities they need, and that we also make sure we are adequately funding our health system. What we needed was a Budget Policy Statement that prioritised homes, health, and communities as well as all the things New Zealanders need. But we did not see that.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Look, I know that we are in the realm of post-truth politics, but I don’t think that I have seen a clearer indication of the gap between rhetoric and reality than what we have contained within the Budget Policy Statement—the rhetoric and the promises that this Government came in on with regards to the cost of living, and the reality that is biting everyday New Zealanders as a result of the decisions that this Government had made to knowingly in its Going For Growth strategy grow inequality, grow child poverty, grow climate changing emissions, and actually de-grow the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

We have some pretty vague statements in the Budget Policy Statement, which were helpfully gone through by the chair. He stated—and it’s reflected in this Budget Policy Statement from the Minister of Finance—that the Government’s overarching goals for its term of office are to, and I quote, “build a stronger, more productive economy.” But when you really start trying to get into the granular detail, there’s just some vague gesturing towards the notion—

Oh, it’s coming. Hold on.

—of education and skills, towards regulation, towards overseas investment—which I will come back to later, for members heckling at the moment—for science and technology, which the Government has decided to cut 400 jobs in, and also towards infrastructure.

We are understandably starting to see quite a bit of bait and switch whereby we were promised productivity but now the fixation and the rhetoric is on growth, and the question has to be “Growth for whom?” Who will benefit from this fixation from the Government? What we have in the Budget Policy Statement, and indeed the Budget itself, is a Government that is intent on crunching Government spending from approximately 34 percent of GDP to 30 percent. The Government knows full well the private spending from households and businesses is not going to fill the gap. That is one of the deepest ironies from this Government that likes to call themselves good, sound, economic managers, because the decisions that the Government has made to crunch that Government spending as a proportion of GDP and not see it filled by private investment has resulted in a deeper and longer recession, which again is hurting average New Zealanders.

Every forecast for this economy shows that things are getting worse as a result of the Government’s decisions, that they have exacerbated this recession. The Reserve Bank initially indicated that we were facing just a light downturn. Now the growth numbers continue to get worse. This time last year, the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update was projecting a 1.5 percent growth for this year, but the actual rate now is negative 0.2 percent. Meanwhile, next year’s growth of the Budget in May was projected to be 1.7 percent, but it’s now projected to be 0.5 percent. This Budget does not increase productivity—in fact, it actively, demonstrably, evidentially does the opposite.

What do we hear from the Government about what their plans currently are? Well, we’ve currently got the Prime Minister embarrassingly simping to the international companies that he’s got at his investor festival, asking them to fill the gap because the Government refuses to take responsibility for building the infrastructure that all of us ultimately rely on. That is because this Government refuses to acknowledge the reality—which I might add many Governments before it have as well—that you cannot build a productive economy on the sands of speculation. We in the Greens believe that Aotearoa New Zealand can aim a heck of a lot higher than simply hoping to have an economy which is us selling houses back and forwards to each other. This is an obvious monopoly system, and we do not live in a game of monopoly. We can indeed change the rules when they do not work for the majority of New Zealanders.

Let’s talk about that attempt at fiscal consolidation which this Government is ploughing ahead with, whereby it is deciding to do so through a process of cuts, cuts, merciless cuts after cuts, instead of fixing the tax system—that tax system, which we hear them fire up about whenever we dare to mention the reality that the institution of the Inland Revenue Department in 2023 produced a piece of work which told us that the top 311 households own more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. To connect the dots there, that does not just happen. That is an active consequence of political decisions which have been made to see those top 311 households pay an effective tax rate less than half that of the average New Zealander, and these guys have the gall to say that they care about hard-working New Zealanders. They are further entrenching a system which sees our nurses, our firefighters, our teachers pay an effective tax rate almost double that of the wealthiest in this country.

Not only is that so deeply unfair and so deeply inequitable, but it robs us of the very productivity that they tell us that they care about. It robs us of the investment that we could be making in that infrastructure that all of us need. The fundamental problem with the economy and the tax system in Aotearoa New Zealand is that we overtax work and we under-tax—indeed oftentimes do not tax at all—wealth.

Now, the $14 billion in tax cuts which the Government ploughed ahead with were promised to boost the economy and to boost growth, but as we can see, the Government’s decisions to hand out those tax cuts have in fact only exacerbated that recession and made things far worse. New Zealanders feel it in their back pocket. Those trickle-down tax cuts are not making up for the cuts to all of the public services that all of us rely on in the increases in fees for prescriptions, for bus fares, vehicle registration fees, and otherwise.

We’re also seeing the most, I think, immediately obvious manifestation of this Government’s fixation on privatisation with regards to the failure of their cuts to the per-child cost of the school lunch programme, whereby we are seeing the little guy—those hard-working New Zealanders that they once said that they cared about—being screwed over, and multinational companies or domestic versions of those multinational companies ultimately now going bust because this programme was always set up to fail. This austerity approach whereby we cut costs, set up programmes to fail, watch them fail, then blame them for failing—New Zealanders, I believe, can see right through it.

Now, there is no wonder that every other day we’ve got a new form of distraction politics from members of this Government with their latest imported culture woke wars or whatever it is. But I think that it is far more profound that every other day in this House we have the Prime Minister get up and say in response to questions—particularly from the Greens—that rents have stabilised. The facts are clear, and I would invite the members of the Government to go and look at Statistics New Zealand—the authoritative, non-partisan agency responsible for producing the database that we make decisions upon as a country—which tells us that rents have actually increased at double what Consumers Price Index inflation is. That is not what stabilisation means. Rents are double what we are seeing of average inflation.

The fundamental point here from the Greens in this Budget Policy Statement is that different decisions can be made. While the Government has decided to fixate on, for example, mining, which is reflected in the Budget Policy Statement report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, whereby the Minister of Finance started talking about how we can apparently do this thing carefully—we have seen and we have heard from the Government that their plan for growth and mining is to go from approximately a worth of $1 billion to $2 billion. They want to increase the number of jobs from approximately 5,000 jobs to 7,000 jobs. This is worthwhile putting in context because right now the arts sector in this country—not particularly well renowned for being well resourced or supported by successive Governments—is currently worth $16 billion, i.e., 16 times the mining sector that they want to supercharge, and it currently employs 117,000 people. Far, far more than the 7,000 that they want to increase mining jobs to.

Different decisions can be made. The Greens have outlined our plan with He Ara Anamata whereby we have shown that we can reduce climate changing emissions five times faster than the Government’s plan in their emissions reduction plan. More so than that, we can reduce the cost of living and improve people’s quality of life. That fundamental decision looks like deciding to put the public good ahead of private gain. I know that that’s a scary thing for members of the Government, the notion that we collectively might look after each other and the planet that we live on, but those are the decisions that we are campaigning on, and we know resonate with everyday New Zealanders.

Just in my final remarks, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand the logic and the rationale behind this Government’s decisions, and, frankly, it’s clear at the end of the day there is none.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this debate on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update for 2024. If people have just tuned in, we are actually not debating the Greens’ alternative Budget plan, yet they could have been confused for thinking that after the last speaker spoke so much about it.

I’d just address, actually, a couple of things in Ms Swarbrick’s remarks before I actually get on to the Budget Policy Statement. Again, she always talks about taxing unrealised gains and that’s actually not what we should be doing in New Zealand, and it’s not a wealth tax. It’s actually a capital tax you would be introducing, and what you do when you tax capital is you actually stop—

It’s a Piketty tax.

Yeah, you actually remove money that we can use to invest in businesses, upskill staff, train, etc. We do not want to be taxing capital and stopping investment.

But I digress—oh, one further point, though, before I do, I do digress, because I know Ms Swarbrick is a fan of Stats New Zealand. She mentioned it in her speech. If she actually looked at the second page of the report that the Finance and Expenditure Committee—which I am a member of—has reported, she would see that Stats New Zealand did modestly upgrade GDP, real growth, and nominal growth. Now, it was only modestly, but it should be noted that it actually has been upgraded.

We were lucky enough in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have some submissions on the Budget Policy Statement, and so I want to thank the 49 people who did written submissions and, as Mr Brewer outlined earlier, the 12 people who actually came and spoke to the committee. I want to thank them for that.

As was outlined by the chair, Mr Brewer, earlier, there were really four key things in the Budget Policy Statement around lifting economic growth, social investment approach, tight control of Government spending, and a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure projects. ACT is very proudly able to point out how we’re contributing to each of those as part of this tight coalition Government, using the different skills of our three parties to actually deliver for New Zealanders. In the economic growth through productivity, we have David Seymour, as the Minister for Regulation, dealing with bad regulations that hold back business, and we’ve had a number of announcements around that.

We are very interested in how we can use this social investment approach to actually make sure that the public services that Kiwis want and deserve are actually delivering results. Again, we’re looking at some initiatives there in relation to Pharmac.

Tight control of Government spending is, I think, a really, really important objective of the Budget Policy Statement. I do want to quote the Minister of Finance because she made some statements about that to the select committee. She said that the Government’s fiscal sustainability programme involves a high bar for any new spending. Ministers have been asked to reprioritise funding within their portfolio if they want to pursue new spending initiatives. Now, why she made those comments is we have seen over the last number of years that Government spending has got out of control. There are no proper checks and balances on what is being spent.

We want to make sure that we are getting value for money, so I know that the Minister of Finance, ably supported by her Associate Ministers, is looking at that and making sure that we are actually only delivering new initiatives and investing where we can see outcomes. That is very, very important.

Then the final one, which we’ve mentioned, was the sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments. Again, we’ve already heard referenced in this debate the investment summit which will start tomorrow. I also want to call out to Minister Chris Bishop and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Simon Court, who have put in place frameworks to allow overseas and New Zealand investors to be the ones who can invest in the pipeline of infrastructure projects, which is one of the goals of the Budget Policy Statement.

I also do want to reflect on a couple of other things in the report that are actually in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, which we are also debating—which is this sizable document. It’s actually a very valuable and important document, and it’s worth bringing to the House’s attention some pieces of this because it is actually really interesting. If you, in fact, turn to page 8, there’s a really great graph showing the rise of inflation over a number of years, and you can actually see, when the previous Government was in place, the massive uptick in Government spending, and then the horrific, horrific increase in inflation which has really made all New Zealand households suffer.

What it does say in this official Treasury document is that with inflation slowing—again, we would say that was delivered by this Government—and spare capacity emerging in the economy, monetary policy has become less restrictive, the Reserve Bank has lowered the official cash rate 125 basis points since August, and what we’re seeing is a reduction in interest rates. The document goes on to say, “Lower interest rates will stimulate demand in time as lower debt servicing costs for mortgage holders”—so that’s everyday Kiwis out there who have a mortgage who are noticing their rates coming down, and we’ll also see more household spending and business investment. That is good news, but, again, these graphs are quite stark about the issues that we have inherited.

I also want to draw people’s attention to a page at the back, where it outlines all the fiscal risks. Again, the Minister of Finance, on 21 December 2023, put out a statement saying that she was going to ensure there were no more fiscal cliffs in the Budget documents and, in fact, in the accounts. Again, and people will be familiar with this, we found 21 projects left from the previous Government where there were fiscal cliffs. Now you can see in this statement of fiscal risks it actually outlines any programmes that have got time-limited funding, etc., and so we want to make sure that it’s very clear to New Zealanders and to everyone about what are the risks the Government is dealing with and if a programme has time-limited funding.

One other important thing I would like to draw the House’s attention to is Treasury’s commentary about some of the kind of more global risks. They actually talk about the trade situation globally. We’ve obviously seen different musings from the US Government. That’s why it’s really important—like we heard today—that our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs is actually on the way to the US to make sure that we have good relations with the US and can ensure that our trade position remains, because New Zealand is a trading export nation and we do need to make sure that those relationships are strong. We’ve also, obviously, heard about the other countries like India, where shortly a delegation—and we’re very lucky to have Dr Parmjeet Parmar from ACT joining the Prime Minister on that delegation. She is one of our only two Indian-born MPs. Again, that we can look to open up more export markets, because, as we heard earlier, lifting economic growth—and doing that will be by actually selling more of our goods to the rest of the world—is one of the key objectives of the Budget Policy Statement for 2025.

I am really looking forward to the Budget on 22 May 2025, Mr Brewer—just so there’s no confusion—when we will actually be able to see the cumulation of the work of all of our hard-working Ministers across the Government as they look to take the objectives that were set out by the Minister of Finance and actually make those into tangible outcomes for New Zealanders. Really, everyone should mark their diaries—22 May—because it will be great to see the culmination of all that work and of these important Budget processes like the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Thank you to the House for listening to me, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this special debate on the Budget Policy Statement—the BPS. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), as we know, was also released alongside the BPS as well, at the same time. Like the last speaker, I’m looking forward to 22 May. Kiwis across the country, as we all are, will be looking forward to Budget day, and it’s the day, I think, all New Zealanders and Kiwis watch Parliament, and they love to see what’s happening in the Budget.

This Government, however, has inherited a wrecked economy, and we heard today by the acting Prime Minister, a wrecked economy is what we are dealing with. We came into Government with inflation out of control, causing a cost of living crisis and skyrocketing interest rates. The economy was tanking and running out of steam, and when the Hon Shane Jones spoke of the Budget Policy Statement prior to Christmas, he also mentioned how Treasury itself says it has to go back and rework its own modelling to actually work out the situation we are in.

We are in a dire state of economy. We are on a knife edge and we have to start doing things different—what this Government has done. The New Zealand First party, also prior to the election, warned the people of New Zealand and other political parties of the path the previous Government was on, and as the Hon Winston Peters has laid out, we were right in this forecast. Those forecasts have come true—that we are in a worse position than we thought we were in prior to the election. The economy needs confidence, and this speech today, if I emphasise anything, is about confidence. We need a stronger, more productive economy.

In this Budget Policy Statement, it sets out goals and objectives for the Government in the forthcoming Budget. It talks of the short-term fiscal intentions and it talks about getting debt downwards—a downwards trend towards 40 percent of GDP. It also talks about long-term fiscal objectives, of actually reducing debt to in between 20 to 40 percent of GDP so we can actually budget or actually have wriggle room around economic shocks or environmental disasters or emergencies. It is important we put ourselves back into that situation.

The unfortunate thing is the Opposition does not agree with that. They actually want to ramp up debt. They come and they sit on that side of the House, and all they talk about is spend, spend, spend. They want to ramp things up, where this Government will get things under control.

Did you read your debt levels?

Your debt levels—yes, I have read your debt levels. We have set a very high bar for any new spending, so we will get the public sector; we will get the Government books back under control. We have those three goals we have to build a stronger, more productive economy that lifts real incomes, increases opportunities for New Zealanders. We will deliver more efficient, effective, and responsive public services to all who need and use them. We will restore law and order, and we have been continuing doing that in this House with legislation. We will improve health outcomes and educational achievements. We will get the books back in order and restore discipline to public spending.

Yes, the Opposition have alluded to the operating allowance of $2.4 billion, and $700 million of that is left, remains to be allocated through the Budget, but that is being responsible. We aren’t blowing out the Budget; we are being responsible with the money that we have got allocated.

The last Government—in their mismanagement, we saw them spending like drunken sailors. They have left us a legacy of debt and bad decisions, and what did they finish? What did they achieve? Nothing. COVID money thrown out and parachuted to people overseas—not even in New Zealand. They wasted money on infrastructure planning—$50 million on a cycle bridge. Where’s that bridge? Where’s the cycleway? Not here. Four billion dollars, they got the ferries out to—$4 billion, that was going to cost. No prudence in their decisions. It is all about choices.

It also a relief to New Zealanders that inflation has come down. We’re seeing inflation back into that 1 to 3 percent range. We’ve no longer got inflation over 7 percent. That was killing our economy. There is now confidence within our business sectors and in our consumers. We are restoring public spending savings in Government, and this is something the Opposition can’t do: reprioritise spending and actually spend your money in a better way instead of just having to have more and more money.

We are removing the regulatory barriers, and we have a growth strategy in the BPS, on page 8, and it’s about export income. We can’t just sell to ourselves; we’ve actually got to grow our exports, and that’s something New Zealand First has always been very much aware of. We must be much more financially sound by our exports growing, and New Zealand First has invested, over our time in Government, in the regions, through the Provincial Growth Fund, through the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF), and through primary industries. Farming, aquaculture, fisheries, horticulture, and mining—they’re all going off. They’re all things that are bringing money and export money into this country.

The one thing the Opposition doesn’t understand is they would always kill the golden goose that lays the golden egg. They would always kill the exporters and put them down—no confidence in our exporters, where this side of the House and our Government, we believe in our exporters. We believe in tourism, and we’re putting money into tourism and bringing money back into our country. As the finance Minister said, growth of 0.25 percent of nominal GDP would increase $2 billion in the forecast period, so any increase in exports—it’s a good thing. It will give us more revenue, more tax money.

Infrastructure fast track—149 projects in the pipeline. Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, looking at capital requirements and how we can make that easier—blow away the cobwebs of the old RMA and actually allow 149 projects on the table to actually be consented and actually get some work done. All you guys will be there for the opening, but none of you will actually vote for it. Time and time again, we hear about renewable energy, we hear about aquaculture, we hear about housing, but all of you voted against those projects, but bet you’re all there when the ribbons are cut.

The economic outlook is better, inflation’s down, interest rates are down, and people are going to have more money in their pockets. We are at a turning point. We are heading back to a path of economic surplus, where this Government is going to take us back to actually having money in the bank and money in our pockets. And why would we want to put more money in the back of the pockets? What can we do with it? Why? Economic surplus will mean more hospitals. It will mean more doctors. It will mean more nurses, and schools delivering basics like maths, reading, and writing, because that’s where the real deficits are. It’s also about infrastructure and having the money for infrastructure.

Amazingly enough, I could go on for 20 minutes. It’s actually been quite pleasurable today, but I look forward and our colleagues look forward to 22 May, to the finance Minister, and getting the country back on track and taking back our country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an overwhelming feeling to hear all the speeches in this House and not once mention wellbeing. The last speaker talked about inheriting a wrecked economy. Well, I wonder how he feels when we’ve inherited or been subjected to a stolen one. This debate isn’t about numbers on spreadsheets; it’s about real people, real whānau, and real struggles. This is a Budget that doesn’t care about New Zealanders. It doesn’t want to invest in those struggling whānau working hard, the sick, Māori or Pacific Islanders, because they only want to serve those who want to exploit our country.

There are no wellbeing indicators in this Budget. What we have is a Government that doesn’t care about the social return on investment, because it only cares for profit or for shareholdings and for international exploitation. This Budget tells us nothing. It tells us nothing of the wellbeing of Aotearoa—nothing at all. They could fund Māori healthcare so whānau don’t wait months for care that others get in days. Or they could close mortality rates. But they don’t. And you know what? They continue to talk about equality. Liberal democracy is about equality, because it’s easier, but equity is what’s missing in this country.

We’re not talking about equity because equity costs, and this Budget talks nothing about equity and closing the gaps, closing the mortality rates, lowering Māori prison rates. Māori make up 50 percent of the prison population for males in prison. We’re not looking at how we close those gaps. That’s what equity funding does. That’s what this Budget should be talking about, but it doesn’t, so they come up with these catchphrases: woke—all of these woke things. Though, it’s not woke. Follow the data, follow the science, and stop being so stupid.

The politics of distraction—we heard it in one of the speeches, the “Americanising” of our country. We have got to stop allowing these types of Governments to run their agenda, and Americanising our country is not the answer to close inequity. You continue to use words that Trump uses: “woke”. Everything you disagree with is “woke”. Equity is “woke”. What you do is you cut funding—you cut funding to those who are struggling.

What about productivity?

It’s not about productivity, because productivity will be achieved once we have closed the gaps between those who have and those who have not. And the Budget doesn’t look at any of that. Actually, your last 16 months has absolutely blown equity out of the water. What you do is you use this race baiting - type politics to get your point across. It’s got nothing to do with Pākehā or Māori; it’s got everything to do with the economy, but you use those types of tactics to distract us from the real issues, and that’s what this Budget Policy Statement doesn’t do for our people.

I’ll tell you what, we’ll have a whole lot of trolls trolling us in the morning when they see this speech, because, in actual fact, what they don’t recognise is they’re part of the 98 percent that are getting ripped off as well, and that this Government is only tending to the 2 percent that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth. Removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from any legislation—Treaty principles bill, regulatory standards bill; removing Te Tiriti from 28 pieces of legislation—all of that is to allow Aotearoa to be exploited by corporate greed and international investors.

If you think that’s where our economy should be going and if that is development or if that is making a profit for this country, we don’t want anything for it. Our country needs to wake up. Wake up in 2026; it’s our chance to make a change, because these types of policy statements in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update do not recognise those who are contributing to it. That is 98 percent of the country that are working their butts off to ensure that there is some type of economy here in Aotearoa. We must stand up for the 98 percent of this country whilst this Government continues to feed the 2 percent, who control 50 percent of this country’s wealth.

That’s what this Budget is doing. That’s what this Government is doing. It must come to an end—2026, we will see a change. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia orana, Mr Speaker. This Budget Policy Statement is the same old tired talking points that I’ve heard from National Governments for way too long. It harks right back to the 1990s’ absolutely failed neo-liberal concept of what the economy is and how we make progress, and it’s sad. I mean, I find it frustrating and sad because I’m sure that there are members on the other side of the House who genuinely believe what they’re saying; they just don’t know better. Like, they’ve confused excess profit with progress, the rich getting richer with success, and we’ve known since the 1990s that doesn’t work.

In the 1990s, inequality dramatically increased in Aotearoa New Zealand because of policies from a National Government in the early 1990s. As a result, New Zealand has been held back, and we didn’t make the investments in infrastructure that were needed. We haven’t invested into public housing. All of these things have contributed to the problems that we face today. And it happened again last time, when the John Key - National Government—which was less extreme than this one, I’ll be honest. It was less extreme; it was less ridiculous and Trump-like. But still, when we hit the global financial crisis and house building completely ceased in the private sector, they didn’t put money into State housing, which is what was needed to increase the supply of State housing. Instead, they’re like, “Let’s try to create jobs by building some roads.” And by “roads”, I mean the six highways that were announced in 2009, most of which weren’t even procured until the next term of Government and some of which have only recently been completed, many years later.

I bring up transport because, ultimately, if you really look at the numbers in the Government policy statement on land transport and the National Land Transport Programme, as put out by the NZ Transport Agency, it becomes abundantly clear that the Government’s policy on transport will bankrupt the country and it will come at the expense of investment in things like hospitals, schools, and other vitally important public services. Right now, as we debate this Budget Policy Statement, we’ve got the Minister for Infrastructure, and Transport, and the Prime Minister, up there at their—what is it? The private capital festival, which is a joke. I mean, they’ve had to push back this event three times. It’s a talk fest; there’s no reality to it. I believe the Prime Minister actually believes public-private partnerships (PPPs) are free money, that all this foreign capital is just going to come here and build infrastructure in New Zealand for free. No, we have to pay for it.

Those investors, my friends, want a return on the money they’re putting in, and if they’re putting money into roads, which are only going to raise a tiny fraction of their cost from tolls, that means that future New Zealanders will be paying back the debt that is going to be racked up by this Government. That actually is clear in the Budget Policy Statement, because if you look at figure 2 on page 2, you see very clearly that starting in 2008, net core Crown debt increased under John Key, it started reducing until we hit COVID, and now it’s shooting right back up again. There’s no sign of that reducing. Just because you sign up for a PPP doesn’t mean you don’t have to account for the future repayments to pay it back.

There’s a massive gap between forecast revenue from the transport funds and forecast spending once we get outside of this three-year period, and everybody knows it. It’s like the emperor has no clothes. This is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous that Government parties stand up and give their fiscal discipline talking points, say we can’t afford to have decent school lunches for our tamariki, but they can have burned plastic and a few big corporates can maybe make some money off it. It’s abundantly clear that when they talk about doing more with less, they’re talking about doing less with less. We’re not getting quality school lunches, and a vast majority of New Zealanders can see that. The old programme was working, it created local jobs, and it had massive benefits that flow on to the rest of our country.

Because we are a country, we are a society. They will blame individual failure for poverty when it’s a systemic problem created by policies they promote that do not actually benefit all New Zealanders, they benefit the top 1 percent, and a few big overseas corporates will be milking it off of the money that we’re going to have to pay back in the future. That’s no vision from this coalition Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this debate on the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. We heard from one of the other speakers—who has now left—from the Green Party. She used big words like “demonstrably” and “sands of speculation”, but then she has walked off so I can’t demonstrate the very things which this Budget yields—the very things of substance. Of course, on 22 May, there’s going to be a whole lot more as we approach Budget day, so it’s going to be very exciting.

This Budget Policy Statement (BPS) is all about economic growth. It’s imbued through the statements, and I will talk through some of those things and qualify some of those attributes. As has been mentioned by our chair Mr Brewer, and other speakers, the cost of living is coming down, inflation is coming down, and the official cash rate is coming down, and that means that for mortgage holders—which is the majority of mum and dads around New Zealand—they’ve got more cash flow in their bank, and an example was $180 a fortnight, based on some of those new interest rates. That’s serious savings, and we do take some tribute for reducing Government spending, which has reduced domestic inflation—we do take some credit—and that’s of benefit for Kiwis.

Our aim is also to grow incomes—not just tax but to grow incomes. I want to quote from the Minister of Finance, as per the Hansard at that January hearing, where she said: “Here’s a statistic I find compelling: additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenues by $2 billion a year, by the end of the forecast period.” If we just think about that—

But we’re in recession—we’ve been going backwards.

—it’s just a quarter of a percent. Even you can imagine it, Mr Webb—just a quarter of a percent. If we can grow by that much over four years, that’s worth $2 billion in our tax revenues.

The Opposition talks about tax, tax, tax. Member Halbert over there was talking about tax cuts for landlords, and I think, frankly, they need a new catchcry, because we know at least a third of landlords are mum and dad Kiwis.

We want to grow the pie, not just cut the pie—not have a stingy pie and give everyone crumbs, but grow the pie. In fact, we want to give more pies, or grow the pizza, if you like. We know you can cut the pizza into smaller sections or you can just have another pizza. This Budget Policy Statement is all about growing our Kiwi pizza. It’s about job creation. It’s about wage increases. It’s about better public services.

More ham and pineapple!

You can have pineapple, Dan. What do energy-poor countries have in common? They’re poor, and that’s why we want to grow our economy.

We want new money. The previous Green member, again, left the House and didn’t get to hear my contribution but she mentioned that this reminds them of the 1990s. When I think about the 1990s, I think about the Spice Girls, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, and the RMA—1991, the RMA—

R.E.M—it’s R.E.M.

—and again—R.E.M. for you. We’ll tribute a song to you. At the BPS hearing—again, if I could quote the Minister: “In the longer term, we have a productivity disease in New Zealand and our Government is intent on addressing it. Resource Management Act (RMA) reform is an example of this. We know that weaponising our laws against development and construction has been bad for our economy.”

I’m pleased that we are reforming the RMA. Obviously we’ve got some fast-track legislation which is now in train, and some hearing panels will be set up and enable those things to get on and do it. The great thing about them is they’re time consent - bound, so regional councils and consenting authorities can’t keep kicking the can down the road. Developers want to get on and do it.

We want to double our exports, and obviously our Minister is working really hard with free-trade agreements. The Prime Minister is off to India next week. We want to bring in foreign capital, and I want to talk about the business summit, soon, and there’s an example of that. I love talking about infrastructure, one of the key pillars of our productivity pipeline. We want to have 30 years of infrastructure certainty. We have invited, obviously, the Hon Barbara Edmonds to the business summit because, where possible, we want bipartisan support. We want our development community to have certainty into the future of New Zealand, so it means big contractors can invest in the capital requirement to employ and develop. Yes, building roads, because building roads takes a lot of employment. You know, the great thing about when the road is completed? Then we’ve got enhanced productivity and people can get somewhere faster and do more, more efficiently.

The former member talked about public-private partnerships. That’s just one tool, and we’re looking at special purpose vehicles. We’re looking at infrastructure funding and financing tools. We’re looking at tolling. There are multiple ways that we can fund infrastructure, but we can’t keep doing it the way we’ve done it. Councils have reached debt ceilings, the Crown has reached debt ceilings—

No, it hasn’t. The Crown doesn’t have a debt ceiling.

—and we need to be innovative. Oh, you just print more money, is that right? You just print more money. No, we want to bring in the opportunity for foreign investment. In terms of the RMA at the moment, we’ve got resource management amendments, we’ve done the fast-track resource management amendments because we want to unshackle this RMA that the Minister spoke of, around infrastructure and energy, housing growth, obviously making the medium-density residential standards optional, which is really important for those councils to provide a nuanced solution so they can do infill housing around public transport and areas where it makes sense, rather than sort of a helter-skelter approach, and natural hazards and system improvements.

To talk about the investment summit this week, just to give, I guess, some context to what it might mean. Some of the members opposite might realise that there’s some other countries involved: Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia—I’m just going to take a breath—Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We’re going to show our international visitors in no uncertain terms that New Zealand is open for business. We’re not just going on a trade delegation to say, “Gidday, mate, we’re from Australia; we’re from New Zealand.” We actually want to invite people to say, “Here’s a tangible way you can invest in our economy where everyone can benefit, including Kiwis.”

The financial companies and institutions attending the summit manage assets and funds worth around $6 trillion worth of capital. They include pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and major banks. The challenge for us is just getting out of the way and enabling this for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

We’re also moving quickly to provide a regulatory environment which will open up that framework, but also, even with local councils—with our Minister Penk—trying to make it easier for builders to get consenting projects and even unified across councils. In my local example, we’ve got Hamilton, we’ve got Waipā, we’ve got Waikato, we’ve got a regional council, and building developers don’t know who to talk, to half the time and it’s so confused.

I guess the word I want to bring to all of this is “alignment”. In the RMA, we’ve got Local Water Done Well, we’ve got the infrastructure funding and financing, and we’ve got consenting, and if we get all these things lined up, this country’s going to take off. You know who’s going to benefit? It’s going to be New Zealanders. It’s going to lift wages and lift prosperity and lift the economy for all of us. We’re also very passionate about innovation, science, and technology. Part of the—

You fired the scientists.

You’ll see some efficiencies come out—just be patient—as part of the antidote, if you will, to our productivity disease. I was at Waikato University last week with Minister Shane Reti, at the Ahuora Centre symposium on decarbonising process heat. We heard about collaboration between structural engineers and chemical engineers designing things using AI. I even got to see some of the intellectual property in action with asparagus pickers and a machine that would go over a vineyard and analyse grape vines and could use AI tools to work out where to trim. These are the sorts of things that are going to be productive to our economy.

Of course, tourism; we’ve had a massive announcement this week of $3 million for the international visitor conservation fund. It’s going to be awesome. In fact, we’re really excited about tourism in Hamilton. Obviously, as MP for Hamilton East, Hamilton—of course, everyone knows it’s New Zealand’s fastest-growing city and the city of the future. We’ve got the Pullman Hotel, built by the Pisos and Sanjils of the world. We’ve got the Templeton Group eyeing up some hot property in Hamilton, overlooking the mighty awa. We’ve got the Regional Theatre, a $100 million project which is going to attract visitors, on top of the Hamilton Gardens, which has half a million visitors a year, and it’s in the top 1 percent on TripAdvisor. It’s all happening, and it’s a catalyst for confidence.

I know you’re ready to jump to your feet, Deborah Russell, but we’re not quite there yet. All these things are a catalyst for confidence. “Everyone must go” to New Zealand. We’re on a path of productivity, we’re on a path of delivering a great Budget on 22 May, and I can’t wait.

I want to remind this House about what New Zealanders really, really care about. They care about jobs. They care about health. They care about homes. There are a lot of fancy words and economic concepts in this debate—a lot of talking about fiscal ceilings and growth and measures of how we measure the economy, but at the end of the day, what New Zealanders really want to know is how what the Government is doing matters for their jobs, how it matters as to whether or not they can get healthcare, how it matters as to whether or not they have a warm, dry home to live in.

See, the Budget Policy Statement is full of lots of numbers, full of economic concepts, but the Budget is not just about numbers and economic concepts; it is the Government’s plan for New Zealand, the plan for the coming year, and it is a plan from that Government which is severely lacking. Let me take you through how it just misses out.

The Government has said that it has four policy areas that it’s going to focus on in Budget 2025. In the first of those, it says it’s going to lift economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges. Well, they seem to think they can do it just by saying the words, “Growth, growth, growth, growth, growth.”

Let me unpack what needs to be done in order to get growth up. It means we need ordinary people with well-paid jobs. It means we need scientists creating the innovative research that takes New Zealand forward. It means we need people getting good quality education. That growth, growth, growth, growth, growth and productivity, for ordinary New Zealanders, it means: do they have a well-paid job where they can use machinery and equipment that lifts their productivity? Do we have scientists doing the work out in the fields with the farmers to help lift the productivity there, and in the labs, creating innovative research? That Government has fired 500 or so scientists so far. It’s gotten rid of them, getting rid of some of our best and brightest. That’s their commitment to growth.

That Government has not put aside any extra money for education so far. It has a really limited amount of money it can spend this Budget because of the constraints it’s put on itself. So far, most of that has been allocated to health. There is no room even for inflation adjustments in education. That Government is not committed—much as it might say it is, it is not committed to ensuring that every New Zealander gets a decent education. How, then, are they going to lift growth?

The next thing they said they were going to concentrate on was what they call social investment, and they said what that means is trying to get better results from the Government’s investment in social services. But what have they done there? They have undermined the health system. There is less money per person in health. So much for an investment in social services.

In fact, there are some really nasty overtones that have come through from the Government. We’ve seen it in the policies mentioned by some of the parties in this House that when it comes to medicines—this is in political party policy agendas—perhaps medicines will only be available for people who are productive. I think straightforwardly decent healthcare ought to be available for all New Zealanders, and we know at the moment that New Zealanders just can’t get it. There’s nothing in this document that talks about how we’re going to ensure good healthcare for all New Zealanders.

They talk about how one of the four things they’re going to do is have tight control of Government spending, so they’re going to make sure that all Government money is spent really effectively. Just today, we had the Minister of Finance coming out with some new procurement rules, how Government departments would go about procuring services. Sitting in there is a line which says that they will no longer require Government agencies to employ only services that pay the living wage for cleaners, for catering, for security guards, and so on.

What does that mean for ordinary New Zealanders, the ordinary New Zealanders who are the cleaners, who are the security guards, who are the cooks? Well, if they are no longer paid the living wage and get the minimum wage instead, that is a drop in their wages of $186 a week or $9,672 a year. That is that Government’s commitment to ordinary New Zealanders—taking nearly $10,000 a year off the people who work hard as security guards, the people who work hard as cooks, the people who work hard as cleaners. That is that Government’s commitment to decent, well-paying jobs. It is taking money off the hardest workers who are paid some of the lowest wages in our country, and they are making it even worse. That is absolutely shameful.

In terms of those procurement rules they’ve come up with today, the other thing they’ve said is that they are no longer going to require Government services to have buildings built to a five-star rating standard, they should no longer be required to have battery electric or hybrid electric vehicles, and they should no longer have to use low-waste or recyclable products. There is no commitment to working on building a sustainable economy from that Government—not sustainable in terms of money but sustainable in terms of the environment we live in.

This Budget Policy Statement is remarkably silent about the hugest issue we have facing us, and that is the issue of climate change, but it’s lurking in there. It’s lurking in there in these cuts to Government services where they are going to cut any commitment to working on climate change. That is shameful too.

Then, in their fourth strategy, they’ve said they’re going to develop a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments. The ferries—what happened there? A massive piece of infrastructure this country needs and they cut it. Dunedin Hospital—a massive piece of infrastructure that this country needs and is particularly needed in the South Island, and what did they do? They put it on hold and incurred more costs. We know that there’s about $800 million that has gone down the tubes because of the very short-sighted decision that Government made on the ferries. We know that they incurred more costs because they simply sat on Dunedin Hospital for a while, and now they talk about making good long-term infrastructure decisions. They’ve got a very poor record in that regard.

In terms of those strategies that the Government has for ordinary people in New Zealand, it has meant cuts, it has meant insecure services, it has meant that the sorts of jobs that we want are not being funded. If we talk about the sorts of things that we care about—jobs, health, homes—that Government is not interested in them.

Then they did a nasty, fudgy little cover-up job in the Budget Policy Statement. In the Budget Fiscal Strategy Report for Budget 2024, the Government then made a commitment. It said it would return the operating balance before gains and losses to being positive by 2027-28, but by the time they came around to doing the numbers this year, they realised they simply couldn’t do it, so they came up with a new measure, the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses. They couldn’t get the books to say what they wanted, so they fudged them instead.

We had a long discussion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee about this as to whether it was appropriate to create this new measure. Treasury said no. The experts we consulted said no. Everyone said it was just smoke and mirrors—smoke and mirrors designed to cover up the failings of that Government. Failing in the jobs front, failing with respect to health, failing with respect to homes, and trying to cover up that failure by introducing a dodgy accounting measure. The only person who wanted it was the Minister of Finance. Every single other person advised against it.

That is an absolute train wreck of a Government. They should admit it and should admit it right now. They should change their leader who’s leading them astray, and they need to do better by ordinary New Zealanders.

It’s an honour to actually speak on the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in front of you today—well, the Budget that lays the foundation for a stronger, a more resilient economy, and relief for New Zealanders.

For those who have just tuned in on TV and for those who have visited us in the gallery right now, I think we should tell you what the BPS stands for. The Budget Policy Statement commences officially the Budget cycle for the Government. It sets out the Government’s fiscal strategy and the broad goals and policy objectives that will shape the upcoming Budget. This side of the House will tell you that the upcoming Budget is on 22 May—there we go. This is what the BPS is about and many of the speakers in front of you today are the members of Finance and Expenditure Committee and we had the first opportunity to scrutinise the BPS 2025.

Now, let’s be honest. The past few years have been tough—very high inflation, rising interest rates, and very slow economic recovery that has stretched household budgets and pressured our Kiwi businesses. Many families have struggled with the grocery bills, the utility bills, the rent, mortgages, childcare costs—everyday costs that people struggle with—but also our small businesses in New Zealand who are fighting to stay afloat with the reduced income revenue, with managing higher operating costs and higher wages. So many, many New Zealanders have felt the pressure and also the uncertainty about their financial future, but today we stand at a turning point. The largest economic indicators show that we are now moving towards recovery as a whole, but only if we stay disciplined, cut wasteful spending, and focus on sustainable economic growth.

So where are we right now? I think we need to be very clear about where we are as a country. Laid out very clearly in the BPS, New Zealand’s fiscal position has deteriorated over the last six years—this is actually on page 2; it’s a public document that everyone’s welcome to read. New Zealand’s fiscal position has deteriorated over the past six years. Crown expenses have risen faster than core Crown revenue. The operating balance before gains and losses, which is commonly referred to as OBEGAL, has been in deficit since 2019 and the 2020 year. And, yes, all of the above is during the last Labour Government.

The fiscal deterioration is due to many several factors, including large discretionary spending increases in previous Budgets; for example, in Budget 2022, the last Labour Government committed an additional $9.5 billion on average for the new operating spending. Yes, through the COVID period, but yes, also more debt. More debt, way more debt, and also the finance costs that we now need to service debt. Now, some members spoke before me in the Opposition, including members from the Labour Party and the Green Party, and referred to some of the diagrams in the BPS. I find it very funny that the Green member kind of stopped talking about the net Crown debt that went all the way up under the Labour Government. That’s very funny. But, hey, look—

Wasteful spending.

Wasteful spending for sure. But now, after facing the economic downturn as a whole, Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, commonly referred to as the HYEFU, in 2024 gave us some reasons to look to the future—some optimism. Inflation now is back under control after peaking at 7.3 percent in 2022-23. Inflation now has finally returned to the Reserve Bank’s target range between 1 and 3 percent.

What this means for New Zealanders is it directly reduces price pressures for households and supermarkets and petrol and in many others. The official cash rate (OCR) is also coming down. Since August 2024, the Reserve Bank has cut the OCR by 1.75 percent at the time of the BPS, which lowers the borrowing cost. What that means for our Kiwi households is that if you have a $500,000 average mortgage in your bank account, this means a saving of $180 per fortnight.

More great news: since the release of the BPS 2025, which was December 2024, the Reserve Bank has further announced another reduction in February, which is last month, that further reduced the OCR rate by another 50 basis points to 3.75. Now, this is four consecutive reductions since August last year, meaning our rates have fallen a lot faster. However, there is an upside. Business confidence has finally improved at a 10year high. Businesses are now starting to invest, they are hiring again, and they are signalling a turning point for job growth.

However, the challenges remain. Challenges remain, and we are very, very early in this economic growth space. Economic growth has been a little bit slower than expected, which means that things are sticky. However, we have a plan, and this is where the Budget Policy Statement becomes very, very useful. One of the biggest challenges that we are facing as a Government is fixing the Government’s books. Now, over the last six years, as I said earlier, the Government’s spending has outpaced Government revenue. Our net core Crown debt has surged from below 20 percent of GDP under the Labour Government to around 42 percent of New Zealand’s GDP. Treasury has also forecast a structural deficit, which means the Government is still required to spend more than we can cope with, so we have a plan.

Our fiscal strategy is very clear: No. 1 is to return OBEGAL to surplus by 2027-28; reduce core Crown expenses to 30 percent of GDP to ensure that spending is sustainable; lower net Crown debt towards 40 percent of GDP; and now I must quote from when we scrutinised and invited the Minister of Finance to our select committee to present. This is what she said: “It is unsustainable for the Government to grow the economy by borrowing money.” Noting the consequences of inflation, she said, “It is better to grow the economy by improving productive capacity in long-term growth prospects.” And we have heard from members on our side of the Government that any additional growth of just 0.25 percent of nominal GDP would increase our annual tax revenue by $2 billion. This is what we talk about—by growing the pie, like the member for Hamilton East, Ryan Hamilton said—grow the pie. This is what we need to do.

To achieve this, Budget 2025 has three very clear actions: cap the operating allowances to $2.4 billion per year, ensuring that there is disciplined spending in our Government agencies; performance-based budgeting to make sure that every taxpayer dollar that we spend must deliver results for our taxpayers; targeted capital investment so that funds would only go into high impact projects, not wasteful spending—so a shared strategy and the plan. But I now must go on to what it means for New Zealanders, because I think most people who have tuned in on TV and then also the people sitting in the gallery have listened to all the jargon. Yes, I am a chartered accountant; I love all the jargon and all the accounting, but what does it really mean for all of you sitting here today?

For families, a better economy means lower inflation, more affordability, more choices in your supermarkets, more choices for your kids and extracurricular activities, more choices when you decide if you are going away for a holiday or saving up for something really nice for the family. It also means a recovering job market, creating better employment opportunities, higher incomes, and therefore it goes back to more choices for our families and also easing mortgage rates, making homeownership more manageable and making rentals more manageable, and for all the small businesses and investors in our economy, which are the majority of them, better regulatory certainty, cutting out the red tape, and pro-business policies that will encourage growth, recognise their hard work, and support them for their expansion in New Zealand.

It also means lowering the barriers to trade and investment—for example, the investment summit that many of my colleagues have mentioned today—but also for the taxpayers. Ultimately, as a Government, we need to be responsible for all taxpayer money. It is your money, so we need to make sure as a Government that you are getting a better return because we have better fiscal management, ensuring that your hard-earned money is spent wisely.

This is a plan that will protect future generations to come, and this is the plan that will make New Zealand wealthier, make all New Zealanders wealthier, and we have a better future outlook. Thank you.

That was another terrible speech from this Government. It was so fixed on growth—growth. As you’ve heard from this side, jobs, health, and homes have to be the priority for this Government, but they aren’t the priority for this Government. They’re certainly the priority for the Labour Party and for the Opposition. I am proud that we have made that very clear in the last week. Our leader made that clear in his recent speech and in his recent reshuffle.

We’ve heard from a Government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Their Budget Policy Statement is a vacant list of promises that won’t be met, because, ultimately, what we see from this Government is an economic policy that betrays the people for the donors’ interests. I think that’s what our communities are saying, and you’d have to agree with that. To claim, as they have, to have contained inflation with their austerity Budget is a nonsense and a falsehood. As we all know, inflation skyrocketed because COVID shut down global supply chains. For National to take credit for inflation falling because those global supply chains reopened is such a load of nonsense it’s not funny.

The severe cutbacks this Government has embarked upon to pay for tax cuts we couldn’t afford—that’s not good economic management at all. If it was good economic management, you wouldn’t be looking at a 5.1 percent unemployment rate, and we know that 9.7 percent of that is Māori, and 10.7 percent of that is Pasifika. Thirty-one percent of Kiwis are struggling to pay their power bill, 24 percent are struggling to buy food, 26 percent are struggling to pay rent, 29 percent are struggling with transport costs, one in four kids are going hungry—this is where the growth strategy has taken us. It’s just shocking at the moment. Violence against children is rising. Homelessness is rising. Inequality is rising. Mortgage missed payments and unpaid bills are at their highest level in a decade. This is where their great management has got us right now.

This Government’s economic focus is cutting more public spending and hoping that no one notices. They can’t manage to get basic edible food to our kids at school. It’s a total disgrace and embarrassment at the moment, and we’re seeing that every day in question time—the embarrassment that we’re seeing on the faces of Minister Stanford as she has to put up with Minister Seymour’s nonsense. As we all know, he never even wanted to feed the kids, which was the original ACT policy. You’re dealing with a Minister who never wanted to feed the kids, and you’ve got the shambles right now in terms of the school lunches.

I want to come to an area that not many have touched on, which is the investment in Māori, which has gone right down, and although the Government have talked about their four policy areas—lifting economic productivity, social investment. These are the areas that the Government talks about. The investment in Māori, as we see with this Budget, is minimal. We’ve seen a total decrease in terms of Māori housing. It’s really sad to see that. Yes, there are pockets of investment happening, but far from enough, and so we need to see our Māori groups being invested in. In the Māori health area, there is a real minimal investment there. As we know, in terms of the general investment in terms of health, per person it is way below where it should be. And, in terms of Māori social services, we’ve had the shocking news of Whānau Ora in the last couple of days.

A lot of questions there for our communities—hundreds of workers now being made redundant. Questions have to be asked about the process there, where we had a provider for 10 years, who had it in terms of Te Pou Matakana, in terms of our northern Whānau Ora commissioning agency—$155 million allocated. Now that $155 million has to go to an extra agency. Where is the investment in terms of our people at ground level? Should they be worried about this recent decision, in terms of Whānau Ora? We say yes. We say to the Minister for Māori Development to step up, and we say: invest in Māori, but invest in all our people—communities and people right across the nation. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora.

Look, I rise with great pleasure to speak about the Budget Policy Statement because this year, things are looking up for hard-working Kiwis. It has been tough for families during a cost of living crisis inflicted on them by the Labour Government, who spent big, taxed big, and fuelled inflation to record highs.

Well, the green shoots are here. Responsible fiscal management is back. Inflation is back under control. Interest rates are coming down. Hard-working New Zealanders have more in their back pockets with tax relief and mortgage rates coming down. There is business confidence. There is farmer confidence. In fact, farmer confidence has surged in the recent surveys, because they know that they’ve got a Government that is backing them. We know that farmers and businesses are the key to unleashing the economic potential in this country. Getting rid of red tape and regulation, and celebrating our primary sector and our exporters is key to everyone getting ahead in New Zealand. This year is all about going for growth. We need to grow the pie, as we have heard many times today.

I turn to education, because lifting performance in education is the way that we are going to strengthen our economy and create more equality. We’re developing a world-class education system. I’ve been out and about across my Tukituki electorate, where we have 61 schools across my Hawke’s Bay electorate. They are loving the new curriculum, where we are looking to lift performance in education with structured maths and structured literacy. I was recently, actually, in the classroom at Te Mata School, and the kids and teachers were loving the new maths books and the new structured maths programme, the Numicon resources, where they were learning maths, they were getting back to basics in the classroom—reading, writing and maths. Also, we’re improving teacher training, raising attendance, and strengthening learning support. This is what creates equality.

Infrastructure is another big focus in the Budget Policy Statement. We must have better-quality infrastructure and look out to a 30-year pipeline of infrastructure. On this side of the House, we aren’t just visualising it and wasting money on ideas and consultants; we’ve actually got diggers on site, shovels in the ground, roads being built, and fast-track legislation in place to actually make this possible so we can get things built in this country.

I’m so excited to see the four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay, the first road of national significance to get started. Every week I drive that road, I’m seeing progress. We’re seeing diggers there, and we’re seeing progress because construction has started. It’s something that we campaigned on in Hawke’s Bay, and we are delivering on it because we are a Government of action. We understand that infrastructure is really important in this country. Roads are what drive economic potential. It’s what gets our produce to the port—our apples to the port, our wine to the port, and our meat to the port—and off to market so that we can get that high value for our exports.

Not only are we investing in the four-lane Hawke’s Bay Expressway; but the Waikare Gorge realignment is also happening. Again, we recognise that that road between Napier and Wairoa is so important for our exports and trade and for getting people around faster. But the other infrastructure that we are investing in is water storage, because water storage creates water security. In Hawke’s Bay, we can’t even grow what we have, let alone grow any more, so water security is really important. It’s really amazing to see $3 million invested for the Tukituki water storage scheme so that we can unleash the economic potential that we have in the regions across New Zealand and support our primary industries.

This is what is going to grow our economy, and this is what is going to strengthen our economy, both in Hawke’s Bay and across New Zealand. With that, I absolutely support our Budget Policy Statement, and I look forward to the Budget on 22 May.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. We stand today in the middle of an economic crisis, a crisis that has been made worse by the decisions of this Government, the bad choices this Government has made. The facts are pretty clear. Unemployment is rising, jobs are being slashed, wages are stagnant, and hard-working New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, this Government has the audacity to claim that their economic management is responsible and effective.

The Budget Policy Statement (BPS) lays out the truth. It confirms what New Zealanders already feel in their day-to-day lives: things were better under Labour. It states right here: growth through 2023 and 2024 was stronger than originally thought. But since then, since National took office, the economy has taken a sharp downturn. The BPS itself states this was largely offset by a stronger cyclical downturn since then. In other words, National’s policies have made things worse.

Jobs, health, and homes is what Kiwis are after. When we hear National telling us that things are looking up for hard-working New Zealanders and I’m seeing green shoots everywhere, maybe they should talk to one of my constituents who wrote to me just yesterday and said, “I wish Chris Luxon would stop talking about putting money in the pockets of New Zealanders. The only thing he is worried about is lining the pockets of his rich mates and multinational companies. The latest line charge for my gas was $45 in February; I used only $14 in gas. The cost of power is expected to rise by $10 a month. My rates in the Hutt City Council are expected to rise by 16 percent. My home and contents insurance for my house in Petone has increased by 36 percent. I got $30 per fortnight in so-called tax cuts. There is no money in my back pocket. I have medical conditions and now have to pay for my prescriptions. I go to the doctor often, at $70 a visit. I live alone so no double income here. I’m paying a mortgage, paying bills, and everything is increasing in price apart from a reduction in my interest rates when I refix next week. My back pocket would like some money in it. I count myself fortunate as I can pay what I need to pay. I don’t know what others are doing out there who are doing so tough. I’m not rich. I’m not sorted for my retirement in a few years’ time.”

What’s the plan for people who are real New Zealanders, from this Government? There isn’t one. But we have one on this side. It’s called jobs, health, and homes. Let’s take a good look at what is happening right now with jobs, because there’s higher unemployment, with 213,000 New Zealanders now on the unemployment benefit. We have an economy that is operating below capacity, as the BPS states, and that means fewer jobs, less income, and more hardship for people.

Mass layoffs in a couple of areas—let’s just take a look at Callaghan Innovation. The Government came in and laid off scientists, research staff, and support staff, with no plan for an alternative entity. That meant all of those highly skilled individuals, those innovators and scientists, are left with no certainty in their future. They are applying for jobs offshore. I’ve met with them. They’re applying for jobs in the Netherlands and Australia because there is no certainty of employment here. The Government can announce a great PhD programme that they’ve given some money to and they can talk about saving 20 jobs in one part, but they have just laid off a vast majority of bright people innovating while yet still claiming to be going for growth—absolutely unbelievable.

The construction sector is another one. Significant infrastructure projects like the Interislander ferries being rail-enabled cancelled—a $300 million break fee, $300 million and rising just to break the fee. We’ve also seen big projects from Kāinga Ora right around the country cancelled and stopped. The result of all those big infrastructure projects being cancelled was 13,000 construction workers leaving the sector, enough for them to write to the Minister and say that the sector is on its knees and we need to be doing something. The answer to this is to hold a talkfest with a bunch of foreigners who are going to go and save us all and invest in New Zealand. No plan for us. We have a downward spiral of cutting jobs, losing people overseas, and no real plan to address this.

On top of this, we’ve seen losses right across the public sector, not just public servants in Wellington but right across in front-facing jobs—Oranga Tamariki, health workers, social workers cut by this Government. And what has that seen? A further retrenchment in the economy, because what we are seeing is less people out there being able to buy things in local businesses. That’s why, in Wellington alone, so many restaurants, so many cafes, so many small-business owners who have worked for 20 or 30 years to keep their doors open, are now closed permanently with higher levels of insolvencies than we have seen in such a long time. Every one of these job losses is a real person losing their income, their ability to support their families, and their sense of security, and yet this Government still pats itself on the back claiming fiscal responsibility.

National promised economic growth; instead, the economy is projected to be $20 billion smaller by 2028 than was forecast in Budget 2024. While they promised to create jobs, unemployment is to rise every single year in the Budget period. By 2026, there will be 20,000 more New Zealanders on jobseeker support than there would have been otherwise. That is 20,000 more families struggling to pay rent, struggling to buy groceries and to heat their homes in winter.

National’s obsession with tax cuts—and let’s not forget that while we’re having these cuts across, they borrowed for tax cuts for landlords, cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. This has come at a massive cost to everyday New Zealanders. The $58.7 billion increase to debt and 46.5 percent net core Crown debt peak are direct consequences of bad choices that this Government has made.

Who is paying for it? It is those people I’ve spoken about—that letters I got from people, people who don’t have the money to buy the basics, people who work hard each day but still can’t afford to feed their families. The problem is it’s only going to get worse. The Budget Policy Statement signals that in Budget 2025 there is just $700 million available for all spending outside of health. That means more cuts to the public sector, more cuts to social services, and more uncertainty for those who rely on Government support.

Let’s be clear here. The Government has already pre-committed $1.37 billion per annum just to keep health services running at their current level. That leaves almost nothing for education. It means nothing for housing and infrastructure—I guess, hence why we’re having this meeting over the next few days. There’s nothing there and nothing for wage increases for our hard-working people.

Speaking of wage increases, I’ll just deviate for one moment to talk about what the Government’s announced today in terms of the procurement rules for Government contracts. Today, it was announced that out of those rules being changed, one is taking away the living wage. The living wage has come out of procurement in an announcement today. At the same time as trying to talk about productivity and trying to make the cost of living crisis better, you’re taking the living wage out of Government procurement rules—an absolute shame, and it is absolutely relevant to this debate.

Let’s talk about some of the real consequences that we are seeing, in conclusion. It is important to note that this Government has shifted the goal posts. While people are losing their jobs and financial security, the Minister of Finance has made a big deal out of reaching surplus, but now she’s had to push it out even further. She knows she can’t meet those targets that have been promised, so instead she’s created a brand new measure—operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses (OBEGALx)—to make it look like she’s on track. The original OBEGAL measure has been used for years. A review in 2021 confirmed it was fit for purpose, but now, because National’s policies are failing, they’re trying to rewrite the rules to make themselves look better. The truth is that under the original OBEGAL measure, New Zealand will not reach surplus in its forecast period.

I leave with you: what is responsible about this Government, that it makes promises it can’t keep and changes the rules when it fails, and it pushes the cost of its failure on to everyday working families? We need a Government that puts people first, that puts their jobs and their incomes first, that makes sure we have a health system that functions properly, and people can go home at night knowing that they have a warm, dry home. We’re a long way from that under this Budget Policy Statement.

In the final part of this debate of the Budget Policy Statement, I wish to speak directly to Kiwi voters. In the backdrop of the Budget Policy Statement, we know times have been tough. Unemployment is rising, people are still struggling with the cost of living, and we’re dealing with the worst recession since the early 1990s.

We are in a mess. But who caused this mess? It was the last Labour Government. They are the ones that doubled our debt, that had wasteful spending on projects like KiwiBuild, light rail, Skypath, three waters, Health New Zealand, Te Pūkenga, and the highest crime rates in a generation. We are in a mess, but we take responsibility for getting us out of it.

I come back to the big Budget Policy Statement, because it is quite clear from the Minister of Finance that we’ve got Budget deficits right through to 2028. We’ve got increased public debt until 2029, low growth and productivity, an unproductive public sector. There are some green shoots, and we’ve talked about them today. The official cash rate is coming down because inflation is under control and we are starting to see, in fact, wage growth starting to outpace inflation.

I just want to zoom out because having just had a son—my first child—nine months ago, I just want to talk about the long-term fiscal challenges that New Zealand faces, because that’s what I worry about for my son and the future for this country. Alongside the Budget Policy Statement, a month earlier, the chief economist of the Treasury—who is a proud Northcote local—published a document on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal challenges. It’s quite sobering because it does talk about our long-term productivity challenges and the fact that our kids, our grandkids, inherit a future with high debt, low incomes, and low productivity, low opportunities, and poor public services if nothing changes. That is why we have to go for growth.

The other side will talk about an alternative approach, which is to tax everybody and everything more. That is not a sustainable pathway for New Zealand to follow. The finance Minister has talked about improving our productivity rates, which successive Governments have failed to actually make a measurable difference to, and by doing so, going for economic growth.

I want to touch on today a few key areas which I think are going to help power our economy up dramatically. The first is on trade, and don’t we have a great trade Minister in Todd McClay? “Trade McClay”, we call him. We’ve already done deals with the UAE, with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and we’ve got the big fish coming up soon where he’s off to India. Won’t that be good for New Zealand if we can secure a free-trade agreement with India?

The next is investment. I’m really proud of the Government’s work to make this an investor-friendly country to operate in. David Seymour’s work around overhauling the Overseas Investment Act is very, very important, as is our announcement recently to set up Invest New Zealand, a one-stop shop where overseas investors can come to and get advice on where the great places are to invest in the country. I think the simple answer to that is Northcote in Auckland. We have heard from great speakers here about our investment summit, and my best wishes to Ministers up and down our Government who will be attending the summit. This is an important summit for the future of our country.

Going for growth.

Going for growth. The third area is deregulation. We are entering an era of deregulation both here and around the world. We’ve got important steps to free up the resource management, to fast track investment projects around the country, and we’ve got a Ministry for Regulation, which I hope the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, may change to deregulation, because I think that is a more appropriate phrase for this Government’s agenda to power up and go for growth.

The next area is around our science reforms, and we’ve got some fantastic reforms around getting more value out of our science system. The final area is around competition. We’ve just come from a banking inquiry summit, ably chaired by my colleague Cameron Brewer. There is important work that we need to do to make our banking sector more competitive, but not only that, we can’t just stop at the banking sector. I come from the grocery sector, and this is another important sector that needs further competition. We’ve got here the Minister of Energy, Simon Watts, who is driving more competition and putting pressure on those energy companies to keep the lights on and at a cheaper price. Also, I want to single out the Minister for Building and Construction, Chris Penk, who’s doing some great work to lower the cost of building and improve the productivity.

We’ve got some great things that are going to make a huge difference for our growth projections both in the short term—and the Budget Policy Statement does talk about the fact that we are returning to growth this year. That is good news, but we can’t stop there because it really is about our future and making sure—not our future, actually; our kids’ future and our grandkids’ future. What are the things that this Government is doing today that are going to make New Zealand a more prosperous country in 10 or 20 years’ time? That’s what we’re really focused on.

I want to just touch on education because I think that’s a really good bipartisan issue across the Parliament; everybody wants our kids to have a great education. For years we haven’t had a disciplined enough approach around teaching the basics brilliantly. I’m really proud of the work that our Minister Erica Stanford is doing to make sure that in every school, no matter where you grow up in this country, you get taught the basics brilliantly. From the basics, you get to do really cool stuff like economics or engineering or robotics or accounting, but without those basics, those opportunities and those high-income opportunities won’t be unlocked.

It is a pleasure to round off the debate today, and I’ve heard a lot from this side about growth. I’ve only heard a couple of times growth echoed on the other side. That may be because the other side doesn’t know how to deliver growth. We’ve got a lot to do—we’ve got a lot to do. For New Zealanders out there up and down the country, my message to you is this: give us time to see the fruits of the labour that we’re doing and the reforms that we’re working on. I’m confident that by the back end of this year, people will start feeling like they can get ahead, they can feel safer, and they can feel that there’s a real strong future for them and their family. We are going for growth. The Budget is coming up on what date?

22 May.

22 May. The finance Minister has indicated that it’s going to be a growth Budget. She’s put some teasers out there, and even I don’t know what’s in the Budget, but I’m hopeful. I’m really hopeful around some tax changes because as an economist—there’s not a lot that economists agree on, actually, but the one thing economists agree on is the power of the tax system to spur long-term and short-term economic growth. I’m really excited about the teasing that the Minister of Finance has talked about in the media. We’ll be waiting for that eagerly on 22 May—which is the day after my son’s birthday, so he may actually be able to be down here while we’re doing these midnight speeches. Look, it is a lot to do. We’re going for growth. It’s all a part of our plan to get our economy back on track. Thank you.

I move, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a real pleasure to rise for the second reading—

Hard-working MP!

—thank you very much—of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. As you all remember—because this is one of the most important bills—during my first reading of this bill, I said that I was incredibly grateful, and I remain so, that the bill enjoyed the support of every party in this House. I am pleased that the Governance and Administration Committee—an excellent committee; very, very able committee—has recommended unanimously to pass this bill into law, and I hope that members will support it today.

The bill, while small—only a few pages long—concerns a rather unsuspecting corner of my electorate of the North Shore. However, for my community, this bill represents an opportunity for growth, revitalisation, and a new future for a much-loved community asset—the Takapuna Boating Club Bayswater clubhouse has been in a sorry state for a long time. The primary reason is that the legislation governing the site is highly restrictive and doesn’t allow it to produce any revenue required to maintain itself. The building’s original purpose has largely been overtaken; the boating club has newer, more fit for purpose facilities. All of these are different to the original purpose as a public bath house; that may have been common in the law when it was passed in 1923 but, of course, sadly, is a little bit rare in 2025.

The bill before the House proposes to loosen those restrictions, allowing more use of the premises while keeping the site’s core purpose for community good. The committee spent some time defining community purposes and I acknowledge, again, the committee and their work on this matter. They made a number of minor changes to clarify the meaning; the bill is about balance.

No one in my North Shore community or in this House, I would argue, would not want to see this site being able to serve the community. In any changes to legislation, we must always consider that, and at the same time we should also be conscious of why we are here. We shouldn’t allow a repeat of the past and have too tight restrictions which, while well intended back in 1923, will mean that a future MP for the North Shore will have to do this again in a few decades. The balance has been struck well.

It could still be you.

It could still be me, that is true Mr Cameron, but one doesn’t want to tempt fate in the future.

As I said, Mr Speaker, and I know you’re enjoying this, the balance has been struck well. It is not too onerous that the site cannot be used, but strict enough to ensure that the community can be assured that it will always serve the public good. The committee also considered restrictions on what revenue could be used and used for. Once again, this is about balance. The committee’s changes to the bill make the original intent more transparent regarding using any revenue, and that is very sensible.

When the bill was first introduced last year, it became very clear that this story is hardly unique. Sadly, many communities across this House, of which we all represent, see a number of their local treasures sitting unused, and I’m sure many are subject to similarly restrictive legislation that inhibits their full potential. Well, this bill gives you all hope. There is a pathway through to get those local treasures back into the community good that they should be, through a local bill, and I look forward to seeing more of these come to the House in due course.

Given that, it was good for the committee to have a look at whether there were any other ways that a bespoke local bill could make this change—i.e., is there a way that we can do all of these changes in one go across New Zealand. The Department of Internal Affairs has provided some advice and, ironically, that advice was one of the first things that I saw as the Minister of Local Government, having taken up that responsibility only three or so weeks ago. The committee members can speak to that process, but the committee decided a local bill was the most appropriate way to proceed at this point.

I hope that this bill starts a conversation about other sites around New Zealand like it. I hope the Bayswater clubhouse will be an example of a community working together to get better use from a community asset that would otherwise go unused. This bill involved the work of the boating club, the council, local press, and parliamentarians. Similarly, work would benefit many places, and I hope it does happen.

Six submissions were received and three were presented orally to the committee, including the Auckland Council and the Takapuna Boating Club. That’s not unsurprising given that submitting a local bill already requires consultation before the bill can be tabled in the House. The community has had several opportunities to make their voices heard, and I also presented in person to the select committee as the member in charge of this bill—