Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Good morning. When we finished last evening, we were debating an instruction to the Environment Committee on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also wanted to weigh in on this particular referral motion to the Environment Committee by the Minister Todd McClay. I think, like what the speakers mentioned last night, there is a particularly concerning trend where we’re looking at an incredibly truncated select committee stage. In this case, we’re looking at even just the default, and even if you’re looking at the lower end of that select committee process of being four months, instead of the full six months, what we’re seeing is a drastically truncated select committee process of seven weeks, which, to be perfectly honest, doesn’t give the public a lot of time to submit on it.

Now, I know that there are people who may be, potentially, looking at ways of amending the motion, but I just want to speak more broadly to the motion itself at this stage. One of the things that we do see as being the rationale for the truncated select committee stage going to 13 August 2025, as indicated in the motion, is the fact that according to the Minister, “The policy has been well signalled to the public through the second emissions reduction plan and our announcement on 4 December of last year.” But I think one of the things we need to be very clear on is that signalling to the public is very different from hearing from the public and consulting the public as part of our democratic process.

I think that particular positioning of just signalling at the end of last year doesn’t really stand, because there hasn’t been an opportunity for the public to submit on this bill or even to see this bill and the context of this bill. Indeed, the Minister himself has acknowledged that the bill adds some complexities to the emissions trading scheme’s registration. So there are a lot of details in this bill that are very technical by nature and will take time for the public to actually submit on it. Again, I don’t think that it is appropriate for us to have the truncated select committee stage of only seven weeks.

Additionally, the Minister commented in his address last night on the commitment to have the legislation in force by October 2025. There are a couple of things with that. Number one is: what is the issue? Like, for example, when we’re looking at a select committee report-back date of 13 August, from October 2025, if the legislation itself is dated that it will come into effect the day after Royal assent, that’s still a month and a half—seven weeks—in fact, between 13 August and October 2025. There’s more than enough time to extend the select committee stage, if the Government really cares about this bill, to actually put it on the Order Paper for the second reading, committee stage, and the third reading to be conducted within a two-week period, and particularly you could find any of the two sitting weeks in August to actually do something like this if you want the bill to be implemented in October.

Alternatively, you could actually push it out, for example, from 13 August to even just a few weeks later to give a few more weeks of time to, let’s say, 13 September—oh, maybe not 13 September, because there’s two recess weeks then, but the beginning of September—and you will then still have two sitting weeks at the beginning of September to be able to complete the bill for it to come into effect. Or alternatively, if you’re looking at it coming into force from August, August is a long month; there are 31 days. If it’s referring to any time in August, you can actually push the select committee and report-back date to the first sitting week of October, and there’ll still be sufficient time for us to do this and give the New Zealand public a little bit more time to consult on this bill. So I think it’s not impossible for us to delay it and give more time.

The other question I also have is: in this case, when we’re looking at the date of October 2025, why October 2025? What’s the rationale? What is hoped to be achieved before the end of the year, between October 2025 and December? Because again, if we’re able to look at having the legislation come into force, even just a little bit later, if it’s not a significant delay, we can actually push out the legislation date and also push out the date for the select committee stage as well. Because at the end of the day, this is an important bill that the Greens have supported to select committee stage because we wanted to see what the potential impact of the select committee process is. We also don’t think that having a seven-week select committee stage is appropriate for us to get as much information as possible from the officials about the fish-hooks to do with this legislation, bearing in mind that in those seven weeks not only will there be a submission period, a hearing period, but it will also require Parliamentary Counsel Office and other officials to help support drafting any amendments to the bill, which will also take weeks.

So, in fact, there are very little—

Everybody knows that.

If that particular member thinks that everybody knows that, then why do we need a truncated seven-week stage and to add additional pressure to the select committee? It is, frankly, insulting and idiotic. This is the issue with this particular Government, because this Government claims they seem to know what the democratic process is, with some very senior members in this very House who have been here for ages. But, frankly, they seem to not understand the very basics of what a democratic consultation is.

Oh, you do?

And being a first-term MP, I seem to know what it’s like better than some long-term members in this House.

I actually do think that this is actually a really worthwhile debate. [Interruption] And I’m really glad, to the member, that I’m hearing a little mosquito buzzing in my ear, giving me additional things to talk about for the last three minutes of this particular contribution. So I very much thank that mosquito.

In terms of this, like I said, we would like to have a longer select committee stage, because we would like to be able to ask officials—this is complex—because we do want to hear from various ministries on this that are relevant to this, not only the Ministry for Primary Industries but the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and other officials as well. I do think that it is worthwhile—and I’m sure that other people will have contributions and will have amendments—for us to really look at the motion and particularly the report-back date of 13 August 2025. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise. I move, That the report-back date be a period of four months. I do so because that gives effect to some of the previous contributions that have been made by members on this side of the House last night.

In relation to this bill, for the benefit of those tuning in at home early this morning, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill—

No, they’re tuning out.

Well, they might be tuning out as we get to the Rt Hon Winston Peters later in the morning. I think he’s here because he knows that the Racing Industry Amendment Bill is on the list and he’s wanting us to get to it. But he will just have to wait until we get to that point.

It was really interesting. I was not in the House last night, but I did listen and watch the contributions of members, so I want to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with what is a shortened report-back date. There was some confusion last night, and, thankfully, the Minister was able to clarify what date he actually meant. Members on this side of the House thought that he said 30 August as opposed to 13 August. The amendment that I have proposed is slightly longer than that, but does give somewhat of a runway for the community to engage in this process.

I think it’ll be over, obviously, to the Environment Committee to work through the submission process, but I think it’s also very, very important that when the House issues an instruction to select committees, it is followed through. Despite what members in this House might say, it is the resolution of the House that specified direction that is what is important. I say that because we have had, in the past—in the recent past, actually—a situation where a Chair has been questioned about the decisions taken around the time frame that seemed to be at odds with what was, effectively, a referral period from this House. So that’s a matter for the Environment Committee.

However, in seeking a four-month report-back date, I would hope that that provides a little bit more certainty—well, it will provide certainty, because it’s specified—to the community to be able to engage in this submission process. Now, the good thing, of course, is that this is a bill that is going to go for a submission process. Unfortunately, we often see the modus operandi of this Government, which is that when bills are introduced under urgency, there is actually no select committee referral process. So that is helpful.

But this is a bill that is complex, and I don’t say that because that’s my own view around that; that is the view of Government Ministers that are responsible for shepherding this bill through the Parliament. In fact, New Zealand First Minister the Hon Mark Patterson indicated that in terms of the impact on rural communities—and he is the Minister that holds the rural communities portfolio—this is a significant issue. So one would have thought, actually, that if it is a significant issue, and that’s not, perhaps, a word or a descriptor that that particular Minister uses from time to time, but if he is saying that it is significant for rural communities, the ministerial warrant that he holds, then I would have thought that being able to engage with the rural and non-rural community for an extended period of time, albeit a shorter period than the normal six-month report-back process, would have been a no-brainer. So it is concerning that we are looking at 13 August in relation to that complexity.

It’s interesting, because last night I received an email from a constituent who was interested in the progress of this bill through the House. I indicated that it hadn’t actually made it through the House yet. What that demonstrates is that there is quite a level of interest in this. While fundamentally this might limit the amount or the quantity of land that could be basically used or converted to forestry for the purposes of the emissions trading scheme, this might impact on rural communities directly but it also has an indirect kind of relativity to a whole range of different community members. So this debate is about what is the appropriate length of time that this House would set aside for this matter to be looked into.

It’s interesting, because what the House heard last night from some Government members, by way of interjection, is that the public already know about this. Well, there are a lot of things that the public already know about; what’s really important, though, is: what are the parameters by which this House sets to allow for the public to engage in that process? Yes, we are in urgency, but I’ve looked at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and there are a number of matters in there. What I find really interesting—and this goes to the point around the haste with which this Government seeks to truncate or shorten the report-back period of time—is that we have a RIS, and, again, that’s good, because sometimes this is a Government that doesn’t actually want to put a RIS up for some of its bills.

The other thing I’d say—and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has indicated our cautious support for this—is that we are not in opposition to this bill receiving its first reading; in fact, we’ve actually already voted in favour of it. But what we want to make sure of is that there is adequate and ample time for the community to engage. When I look at the regulatory impact statement, what I find quite interesting is that this is something that was completed—the initial regulatory impact statement—in October of last year. There had been some amendments; Ministers had taken decisions, as we understand it, in March of this year, and so the analysis comes here. This is not something that, as Opposition members might say, you know, the public have not been aware of—yes, they have, and I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that the Government has given a public commitment that they want to see this enacted by October 2025. I think that is the driving reason behind the shortened report-back period that this Government seeks for the House to entertain.

Now, this was a piece of work, or a suite of changes, that was in the pipeline for some time. You know, what we’re starting to see is there are a number of things that are in the pipeline, but, for some reason, the Government wants to truncate what is a really important scrutiny aspect when it comes to particular bills. So let’s not forget that part of the purpose of the select committee process is to allow the committee time to work through not just the submissions but also what the responses are going to be in relation to the specific submissions that are received, and also the advice that officials and officers of the committee may provide. So my amendment of a four-month period I think strikes an appropriate balance between not the full period of time but also not a shortened truncated period of, you know, 13 August or thereabouts.

The final point I wish to make is that the regulatory impact statement does raise a few issues around—and my colleagues have touched on this, and I’ve delved into it a little bit—the qualitative versus the quantitative sort of response. What is really clear in the RIS is that this is a suite of changes that has not had the opportunity for public engagement, and we know that, because when we have a look at that time frame from October of last year right through to March and April, and as recently as last night, the Government obviously has been working on it.

So we would like to see that this is something that is given the fullness of the House’s attention, and we think that a four-month—well, I think—period is an appropriate report-back time.

Members, the question for the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion. Vanushi Walters.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the ability to take a call and to support the proposed amendment by my colleague Tangi Utikere. I must say that having returned to the House, one of the things that I am very disappointed with is the sense that there is a lack of understanding that the locus of democracy in New Zealand sits with people; it doesn’t sit with Parliament. The role that people play and the voices that they have and their opinions must be taken into account when we’re making legislation. It’s simply not optional.

It’s important because, in my view, democracy is an experiment in trust; it’s not a given. To show that we are using that trust responsibly, we must take legislation through an appropriate process. I think what we’re seeing in terms of some of the data that’s coming out in terms of trust, we’re seeing a real lag in trust for our democratic institutions. We saw a report come out from the Helen Clark Foundation earlier this year that said that only—[Interruption]

The Government members may laugh but, actually, it is important what the public think. On the basis of data, it is important what the public think, and what the report found was that only 42 percent of people believe the Government acts in their best interests most or all of the time. Civic engagement is low. People aren’t participating because they do not believe that their voices will be heard in Parliament. And it’s a trend we’re seeing. It is a trend that we’ve seen over a number of years as well, that we’re simply not seeing engagement with parliamentary systems and we’re seeing a significant lack of trust in Parliament. This data is important.

This is a Government that clearly doesn’t believe that it’s important to go through the proper processes of lawmaking, because sometimes mistakes can be made. We certainly saw that through the use of urgency a few weeks back through the Budget debates, where we debated the Invest New Zealand Bill as one of the bills coming through Parliament. We’ll see it up in the House later today as well. But during committee stage, it was very clear that the intent of the bill was to name the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as the individual who could be appointed as a special visor by the Minister. However, the bill did not state that. The bill did not state that, not because that wasn’t the intent, clearly—the Minister did speak to that. It simply wasn’t in the bill. So we must ensure that we provide time for us to catch those mistakes. That’s entirely what the select committee process is for. Going from six months to six weeks does not give us the time to be able to do that.

What’s more, and colleagues have spoken about this, but this Government had the time to allow the public to digest this information. They had the regulatory impact statement in October last year. These have been issues that have been around for years, but people are being given six weeks to engage. There was an option to, and they’ve chosen not to. They’re demonstrating the truth of what we’ve heard many times over in the Justice Committee over the last several weeks as we’ve been discussing the four-year-term bill. One, that there isn’t trust. But there’s also a sense that many parliamentarians are treating the select committee process as a tick-box exercise, not a true space for listening to people’s views, for being open to the ability to change provisions within a bill before it’s finalised, and for the select committee to truly recommend changes. That simply isn’t happening.

Last night, Dr Duncan Webb spoke about who would be able to respond, and he made the excellent point that the rural communities who the Government often refer to as serving would not be necessarily able to reprioritise work, engage with the bill, actively digest reports that ought to be coming to the table to be considered by select committee. Those communities are busy. Those communities are hard-working communities and deserve the right—

Oh, really? When did you discover that? When did you find that out?

They deserve—Mr Peters—the right to engage with these issues just as much as is the Wellington Beltway. They are not. I went to Laingholm School in West Auckland as part of the parliamentary outreach with colleagues from across the House who, in good faith, were there to talk to young people about the value of them engaging with the parliamentary process as well.

Now, to truly get young people engaged on issues that are coming up in the House, we also need to provide them with the time to be able to digest the reports, with the time to be able to speak to teachers and parents, and, for many of our submitters, the time to be able to muster up that sense that they can be heard too and put their views forward. We should not be going the other way on the basis of the data that we have that New Zealanders aren’t trusting our parliamentary systems. We should be looking for better ways to engage rural communities, better, more engaging ways to include young people’s views as well. If this Government truly did care about what New Zealanders thought, they would be taking the time to hear from New Zealanders.

Now, last week, we had scrutiny in the House, and I had the privilege of questioning the Hon Judith Collins in her role as Attorney-General in her responsibility for PCO—the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Another thing that the Government appeared to have a disregard for is the people who work in the role of preparing and drafting and proposing amendments in relation to the legislation that we produce. They are under the pump. You can go back and listen to the hearings. They are absolutely under the pump. The reports that we received talked about the stress it puts on the system when Government—any Government—takes a big mandate of bills through urgency or shortens the period of time that PCO have to actively engage, not just with what the Government have proposed and want to do, but also what the people have suggested as amendments.

We need to be respectful that there are layers of process, including drafting layers, that must be adhered to if we are to get legislation that truly sticks and is lasting in New Zealand. New Zealanders are frustrated by Governments and Parliaments that pendulum swing back and forth because legislation hasn’t adequately been considered in Parliament, and this has to change. It must change.

I started by saying that democracy is an experiment in trust. It’s not a given; it’s an experiment in trust, and members will see what has happened globally when Governments have been irresponsible with the democratic processes, the procedures that both sides have put into place to ensure that we’re making sound law, not for ourselves, not for our egos, but for New Zealanders, and that we are making sound law and that we are actually providing New Zealanders with a fair and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This is a Government that is not doing that.

Once again, I would call on Government members—thank you for your silence at this stage; I hope that means you’re listening—to support the amendment that was proposed by my colleague. It doesn’t go as far as six months, but we believe that it is a reasonable, fair opportunity for New Zealanders to be heard, and a reasonable, fair opportunity for PCO and the advisers engaging with this important legislation to help us get it right.

At this stage, I’ll take another speaker, but we’ll be looking for very precise and new material pertaining to both the amendment and to the original motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do exactly as you instruct, but I would, if I may, please move, That the motion be amended to change the words “13 August 2025” to “25 November 2025”.

The effect of that is that—the motion being debated currently is that the submission process move out to four months. The effect of my amendment would be to move it out to five months. This is recognition that if it were to be six months, the closure of the submission process would be Christmas day—that is too long, but the current proposal would mean as little as 10 days for people to compile their submissions and evaluate this piece of legislation so that it would be completed by 13 August. That is vastly too short a time.

I want to recognise what members on the other side of the House said last night in the debate, and remind everybody—and for your clarity, Mr Speaker—that we are in unanimity about the need for us to address this big problem of loss of productive land to pine forests. So we are all in agreement this is a step in the right direction, though a tentative step, but it is a very significant piece of legislation. One of the members from New Zealand First—Minister Mark Patterson—said last night that he believes it is one of the most significant pieces of law to be passed through this House in this Parliament, in this term.

For rural communities.

For rural communities. Why, therefore, has there not been given sufficient time for those communities most impacted by this, who are at the coalface of understanding the extent of what pine conversion is doing? They are expressing very clearly that there are real challenges with this legislation as it is currently drafted. Surely it is appropriate that we have a fulsome submission process. We need to hear from the likes of Beef + Lamb New Zealand, who are concerned that the foundation of our breeding farms will be diminished by 15,000 hectares a year—this is Beef + Lamb speaking to the flaws with this bill as currently drafted. Why shouldn’t this House do the right thing by those farmers that this Government purports to represent and allow them time to bring the case for what would be the appropriate amendments to this legislation?

We want it to go to the select committee so that we can truly address the number of challenges and distortions potentially created by the bill. One such distortion is that by permitting class 6 land to have 15,000 hectares go into a lottery, there is a risk that farmers will be, one, unable to plan for what they intend to do, and, secondly, that 150,000 hectares of land will be lost over the course of a decade—that important, vital land that Beef + Lamb point out is the foundation of their breeding farms.

Why wouldn’t this House and the Government allow a substantial submission process for us to understand the distortions created by the bill and the risks that this bill brings in terms of actually making the problem worse and the problem more complex? As my colleague Vanushi Walters pointed out, this issue has been an issue for a long time, and on 4 December, the Minister made announcements at a Federated Farmers event in Gore about this legislation being on the way. Why is it now being rushed at the last hour, when it should be thoroughly prosecuted through a select committee process?

Our proposition of five months would mean we are done by Christmas. It would extend the number of days that the submission process could be open for to five weeks. That would give time for people to actually make substantive submissions and for the committee to take the time to take those into account and get thorough advice from officials on what the impacts of this bill are. If this legislation, as the Government claims, is so significant for rural communities—it directly impacts on private property rights that the Government purport to be deeply concerned about—surely we should give the time for those who are impacted by the legislation, who are having their private property rights restricted in terms of what they can do with their planting of pine trees, and surely they should have a right to respond to it in a thorough amount of time. We risk, under the current proposal of the Government for a 13 August closure—only 10 days for submissions to be sent in. That is all too little time, and is an insult, frankly, to rural communities and landowners and farmers who will be impacted.

Importantly, one of the clauses in the bill speaks to the exclusion of Māori land from the legislation. That is a good thing, that is a sensible thing, because a lot of that marginal land that Māori are putting into forestry is out of necessity because it is the only means for them to make a living from it. Discussion on how that is thoroughly dealt with is an important part of the process and we are putting, once again, the onus on another impacted group—tangata whenua Māori and the various iwi and representatives of Māori—to come up with a submission in the space of a mere 10 days.

I am moving my motion that we make that submission process a closure on 25 November, therefore allowing five weeks for submissions and a decent amount of time for the committee to fully evaluate and understand the legislation and to hear from officials what the core issues are and how we deal with them to make this an effective means to deal with a very serious problem we have in this country: loss of productive land to pine forests. Thank you.

Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debateable together with the motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the ability to take a call on the various motions around when this bill should be reported back. Of course, we’ve had my colleague Tangi Utikere put up a four-month time frame. We’ve had Steve Abel put up a five-month time frame, pointing out that the six-month time frame, which is the standard time frame for bills in the Standing Orders, would result in a Christmas report-back date, which is obviously problematic. So we all accept that we don’t need a six-month time frame for this bill, but the seven weeks that the Government has put up is too short. And, of course, there is a recess coming up and then we’re sitting again and then there’s another recess week before 13 August, which is a sitting day—a sitting Wednesday—that the Government has suggested that we report back on this bill. That is too short.

I want to take us to a point that the previous speakers touched on, and that is the lottery system in this bill. Actually, I want to focus on the ballot requirements; it’s the ballot that is talked about in this bill. The Government has said a number of times, “Look, people have been aware of this issue; we put out a press release on 4 December 2024.” That is true, there was a press release put out on 4 December 2024 in the names of the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Simon Watts, being both agriculture and climate change and, I believe, Todd McClay is also forestry. But the thing that I want to point out is that this press release—and I’ve read some subsequent media articles that picked up on this issue as well—does not mention the ballot as far as I can see. So it says, “The farm to forestry changes include: A moratorium … An annual registration cap of 15,000 hectares for exotic forestry registrations on LUC 6 farmland.” Then it goes on: allowing up to 25 percent to be planted, the ability for landowners to have their categorisation reassessed, excluding specific categories of Māori-owned land, and transitional measures. I have not, obviously, gone into all the detail there reading out that press release, but there is no mention of the ballot that I can see, and this is important because a lot of the bill is about the ballot.

So we see on page 11 of the bill—

You’ll be wanting to context this—very much so—now that you’re digging into the details of the bill itself.

Well, the point is, Mr Speaker, that the ballot requirements make up quite a significant part of the bill, and this is something that I believe was—I’m happy for the Government members to take a call and explain how everybody was well aware of the ballot requirements. This bill now has a number of pages—it’s quite a short bill—around the ballot requirements—

It’s about the report back; it’s not about the policy.

—that were not signalled. Minister Upston is saying that I should be speaking on the timing of the report back, and this is entirely related to the timing of the report back because the Environment Committee is being given seven weeks to report back on issues that have not been signalled to the public. These are new issues that different groups need to get their heads around, and it includes requirements here for the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority—to administer a ballot. This would have been useful to know at the scrutiny week, when we could have asked the Minister for the Environment, who has the Vote for the EPA, to say, “Well, how is it that this ballot is going to be funded?”

These are real questions that we need to ask officials and the EPA about, whereas seven weeks—this is not signalled. A lot of the bill is about the ballot, and that is in addition to all of the other matters that are not apparent when you just read a press release that says, “Farm conversions are going to be stopped.” Because if you just heard that—“Farm conversions are going to be stopped”—of course there are going to be some transitional provisions around that. There’s this 25 percent, there’s going to be a lot of mapping required, and there are a lot of regulations that need to be made under this bill as well. But then we see the bill, and it’s actually a lot more complicated, which is why the select committee needs more than seven weeks to report back.

We’ve had the suggestions—we’ve had the other motions—saying four months or five months, and those are much more realistic time frames. Four months is a time frame whereby this House does not get the opportunity to do a debate like this because it is accepted that whilst four months is shorter than the normal six months, there is enough time for some scrutiny for the advisers to come and tell the select committee what the bill is about and for the submitters to make submissions. I acknowledge that most of the people who will be making submissions on this bill are likely to understand both the emissions trading scheme (ETS)—and it’s a fairly small group of people in New Zealand that can say that, but I’m sure those people who do understand the ETS will be making submissions and that these people are busy and they won’t have very many weeks in which to make the submissions. If you take the seven weeks, obviously the committee has to have time to hear those submissions well before the end of those seven weeks. So when is it that the people will be able to make submissions, these highly sought after people who know about the ETS?

Also, there will be farming groups who want to make submissions as well, and landowners who will be trying to get to grips with—they have this Land Use Capability class 6 land—what this ballot means for them and how the ballot will work or not work and whether the regulations that go with the ballot and also the EPA will be sufficient or not.

So the point is seven weeks—13 August—is very soon. The Government promised in December last year to have some legislation in place by October of this year. So that press release I read out was on 4 December. They had a regulatory impact statement before that in October of 2024. Yes, the Government made some further policy changes in March, but it is now the end of June. So if this is really that important to this Government, if it is the most important thing for rural communities ever, and I acknowledge that it is a very important issue, the Government had a choice to bring this piece of legislation to the Environment Committee many moons ago. It has chosen not to do that and, as a consequence, people who know about the ETS, people who know about the forestry sector—of course it’s very relevant to them as well—people who have this land, landowners, are going to miss the opportunity to have their submissions and their concerns properly addressed. That is just not good enough, which is why I am standing in support of my colleague Tangi Utikere’s motion that it should be at least a four month—well, it should be four months, that is what he has put up; it should be four months for the reporting back of this bill, not seven weeks.

We need to hear from these people. We need to consider it properly because if we don’t, then we will have unintended consequences from a complicated new ballot system that I’m fairly sure—I’m happy to be corrected by members on the other side, but I am not aware of the Environmental Protection Authority having an existing ballot system for any of the different jobs that it does. The EPA has many different functions across many different pieces of legislation. It’s quite an interesting organisation: it regulates for hazardous substances; another role is that it administers the ETS, so the emissions scheme, the computers that do the ETS calculations, they are all housed with the EPA.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I call Lawrence Xu-Nan—noting that you have spoken in this debate and any discussion will be around amendments and will be very tight. It’s just quite hard to imagine there will be much more that can be said at this stage. Don’t see it as a challenge, but I’ll be listening very carefully.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to delete the words “at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House” and “196.”

I think one of the things that hasn’t been discussed in terms of the referral motion so far, although there’s been a number of contributions around the date, and I will only speak to the two amendments later on, because I have not spoken to the two amendments. But the first thing I want to address is the broader, I guess, deviation from the Standing Orders and specifically Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. I’ll also speak to the rationale behind my amendment of only ruling out one of the Standing Order exemptions, 196, and not the other two.

Speaking to the other two amendments in terms of the four months and five months first, I think we have heard from the previous speakers on the rationale behind the two. However, noting that in this case I will support my colleague—actually, I support both of them; I support both Tangi Utikere’s amendment to change it to four months and Steve Abel’s amendment to change it to five months, and I do genuinely implore the Minister to consider these two amendments. Now, the reason for that is, should there be additional requirements to get things done before the end of the year, the four months makes logical sense because there are three sitting weeks in November for which the House is able to do the second reading, committee stage, and also the third reading.

I have not spoken on the two amendments and I’m speaking on the two amendments specifically. Should everything be done in November, it still gives December for officials, etc., for implementation. However, if that is not a consideration, the reason I will support Steve Abel’s five months amendment is that there are still two weeks in December for there to be the second reading, committee stage, and also the third reading.

Now, the reason I’m focusing on the exemptions of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196 is that should there be an absolute requirement that, you know, there’s something that needs to be done within seven weeks, I actually think that the meetings on a Friday under Standing Order 193 makes logical sense and meeting outside of the Wellington area during a sitting—Standing Order 195—is particularly important.

As we heard from the previous speakers, this is something that affects rural communities in particular. So I also then look forward to the opportunity maybe for the Environment Committee to actually go to some of these areas within those seven weeks to actually make it easier for rural communities to be able to submit on this as well and do more public hearings as a result of the truncated time period. I think it’s only fair for the people of New Zealand, and particularly for our rural communities, to be given those opportunities for more of a public hearing in their community as opposed to having to just come in or Zoom into the select committee hearing. That is something that I think is important.

Filibustering and wasting time.

I really do think we need some bug spray in this House because there are just a lot of insects buzzing around that I’m hearing.

To be fair, the reason that I’m looking at Standing Order 196 in particular is I do not believe that the select committee should be given the authority and the mandate and the exemption to be able to conduct while the House is sitting, and also particularly in the evening. If it’s just for the official elements, etc., possibly that makes sense. But I think it does, as we’ve seen previously, put an enormous burden on submitters, particularly for those in the evening and those in the morning as well. Also, there is a lot of housework—as we see because we’re currently under urgency—to get through as well. So I don’t think that Standing Order 196 in particular should be exempted as a result of this.

So I would ask other people, and I particularly would ask the Minister, to consider, yes, keeping Standing Orders 193 and 195 as it is in the motion, that makes sense, but 196 is something that I’ll ask the Minister to seriously consider removing from the motion or deleting from the wording of the motion. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Tangi Utikere be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Steve Abel be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to begin by reiterating some key points about this bill. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act to enable regular reviews of some benefits. It establishes a process for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to regularly review people’s circumstances to ensure that they are receiving the correct entitlement. The changes are expected to create savings to the Government. The full automated decision-making budget package is expected to return $158 million of savings over five years, net of operational costs.

In my final speech, I want to touch further on the processes that will support clients. Firstly, some clients will be engaging with MSD throughout the year to provide updates on their circumstances. The bill provides the review would not be required until 52 weeks after the previous time they confirmed their circumstances with MSD. This process ensures that their engagements confirming a client’s circumstances reset the 52-week period, which is more efficient for MSD and, of course, less onerous for clients. All specified benefits a client is getting will be reviewed together at one time, and MSD clients will not need to seek additional medical certificates as part of the review.

I am aware that, through no fault of their own, some clients will either not be able to respond to the review at all or respond within the required time frame. To support delivery of the policy, the bill will introduce exceptions and exemptions to the process, and MSD will be able to grant some clients an extension of time to respond.

I acknowledge that there’s been concern recently about the use of automated decision-making within the welfare system. However, MSD has a rigorous oversight mechanism for its use of automated decision-making. The automated decision-making standard is required by law and provides safeguards for MSD’s use of automated decision-making.

The changes come into force on 2 March 2026. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, we have another bill that’s been rolled out by this Government that is, sadly, really going to affect our communities. We’re seeing a policy designed to be obtuse, designed to confuse, designed to catch people out so that they can be penalised further.

We see a Government that feels like they’ve given up trying and are now implementing more bureaucracy to ensure that the very people they they’re supposed to be serving are too frightened to ask for help. It’s a real concern for myself, for our communities. I know that Joseph Mooney is concerned about it. He hasn’t been particularly vocal on this, but I’m sure he’ll be a bit vocal later on to denounce what I think is a very, very negative bill for our communities. Beneficiaries shouldn’t fear their Government, but that’s exactly what it seems that this Government wants. It’s a Government that is putting the fear of God into some of our good people at the coalface.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) admitted during scrutiny week that they’re already under pressure as their front-line operational capacity has remained broadly unchanged and there have been over 700 cuts to their backroom staff. The rise in main benefit recipients now means they must serve an additional 30,000 people, and we’ve already seen a decline in accurate assessment with a quarter of beneficiaries not receiving their full entitlements. Now, the Government has heaped more pressure on MSD’s operational capacity, essentially doubling the amount of jobseeker applications MSD must process in any given year, notwithstanding the forecast rise in jobseeker numbers.

This is on top of other requests the Government has heaped on MSD such as implementing the traffic light system, increasing the amount of job seekers eligible for case management, increasing the amount of sanctions imposed on beneficiaries, and increasing the amount of meetings job seekers must attend. The pressures on our community are endless and people don’t know whether they’re coming or going. There is a line that shows the Government should not have proceeded with these changes, and that’s just from what we can see because a lot of this report is redacted. Why is the Government so afraid of showing us what this policy will really do?

The short period of time between MSD recording a discrepancy and suspending housing allowances will generate more homelessness, and the Government doesn’t have a problem with rolling this out. We heard the Minister this morning give maybe one of the shortest third reading speeches we’ve heard for some time. Rolling out a third reading speech with a bill of such significance is worrying for our communities and for this country. This is going to have an immense effect on our communities, but this Government doesn’t care about the damage they’re causing with these new harsh sanctions because they’re focused, like Mr Seymour is, on their rich mates. That’s what it’s all about.

Never mind the vulnerable who are struggling at the moment. To get a Budget across, you make a sacrifice, and the sacrifices here have been beneficiaries, have been workers, have been women. It’s just a constant strategy from this Government. It will get this Budget through at any length and the sacrifice has been beneficiaries, workers, Māori, Pasifika, our rainbow community, and our disabled community. This is about getting something through at any cost. So this legislation is just another sad example of how this Government bashes beneficiaries.

The Opposition doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

Oh, do you think so, Joseph Mooney? Oh, it’s a surprise to hear that from you! No, we do know what we’re talking about because everything is pointing to the—

Filibustering.

No filibustering here. Everything is pointing to the communities rising up. This Government does not care about the poor. They do not care about the vulnerable. They have the audacity to pretend that harsh measures are for the benefit of the job seeker, when nothing can be further from the truth.

The regulatory impact statement (RIS) highlights, as I said earlier, that one of the consequences may be that MSD will have to direct more resources towards compliance and therefore away from employment initiatives. They will literally have to put less resources into helping beneficiaries into work, and surely that is not what any reasonable Government should be doing. Research cited in the RIS highlights that sanctions—and that’s where we’re heading, even though they might be denying it—may increase mental and physical health problems, including substance abuse and poverty. But that’s acceptable. That’s acceptable collateral damage for this Government.

Nothing in this legislation is a helping hand for job seekers. It’s a closed fist used to punch down on them. The Government should be ashamed of their cruelty, pretending to care, because our communities are seeing through this. They are seeing through this ACT Party. The ACT Party leader is currently embarrassing himself as the Deputy Prime Minister, attacking good people out there. I don’t mind him attacking me; I enjoy him attacking me. I quite like it. I quite like the Acting Prime Minister attacking me.

Sounds like an offer, but we might come back to the bill.

I might be diverting a little bit. But, Mr Seymour, you attack me—I enjoy it. But stop attacking great people like Professor Anne Salmond. These are great people. These are pillars of our community. Show some courage, Mr Seymour, and just attack me. I enjoy it. Anyway, back to the bill, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

This bill is not, if we’re being honest, an effective way in terms of supporting our community—to deny people welfare and make the process as frustrating as possible so that people give up. This is not how you build a society; it’s how you tear one down. The Labour Party opposes these amendments. We can see no value in harassing job seekers any more than they currently are. And we have deep misgivings about some of the aspects in terms of some of the automation, although we understand AI, but, you know, automation at the expense of workers who know the job and who are equipped to do the job is a worry.

We want to see policy that helps people find work, not punish them for seeking help in the first place. I want to wrap up here, but I remind our communities that Labour will continue to respond on their behalf. We will not put Budgets out at the expense of workers, at the expense of women.

Yes, you have. You did it for years.

No, no, we haven’t. We won’t sacrifice our communities. We won’t sacrifice our women for landlords or the rich mates of David Seymour. We will not attack good leaders and good people in this country and have a little fun because it suits us. We will always advocate on the behalf of our people, our constituency, and our community, and we are absolutely opposed to this bill. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to strongly oppose this bill, because this is a bill that is continuing this Government’s agenda to punch down on the poor, to create more blue tape for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, to be perfectly honest, to a Government that loves cars so much they want more people to live in them. To start with, it is, frankly, insulting to have a Minister who makes all of these sweeping changes to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, to put this bill under urgency, but could not even muster the courage to give a third reading speech that was longer than even three minutes. That is, frankly, insulting.

Now, when it comes to this bill, let’s start with the committee stage. We spent some time in the committee stage yet we’ve got very little out of the Minister other than her hot takes and her one-liners and party positions and political statements, but not genuine responses to people’s questions. This is a bill that is brought to this House under urgency. We expect there to be, at a minimum, good-faith engagement from the Minister on this and we saw none of that during the committee stage. What we do see is a Government whose agenda is to reduce or cut $200 million of cost into the people, into beneficiaries, and, you know, when we are looking at this $200 million in savings over the next five years that they’re trying to do, but instead giving $2.9 billion to landlords in exchange.

We still haven’t seen, to be honest, any significant decrease in rent in here. We have seen, however, increased stats on homelessness, which this bill will only exacerbate. The Government would like to paint a beautiful picture about how there are fewer people in emergency housing. Well, it’s because they’re on the street. This is a trick. We know that this is the Government’s trick; the New Zealand public know that this is the Government’s trick. They’re making their stats look pretty, and this bill will also be a justification—another example—of that trick, which is: “We want to make sure that people are not eligible to apply for things in the first place, as a way of creating an illusion that we are somehow bringing the stats down.”, when, in fact, when we talk to community organisations, when we talk to City Mission, everyone will tell us—everyone will tell the Minister, if the Minister dared to show her face in front of those organisations—that things are getting worse.

This is the reality: you can’t make the stats pretty in a way and ignore people’s existence altogether, because these are New Zealanders. You can’t. They will be here regardless of whether they are in your stats or not, and you will have to find a way to address them, eventually.

In terms of, again, going back to this bill, there are a couple of things I want to pick up on that are really important discussion points during the select committee stage. I think the first one is around the automatic decision-making. The first thing is, during the select committee stage, we have yet to hear from the Minister what the algorithm is that is going to be used as part of this decision making and this automatic decision-making. Because if we look at the regulatory impact statement, page 3, it says that “assumptions”—assumptions—“that [an] ADM will create more positive outcomes for clients.” There is no actual data. The Minister can stand there all she wants and say like, “Trust us, we’ll make sure that it’s correct.” But trust is earned; it needs to be based on evidence.

Again, without a select committee stage, without hearing from the officials, there was very little clarity during the committee stage around the algorithm that is going to be used and the robustness of the automated decision-making system (ADM). Instead, what we’ll see is that when the automatic decision system fails or gives incorrect data or an incorrect decision, people don’t know when they’re going to hear from an actual person. Because there’s been more than 700 staff cuts in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), it is already a department where the front lines are struggling with the workload and with their capacity. There’s no guarantee about timeliness—when a staff member will actually get back to them.

So this leaves the question for those in those inaccurate situations, and these are genuine New Zealanders who are, like, “Am I going to be homeless because my benefit has just been sanctioned, has just been cut by MSD, and I don’t even know why, other than a system has told me that I am no longer eligible.” That is an appalling decision to be made under urgency.

Other things we also discussed that deserve some highlighting are: when we’re looking at Section 310D, one of the things that we see not only in this bill—and it could have been a stopgap for the potential error that we’ll see with the automatic decision-making—is the requiring of information from MSD. This is just one example of that: when MSD or other agencies require information from people, there’s a genuine attempt that they receive a response before triggering any decisions. Because, yes, although there are some people who may be overseas who may not wish to respond—but we also understand that people are in precarious situations. Sometimes, you know, in certain areas they do not have access to internet. In certain areas, they may not have access to letters or to a regular accommodation. If MSD simply just sends information out into the ether, hoping that the person will read it and if they don’t hear back then they will make decisions, it actually puts more people at risk because we are not addressing—through that clause, alone, it shows a lack of consideration and in-depth thinking that the Government is doing towards the most vulnerable of our communities.

Another point that we addressed in the committee stage is around Part 2 in terms of the regulation-making power by Order in Council, and this is section 438A. I think one of the reasons why this was so important is because they are able to add on, by Order in Council—i.e., as a secondary legislation of the kind of regulations or the changes to the specified benefit or specific benefit that is named. Part of the concern around that is—and, again, we didn’t hear from the Minister exactly what some of the details are over here—exactly what is going to be the scope of that regulation-making power? What are, if any, the potential changes or additions of different kinds of benefits as a result of that particular section, that might be included as a result?

So there are a lot of things that we didn’t hear from the Minister during the committee stage. We’ve seen a lot of redactions in the regulatory impact statement and, to be honest, if we’re going to be having this under urgency, the Minister is able to waive any sort of legal privilege and be able to present the House and also the New Zealand public the full comments that were made in that regulatory impact statement. But we also didn’t see any of that.

So we saw very little in this bill that is going to address the concerns of the most vulnerable of our communities. I agree with my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March when he said that this Government has a rotten heart and wants people to suffer in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the reality that we are facing. What we are seeing is a Government who is desperate—despite Treasury’s very conservative estimate—to keep our debt at 20 to 40 percent, and without making meaningful investments to decades of underfunding in our public services, in our infrastructure. Poverty is a political choice. This Government has chosen to do harm to our communities and that is the reality. So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill.

First, I would like to respond to two speeches that I heard just before, one from the Labour member the Hon Willie Jackson. That member believes that this bill is going to punish those who are on a benefit, and the member who just spoke before, Lawrence Xu-Nan, believes that this is about reducing or cutting benefits. Actually, this bill doesn’t do that. What this bill does is ensure that the information of clients that is held by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is up to date. It puts that responsibility on MSD to ensure that information is updated. By doing that, what happens is they can decide what the level of assistance is that these clients need. It’s not about cutting. It’s not about decreasing. It’s about ensuring that the right level of assistance is provided to people—those who are receiving a benefit.

We know that people’s situations change. Sometimes the number of boarders they have will change. Sometimes their income will change. Sometimes their family situations will change. All these things are taken into consideration when a benefit is decided. That is what this is about. Sometimes, people forget to update their information and proactively call MSD. Yes, there is an obligation that they should be calling MSD and updating information about any changes in regard to their income or family situation, but sometimes they forget. That is why we are putting this responsibility on MSD to ensure that the information is updated. This is done every 52 weeks, but if it has already been updated, through any other mechanism, MSD doesn’t need to chase these people. And there will be provisions for exceptions, exemptions, and also extensions. What we require is these people to actually communicate with MSD and inform MSD of what their circumstances are, and then MSD can decide if an exception is needed, an exemption is needed, or an extension is needed. But that information is really crucial to decide what level of benefit people should be receiving.

It’s a really good bill, because this actually puts more trust in our welfare system. We are really proud of the way our welfare system works, and we want to see it continue to deliver for people—those who really need the system. That’s why the ACT Party supports this bill and commends this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to stand in support of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. Now, I stand on behalf of New Zealand First, a party that does in fact have a big heart, not a rotten heart, from a Government that have big hearts. As much as I like the member opposite—Lawrence Xu-Nan—what he said before wasn’t very becoming, unfortunately, and it did spoil his speech somewhat. But, no, we do have big hearts.

One thing that I would like to compare is a speech given by a fellow member, actually, during the last sitting week on this particular bill. it was a very endearing speech, and she made the comment, “Now, what would Jesus do?” and it got me thinking, well, Jesus is someone with a big heart. So what I think Jesus would do is he would help feed others; he would help feed as many as he could, but another thing that Jesus would do, because he’s got a big heart, is he would teach them how to fish and catch their own fish. He may not supply rods; I don’t think they had rods back in those days, but he would supply nets. And he would teach them how to fish.

So New Zealand First, we really do believe in personal responsibility, and whilst we really agree in ensuring that everyone gets a leg up and a hand up, to ensure that in some way we help them to find that greatness within so that they can then make the decisions to move up in life themselves and say, “Hey, I can do a little bit more for myself.” I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Mōrena, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. This is the third reading, and so I recall taking a first reading call—might even have been the second reading, I think, when we were doing this work over the Budget, in urgency. It’s interesting observing, this morning, the first reading speech from the Minister. She opened up her discussion with the amendments. These amendments will, despite the circumstances of families, bring some savings in, which I think is not a great thing to start a speech with, when you’re talking about savings that are made on the backs of beneficiaries, made on the backs of the most vulnerable. I think it’s in bad taste. It was possibly a mistake, the way in which she opened up the discussion, but I do think there’s something telling in the opening comment.

I’m just going to read some of these reviews to begin with: supported living payment—right?—emergency benefit, accommodation supplement, disability allowance, and New Zealand superannuation. Now, all of those spaces are tough spaces to live and exist in. They are tough, and they have certainly been a whole lot tougher in the last 18 months. It concerns me greatly that this is where the Government has decided “Let’s make some savings; let’s go there. Let’s go to beneficiaries.” Sanctioning beneficiaries only increases poverty and homelessness. It increases poverty and homelessness. Why do I know this? Having worked in the sector. It is one thing to write a pretty fancy English policy and then a bill, but when you come to apply it, it is completely different, because you’re applying it with and to people, and to people that are already suffering, that are already vulnerable, and not by their choices. They are there under a range of circumstances, which many here just could not imagine. I want to make those points, as I provide the third reading call for Te Pāti Māori.

Sanctions do not help people find jobs—despite the kōrero; you know, “Get off the couch.” Of course get off the couch, but who will be there to help make that happen? The majority of people that I know, having worked in the sector, are not lying on the couch because they’re hopeless; they’re lying on the couch because they are disconnected and they do not belong. Many feel they do not belong. This is not a “Boo Hoo!” statement that I’m making. These are real circumstances for real people who would want circumstances to change but just cannot get there, for whatever those reasons are. I think amendments and ideas like this might sound reasonable on paper, but when you come to apply them, they are completely harmful. They are harmful to a space and a reality in which people exist, where they’re already feeling they’ve pretty much had it. I do want to make those statements, with compassion and kindness, added reality. It is one thing to write a policy, but it’s another thing to apply it in reality.

I want to close now. I received an email this morning from Te Rangitukiwaho Edwards. Now, he emailed me this morning. He’s going to be gracing this House when the rangatahi MP programme comes into play in July, and he’s going to be standing, hopefully, right where I’m standing. He’s a mighty young Māori man with the power of both languages: te reo Māori and te reo Pākehā, adequate as. He wrote to me saying a number of things, but he went on to say there is a future—what he observes—and, you know, he understands what’s going on. To think that young people, particularly young Māori, don’t know what’s going on in this political space! They absolutely know. He writes, among other things, “A future being carved out without us and, at times, against us will bring us harm.”

What I want to proffer and put to the House today is that amendments like this, which sound reasonable, are completely unreasonable when they hit the ground, and Te Rangitukiwaho understands that. These comments were not specifically to this bill, actually; it was the range of things that he’s seen as a young Māori—about to join this House shortly—and telling his truth as a young Māori man. I’m linking these because—

I just draw the member’s attention to her time.

OK. I can only commend this not to the House but probably to the wharepaku.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. E tika ana te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna “Mā te manaaki i te tangata e tū ai te mana”. Engari kore he take kei konei kei roto i tēnei pire.

[Madam Speaker, thank you. The saying of our ancestors is true that “It is through care and hospitality for others our reputation is enhanced”. But there is no purpose here within this bill.]

The whakataukī that I have just shared is “By providing care, hospitality, and support to others, mana is enhanced.” I don’t believe that the essence of this whakataukī is seen in this bill.

I rise with a heavy heart to speak at this third reading. At this final stage, I want to speak directly to the truth of this bill, in that it completely ignores the advice of experts, including that of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s advice was the advice that was based on thousands of submissions, lived experience, and years and years of robust analysis. In fact, this bill does the complete opposite of what they recommended. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group comprised non-partisan experts chaired by Dame Professor Cindy Kiro. It told us clearly in recommendation 11 to remove the requirements to reapply for a benefit every 52 weeks. Their reasoning was simple: this requirement adds unnecessary stress, disproportionately harms disabled, Māori, and rainbow and Takatāpuhi people, and creates more work for no good reason. It’s costly, it’s inefficient, and, most importantly, it’s harmful.

Instead of removing that 52-week burden, this bill entrenches it. It mandates these reviews for every person on the supported living payment and disability allowance, people with long-term, often permanent, disabilities. What the experts called cruel and unnecessary, this Government is now making mandatory and routine. That’s not evidence-based policy; that’s ideology at the expense of our community’s wellbeing. Disabled communities, sole parents, carers, and mental health advocates have been telling the Government for years to stop making them prove their disability again and again. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group heard them. They put that voice into policy recommendations, recommendations that should have been taken seriously by this Government. But instead of listening, this Government has chosen to double down, to stay within the same broken welfare system that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said must change. We heard this theme consistently in other welfare bills, such as the sanctions bills passed just a few weeks ago.

The Green Party believes in a welfare system built on manaakitanga. We support the full implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations. We believe no one should have to fight a system that’s meant to support them. We believe the experts, the advocates, the whānau, and the disabled communities who have already said loud and clear: this approach is dehumanising and it must stop. To support this bill is to say the voices of our community don’t matter, that expert advice doesn’t matter, that kindness and dignity don’t matter. The Green Party refuses to support this bill. We will vote against this bill and stand with those that this Government has chosen to ignore.

Let this be clear: the evidence says this bill causes harm. The experts said don’t do it, and this House should have listened—“Mā te manaaki i te tangata e tū ai te mana” [“It is through care and hospitality for others is our reputation enhanced”].

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to bring the House back to reality rather than the fantasy that members in Opposition live in who don’t actually read bills.

This bill is very simple. It amends the Social Security Act to enable an efficient and proactive welfare system where clients receive the correct entitlement and ensures that every year—every 52 weeks—there is a requirement that the Ministry of Social Development must review a client’s eligibility and the rate of a specified benefit to ensure they’re getting the right amount. That’s all this bill is about rather than that nonsense that the Opposition’s been on about. It’s a great bill and New Zealand will be surprised it’s not already in place. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call to speak against this bill. I’d just like to start my contribution more or less on the same theme as I made my last submission, and it’s in regard to the lack of good process. We heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment in her third reading speech be extremely brief in terms of her contributions, and I just wanted to express concern about that.

I see that there are lawyers on the other side of the House. As a lawyer myself, one of the things we refer to in terms of understanding the scope and the intent of a bill is the third reading speech of the Minister in charge. It’s in fact one of the first things that we go to, to best understand the Government’s intent. The reason we go to the third reading speech is that the expectation of this House is that we look at legislation that’s introduced and then we better it. We listen to the critiques, and we make amendments. So the best reflection of what the final intent is is the final reading, the third reading speech of the Minister. My concern is that the brevity with which that was delivered is demonstrative of the Government’s lack of intent to genuinely listen on many of these bills.

The problem is not just a problem for us; it is a problem for the people of New Zealand. We must be able to trust that this Government is listening. We must be able to trust that the committee stage is respected and that amendments are legitimately considered. I just have a real concern that this is the state of things as they are, and are to come, that we’re not treating those third reading speeches with the respect that our democracy demands.

Other members have commented on the substantive issues in this bill, including its focus on punishment and compliance. The fact that over that period of 52 weeks, for many people, changes wouldn’t have occurred in their lives, and it would put them under needless stress and pressure, as well as the risk of automated systems in decision making, which I’ll speak further to in a moment.

The chief concern I had in relation to how this bill is considered I did want to speak to. It’s in relation to some legal advice that was given to the Attorney-General on 15 May in regard to whether the bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). So the advice concludes that the bill does appear to be consistent with the rights and the freedoms affirmed in the BORA. In reaching that conclusion, the justice officials looked at section 14, which concerns freedom of expression.

So the first point or question that I’d ask is whether within the BORA there is a right to privacy. So, interestingly here, while there isn’t a fulsome stand-alone right to privacy within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the interpretation of section 14, which affirms that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” is also interpreted as including the right not to be compelled to say certain things or to provide certain information.

Now, the legal advice to the Attorney-General acknowledges this point, that it’s quite broad in its scope. It also acknowledges clause 4, inserting new Subpart 3A of Part 6, of the bill in front of us, which requires a beneficiary to provide the Ministry of Social Development with information and answers to questions for the purpose of a mandatory review. Now, what’s interesting is the way in which this requirement is framed within the bill. It’s framed exactly as I’ve set it out—so very, very broadly and generally in inserted section 310C with reference to inserted section 310D.

What’s surprising in terms of the next part of the opinion is that the advice recognises that the bill doesn’t specify the limit on the information that could be sought or could be asked for. So there’s no statutory limit on what can be asked for. The other surprising thing is that in terms of the interpretation of whether something is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not, as section 5 says, limits must be no more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of the objective.

Now, presumably the objective here is to make an assessment on particular facts. Therefore, my assumption would be a reasonable limitation of the right to privacy—that I’ve just referenced—would be written into the bill by specifying only the information that the person needed to provide. The advice from the Ministry of Justice is that the bill complies with that section 5 requirement because there would be “an expectation that when applying the law, the only questions that will be asked are regarding information related to the purpose of the review.”

I don’t believe that it’s sufficient for us simply to have an expectation that that’s how it will be interpreted. My firm sense is that where it’s possible to specify within legislation the limits of a right, that is the preferable option in a democracy that is being true to the rights that people hold. This was a question that was considered in the authority on this point, which is Hanson—it’s the interpretation of the key clauses in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In that case, it was spelt out that limitations must be set out in an Act of Parliament or in subordinate legislation or the common law. It’s unclear in the advice that was provided by the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney-General where that guidance is set out. It’s actually simply not there. So the advice, in my view, appears to be flawed. That’s the first issue.

Now, I’m not saying that—you know, errors do happen. This is part and parcel of why we have the parliamentary process as it is. To enable us to have good legislation, we must open the door to questioning advice like this and asking questions like whether the Government should have specified a limit on the information that could be required—required—from these individuals who are being subjected to review. Right now, we have a bill that I hope will not pass. Again, I hope that members of the Government have followed the argument and will see that this is clearly a prima facie breach, yes, but potentially a complete breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I implore you to consider this because, again, we have a limited budget in terms of Crown Law’s capacity. Do not let bills pass through this House that create litigation risk for the Government.

My final point is in relation to the artificial intelligence, or the automated decision-making, that will be used to make a number of decisions in this space. In my view, there’s a connection between the inappropriate demand of information that appears, to me, to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and inputting any and all of that information into an automated system that looks fairly questionable still, in my view.

The common response to concerns raised about automated systems are she’ll be right if there’s a person involved at some stage in that process. But many of us will recognise that there is a spectrum of when a human individual can be involved in a process and therefore a spectrum of risk. If the human is involved in the middle or toward the end of a process, that decision is made on a pile of bias. We’ve seen that play out in many systems errors or systems biases that exist through our current day systems, including where decisions are made in the justice space. We have to treat this with caution. We have to ensure that we’re doing this checking system and setting up an appropriate system where if we are using automated decision-making, human decision-making front loads that process rather than falls towards the end.

In my view, this bill creates litigation risk for the Government. This is your opportunity to look up and to stop that from happening. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Much has been said about the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill and what it is not. But what it is is a structured approach, an annual check-up, an opportunity for beneficiaries to be able to check and confirm their circumstances, and to update their entitlements. I commend this bill to the House.

This call is a split call.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a contribution on this Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. As previously stated, we on this side of the House oppose this bill.

It’s often said that a true measure of society is how it treats its most vulnerable; this bill certainly looks to treat some of our most vulnerable people in the most callous and depersonalised way. The reason for that is that it introduces a framework of mandatory 52-week reviews that require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to look at a number of different benefits to see if there is still eligibility. Now, interestingly, the power of MSD to look into whether there is eligibility for a particular benefit already exists. So this is already power that is held by the Ministry of Social Development. The thing that is not currently in place, and what this bill intends to do, is to make that review mandatory.

I disagree with that for a few reasons, and I’ll outline why that is. It seems to me that if this power already exists, there is little value in introducing a mandatory one-year review when it is already within MSD’s power, in theory, to themselves decide on a discretionary basis to review any benefit within these categories of benefit that they want within that period of time. The thing that this bill introduces is a degree of anonymity and, also, a degree of, essentially, box-ticking, which I think is inappropriate for the type of support that this particular bill looks to target.

So one of the particular—and I don’t have a long call today, Madam Speaker; as you said, it’s a split call—injustices of this bill is the fact that it applies to the disability allowance. Now, I have worked—like my colleague Vanushi Walters, I was previously a lawyer. Disability is a permanent state. So why is the bill looking to review the fact that someone is entitled to a disability allowance every year? This seems cruel, it seems unfair, and it seems like a waste of time and money. Not only will this apply to the disability allowance every year but the reviews—and this bill empowers this—will be done on an automated basis: so not through thinking, feeling, understanding human beings, but through an AI-generated review which, I think, we know what the result of that will be. It will be that some people who should be entitled to a benefit—especially talking about those on disability benefits, but it does cover a number of other benefits—will be assessed by the automated decision-maker and they will be found to not be entitled to a benefit and they will lose entitlement to that benefit.

And that is actually the point of this bill: it is to take benefits away from people and make people have to prove their eligibility rather than assuming, in good faith, that they are entitled to it, like people who have a permanent disability and are unable to work, who deserve our support. I believe that all of us in the House would agree that those who can’t work due to a disability do deserve Government assistance when they’re unable to provide for themselves separately. This will, essentially, mean that there are a number of people in that particular category. And if you want to push back on this, it’s all on the beneficiary. It’s all on the beneficiary to prove a case and to say the automated system is wrong. That is a very—very—high threshold to put on people who are already, in many cases, marginalised by the society, not engaged with our society, and may find it more difficult to respond to a Government document in a timely manner. That is the reality of some of the people in this situation. The reality of this bill is they will lose their benefit.

Just briefly before I end, we heard some of the other speakers talking about what Jesus would do, as if they could speak to that. That is a separate issue. I think I would like to draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Salvation Army, who actually have a history of service within our communities and are respected across the House. They do not support this change. They say that this change is going to be bad for New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Although I didn’t get to speak much on this bill previously, I do commend it to the House.

This is an outrageous bill that involves beneficiary bashing and is a really good illustration of the attitude of privilege that comes from the other side of the House. They are completely out of touch with the situations that many New Zealanders find themselves in. The reason I say that is because of the two crucial elements that this bill introduces, which are sanctions and automation, effectively making people just numbers in a machine. But also, and more disturbingly, is the insidious and sneaky way that this change has tried to be brought in. I say that because it wasn’t presented to the House as the first bill in a tranche of bills. In fact, the accommodation supplement bill was introduced first, and this bill was promoted as being an enabler of that legislation.

In fact, what it does is it very clearly puts sanctions on those who cannot prove their entitlement to a benefit after 52 weeks, even though they may have had that entitlement for years and, in fact, be permanently entitled and should be—such as, for example, people who have Down syndrome, disabled people, people with certain conditions in their senior years.

This bill has just been a sneaky, sneaky attempt to do that, and part of the reason is because of the way it was introduced to the House, the urgency, but also the fact that the benefits that are alluded to are really by exception. There are some benefits that are carved out and held out in the primary legislation; everything else is up for grabs in the secondary legislation. When we look at the urgency, clearly the Government just wanted to get this over and done with because they did not want to face the scrutiny and the wrath of the population groups that are most impacted.

Well, I’m proud to say that we dragged out the debate so long in the committee stage that they could not bring themselves to try to get to the third reading. They completely underestimated the level of feeling from the Labour Party on this bill and the other suite of bills that they introduced under urgency after the Budget, and that is why we are sitting in urgency again today—extended sitting—because they could not get through their timetable. They had just assumed that we would roll over, but no.

This is, as has been stated, probably a fundamental breach of human rights. It is an outrage, and it is beneficiary bashing, and it makes them look nasty. When we think about the population groups that are involved, we’ve heard about disabled people, but what about seniors? What about those many seniors who are on benefits or accommodation supplements who need to now re-establish their entitlement every 52 weeks? I know from the many, many conversations I’ve had around the country with seniors that some of the smallest things are really difficult for them: getting transport, going down, finding somebody to speak to, using a computer. This is just more anxiety and headache for them, and they have not been considered, and they will not be considered because there was never a committee stage. They did not get the chance to raise their voices. Neither did the disabled community. Neither did people on the accommodation supplement. Let’s not forget that the accommodation supplement also goes to people who are working, so why it is being dressed up as a benefit is beyond me and, again, it shows the paternalistic and arrogant attitude of this Government.

When we look at automation, the discretion that has gone in the bill—and I will come to that soon, in terms of some of those key clauses. The discretion that a human being could apply when it is clearly obvious that somebody needs to be able to maintain a benefit is completely gone. All the words “may” in the bill have gone to “must”, and now, to add insult to injury, we have automation as the first line in which our beneficiaries will interact with the system.

We had a really patronising speech, I have to say, from Tanya Unkovich from New Zealand First, who talked about what Jesus would do, and assumed that everybody is in a situation where, with a little bit of help, they can help themselves to earn a living. I don’t know what reality she is living in, but we have a huge number of people who will never meet that threshold, and to suggest that they can is utterly patronising and out of touch.

Let’s think again about the benefits that this impacts: the disability benefit, New Zealand Super, the supported living benefit, the accommodation supplement. Let’s look at the crucial clauses that bring in these very vindictive sanctions. New section 310C(4): “If the beneficiary fails to comply with a requirement under this section, MSD must suspend”. There is no “may”. There is no discretion. How long do they have? How long before the deadline, how many days? The Minister, in the committee stage, would not answer our question.

The automation is stigmatising, and it poses risks that could increase hardship. We did not hear any mitigation about those risks and, as Vanushi Walters and Camilla Belich said, everything depends on the beneficiary being able to prove that mistakes were made.

We’ve heard about the Salvation Army, who said that “automated decision making cannot account for the complexities we often see in the individuals we support, such as financial hardship, addictions, mental health issues, or unstable living conditions”. What about the Law Society? “This raises significant concern about how the use of automated systems will apply where the sanction provisions involve some form of evaluative judgment, for example, those relating to money management and community work”. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) 2019 made the recommendation, on page 95: “The requirement to reapply for a benefit every 52 weeks should be removed”.

Let me talk about some of the particularly problematic provisions in this bill. For a start, to even understand or read the bill, one has to go from the primary amendment bill on a bit of a rabbit chase through to the principal Act, the Social Security Act 2018. Then we’ve got to go to benefits which are defined in the principal Act, then we come to exemptions, and then, finally, when you can piece all that together—if somebody can piece it all together—it becomes clear that there is a big, fat, wide open door for further changes to be made, for further benefits that are not specified in the primary legislation.

When we queried the Minister about the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), she said categorically, “Oh, no, no, I’m assured that it passes it.” Well, my colleague Vanushi Walters has raised significant issues regarding fundamental human rights. In Part 1 of the LDAC, it says that matters of significant policy, matters significantly affecting fundamental human rights, and the granting or changing of appeal rights should normally be in primary legislation. We did not get adequate answers to the queries that have been raised in the very rushed committee stage that could have gone for weeks had we been able to have a select committee hearing.

When we look at new section 310C(4), why is the accommodation allowance even listed as a benefit when it is a subsidy? We did not get adequate answers to that. We had wording on the printed copy of the bill that we received within 24 hours of reading that had changed significantly on some of the crucial clauses, and we were not given an explanation as to why the wording had changed. When we look at some of the provisions about “must” and “may”, there are previous provisions where the words “may” have been amended into “must”, and there was no entertainment by the Minister that perhaps just changing a single word would enable a humanising of this bill.

Finally, I think the attitude of the Government and the clear signal of beneficiary bashing is summed up in new section 310B: “The purpose … is to ascertain whether the beneficiary—(a) is, or remains, entitled to receive the benefit, or the rate of benefit, that is being paid to the beneficiary;”. That clause should have stopped there, but, no, they insisted—even when we asked them to remove it—to add these words: “or (b) was not entitled to receive the benefit, or the rate of benefit, that was paid to the beneficiary.” This is a clear signal that the intention of this bill is to beneficiary bash, to save money, and to kick the most vulnerable to the kerb.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The only people who are out of touch with New Zealanders in this House are the Opposition. Most New Zealanders—most reasonable New Zealanders—appreciate that this bill does three things: it ensures that people are receiving the benefits that they should be receiving, it gives them more if they should be receiving more, and it says, “Actually, now your circumstances have changed, now you should be receiving less.” Most reasonable New Zealanders appreciate that. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

I move, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank the House again for considering this bill under urgency and for the contributions from members that have brought us here to this stage. New Zealand is still in recovery mode from the economic damage caused from the COVID period and we know that many Kiwis are still feeling the impact. This is especially true for our seniors on fixed incomes as the rising cost of living is taking a significant toll on them. Now, seniors have worked hard throughout their years and deserve to enjoy their retirement without added financial stress. That’s why this Government is committed to growing the economy in order to lessen some of that financial pressure. By focusing on economic growth, we can bring down the cost of living and help those Kiwis—and all Kiwis—get ahead.

While we acknowledge that this process will take time, our plan is making a difference. Inflation is under control, tax relief is putting more money into Kiwis’ back pockets, and initiatives like FamilyBoost are helping with the cost of childcare for families.

We know that rates are rising and this is putting extra pressure on many of our seniors. Couples on New Zealand Superannuation, with limited income, are facing increasingly high rates bills as a percentage of their income. The disparity between growth of household rates and the adjustment to New Zealand Superannuation underscores the urgency of this intervention. No senior should be forced to choose between essential needs and unaffordable rates. No seniors should have to move out of their homes away from friends, families, and their communities. They deserve peace of mind in their retirement, which is why this Government is stepping up to ensure that all Kiwis receive the support that they need.

For the last time today, I want to highlight the significance of this bill for our senior community. The bill proposes amendments to the Rates Rebate Scheme, introducing a new income abatement threshold set at $45,000 per household. This change provides additional financial relief to 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. Furthermore, due to the structure of the abatement threshold, individuals earning over $45,000 may still qualify for a partial rebate if they hold a SuperGold card.

These changes, worth over $154 million over four years, will come as relief to those seniors who are on fixed incomes and are dealing with rates increases. It is no secret that I believe in limited government, but limited doesn’t mean being constrained in our vision; it means having a laser focus on what Government is meant to do. Many people throughout this country are capable of making their own decisions. What they want from us is action on the things that they cannot influence. Our elderly community on low incomes with fixed costs deserve the opportunity to live out their lives free from the creeping burden of higher rates that they cannot afford. That’s why it is important we consider this bill under urgency.

For years, the local government sector has been crying out for more support from the Government. It is also a key priority for this Government. I want to thank and acknowledge my colleagues in New Zealand First. The National Party and New Zealand First in their coalition agreement included a commitment to enhance local government rates rebate schemes for SuperGold card holders and to maximise the benefits of the SuperGold card. It has been a great pleasure working on this policy, and I know that many seniors will be thankful to know that more financial support is on the way. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I rise as the Labour spokesperson on local government and, in doing so, it will come as no surprise that the Labour Party will be continuing our support for this piece of legislation, albeit under urgency today.

I reference the fact that this bill has been progressed under urgency with a tinge of sadness, because what would have been really helpful, I would have thought, would be to hear about the impact that this would have on households out in the community—but perhaps, actually, the impact that it would have if the threshold had changed, the impact that it may have had if some of the other components to the criteria that’s been proposed in this bill would change as well. It’s likely that this would have gone to the Governance and Administration Committee, and that committee would have been able to hear from affected individuals, but also from councils as well. And I’ll touch on that later in my contribution.

We’ve heard the Minister acknowledge the New Zealand First Party because it is accepted that, yes, this is part of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, but that’s been the case for quite some time. The question that needs to be posed is why has it taken the Government so long since they have addressed that as part of their negotiations—to actually deliver on that commitment.

Whilst households have had to wait for this commitment to come into place under this Government, the pressures that they have been facing have continued to grow, and so that’s rather unfortunate. It would have been helpful to hear from seniors about the fact that they have worked their whole life, as the Minister has said. And he says that they’ve worked really hard and that they deserve to have some rebate or recognition of that.

The question I pose to the Government, of course, is: is an extra 58c, which is the increased amount over the last 12 months for this rebate, per fortnight, the sort of alleviation of cost pressure that seniors who’ve worked so hard actually deserve? This is a piecemeal form of support for households and seniors who are doing it so tough right now, who are facing those cost of living pressures for their households. A senior citizen simply needs to go to the supermarket to see the rising cost of butter, of cheese, of milk, of bread. An extra 58c a fortnight is not going to cut much of that. So it’s disappointing that we didn’t have an opportunity to hear—the Government didn’t have an opportunity to hear—from superannuitants exactly what this will mean to them.

We hear a lot from the sector as well in local government around the rhetoric that this Government seems to have about requiring councils to get back to the basics. The question that the Government needs to really answer, I believe, is what are the basics? Is it just the rubbish, the recycling, the water, the roads, the footpaths? Where do community libraries, where does community development, where does funding for those vibrant community events that take place fall within that? So this is from a Government that is talking about getting back to the basics, but failed to, I think, understand what vibrancy means in our community.

Yes, affordability is absolutely important, but let’s also reflect on the fact that superannuitants and other households are facing increasing costs, whether it’s rates, whether it’s insurance, whether it’s other costs of living pressures. This will go some way, but I think not far enough, perhaps, as others would suggest that we would have heard from people out in the community around what this might mean.

We’ve also heard, as this bill has progressed through the Parliament—well, we actually haven’t heard, but we have become aware that there were five councils that were consulted about what this would mean for them. How much would it cost? Because the regulatory impact statement (RIS) identified that in some circumstances it would be a $200,000 cost to implement this. Now, in scrutiny week last week, we put that to the Minister, who indicated that there was some work being done around that. You know, it would have been helpful if that information was made available to parliamentarians as part of a formal select committee process. We have not been able to have the benefit of that. So we don’t know what the actual cost is going to be for councils for implementing this particular regime, and that is a rather difficult thing to stomach.

But of course, this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government: simply whack on additional costs to others in the hope or the expectation that this change would come. This is exactly no different in that regard. This is a policy position that has been taken. It will be worked through by way of legislation when this bill will pass—and it will pass, you know, today. Those additional costs will be borne by councils around the country. Yes, I accept that for some smaller councils, perhaps the costs will be much less. It is a cost none the less, and there is an opportunity cost around that as to what that money could be spent on in local communities.

So this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government, and it actually extends into other areas. I want to just cite through, briefly, one example, and it’s in the Ministry of Education space when it comes to rural buses. In my local community where the local council, recently Horizons, have made the call not to actually accept the need to fund things that fall within the purview of the Ministry of Education. I congratulate the council on doing that.

But the message I send to this Government—the question I ask to members opposite and to the Ministry of Education—is: what is the Government doing to ensure that communities like Rongotea and Ashhurst are able to utilise bus services and routes?

Point of order. My point of order is that this is not relevant to the bill.

And the point of order is not a point of order. The call about relevancy is mine.

Well, I’m alerting you to that. This is not relevant to the bill.

Thank you very much—appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting that Government members want to take a point of order to try and stifle this issue from being aired, because it does relate to this bill. This is about forcing additional costs on to councils, and this relates to the track record of this Government in basically saying, “We want councils to pick up the tab for doing all of the things that we asked them to do, but we’re not going to provide any funding.” The fact of the matter is that they don’t like to hear the fact that they have an issue with buses in rural communities. And, Madam Speaker, you’re very familiar with communities of a rural nature yourself, so you do know this. I want to know what the Government is doing to address that real, real need in my community and other communities all around the country. So this is a Government that gets a bit tetchy when it comes to being challenged around their expectation that councils are going to pick up the tab for doing things.

So, yes, we do support this bill because it goes some way to addressing some of the concerns, but it is far short. You know, it would be irresponsible, actually, if we did not support this, because at a time when households are doing it tough, when the Minister, in his own words, talks about acknowledging the fact that senior citizens have worked so hard over many years—yes, they have—yes, they have. And they deserve to go to the supermarket and buy a block of butter without having to think about prioritisation and what it’s going to mean for them. They deserve that. So any little bit that’s going to help them in terms of rates costs is a good move.

I do think one of the things that councils will be forced to turn their minds to, of course, is how they are going to make the community aware that this scheme exists, because the RIS identifies, and I think the Minister himself said, it was around 66,000 households that will become eligible. If the increase in uptake is such that that goes over and above that, well then that’s an issue the Government will have to—that’s a good thing. But it does come with a few issues the Government will need to turn its mind to. But in terms of the councils needing to have a process around making sure that they are engaging with the community so that the community know that this is actually an option available to them—that those who hold a SuperGold card do have this as an opportunity—is really, really important.

The Minister, in his contribution, talked about this being $154 million over four years. That’s the cost of the commitment. That pales in comparison to the amount of money that this Government has set aside and basically allowed for landlords and tobacco companies. So I think superannuitants in our community will detest that comparison because it will make a huge difference for them if the money that this Government had prioritised for landlords and tobacco companies was actually redirected into the households and back pockets of those that hold a SuperGold card. So I think that’s an important point to note as well.

As I said, we will support this amendment bill because it does provide a very piecemeal level of support and assistance to those who have worked hard. It is unfortunate that the Government has decided to ram this through under urgency when they’ve known that this was coming. They have not wanted to hear from the community, because I think that, actually, the community would send them a very strong message that this is not enough to support the cost of living pressures that they are facing right now.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill.

Just for context, again this is one of the bills that was introduced under urgency, which meant that it had very little public consultation. We do have a regulatory impact statement, which is at least the minimum that the Government could be doing when we are introducing a bill under urgency, but what we did hear from the Minister during the committee stage was that there were no other policies that were considered as a part of this. This was the only thing that was considered simply just to fulfil a coalition agreement.

Now, we will talk about the broader context in a bit, but I think I want to first address a couple of points that we’ve heard during the committee stage. I think, first of all, one of the things that we did question the Minister on—and, yes, one could consider that was outside the scope of this particular legislation, which also, again, questions the fact that this is a bill that has an incredibly narrow scope. We’ve heard that this is going to cost $154 million over four years for something that is, frankly, quite ill-thought-out and very narrow.

The first threshold of this bill is you must be a SuperGold card holder, which immediately we are ruling out any migrants who are on temporary work visa conditions who happen to be over the age of 65.

Who own a house and pay rates.

We’ll also—because it’s a rates rebate. The very foundation for you to have rates in the first place is you have to be a homeowner. So, immediately, it rules out everyone over the age of 65 who rents or who is in a precarious or vulnerable situation. So the question remains: is this a bill that genuinely wants to address the seriousness of our senior population and the vulnerability, the genuine vulnerability, that presents to our senior population and the trajectory of some of the key concerns and crises we’ll be facing in Aotearoa New Zealand in the area of seniors in the near future? We shall unpack those things

The first thing that we do see in the bill, and we did question the Minister on, is the threshold of $45,000. Now, there are two parts to that. First of all, there’s been a split of the threshold. There is a threshold for ratepayers who are on the SuperGold card, as we see in section 5. There is also a threshold for any other ratepayers. The commencement date of this bill is, rightfully, when—let’s see—the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025 comes into force, which also increases the other threshold from $31,800 to $32,210 as a response to that as well, and we see this drastic increase for ratepayers.

A couple of questions around that which we didn’t get clarity from the Minister on during the committee stages: number one is: why split it? Why not just increase it overall? What sort of evidence is there for people who are under the age of 65—and, by the way, this is considering total household income, not individual income; we’ll come to the household income part in a bit. So we’re looking at household income of $32,210. We didn’t get any clarity on, like, what is the proportion of people who are on there in the first place. Why don’t we introduce and increase the threshold completely overall to a higher rate? That’s the first question, which we’ve got no answer for.

The second question is—$45,000. Now, in the regulatory impact statement, we see that the gross income for a couple who are on superannuation for the 2025-2026 year is almost $47,981, to be exact, according to the regulatory impact statement. So if the purpose of the bill is that we are lifting the threshold to $45,000, we think it creates an anomaly where people over the age of 65, their household income if they only have superannuation as their sole income will not be eligible for the full rebate amount—45,000 is also $3,000 short, which means that they have this extra $3,000 where abatement will be taken into consideration as well. Why create that anomaly? Why not increase it and boost it to $48,000, in which case the entirety of a couple’s superannuation income will be considered?

The Minister did not want to take up our Green amendment, which increases the threshold to $56,000 for both, because it also creates a bit of leeway if, let’s say, a couple over the age of 65—we know that more and more people over the age of 65 are still working—there’s an abatement amount in terms of superannuation as well. But creating that $8,000 buffer will actually mean that people who additionally do some cover work, like if they are a reliever at the school, if they are a teacher over the age of 65, but want to relieve here and there, they will get some extra income—all of that is factored in.

So, from the very essence, the Government likes to paint a beautiful picture of how much they’re doing to seniors. But what we’re seeing is they’re trying to say they’re doing a lot, but actually doing very little; in fact, doing less than what they’re even saying within a very restricted limit of this bill of homeowners who are SuperGold card holders. I find that funny, but also disappointing. Disappointing to see from the Government that they couldn’t do the minimum for seniors on this very restrictive bill.

The other thing that we did talk about as well is this idea that a lot of the things that we are seeing—and this could be superannuation, and this is, to be honest, when we’re looking at benefits in general—is we’re still tying people to household income as opposed to individual incomes. The Government, again, didn’t take up our amendment where we wanted to split it out: you can halve it and have, let’s say, $21,000 or $22,500 per person. It is still the $45,000 threshold, but it also means that it allows people to have financial autonomy and not be subjected to what their spouse potentially is earning. That, I think, is something that is grossly missing.

It’s a problem that we have seen in our benefit system and our superannuation system for decades, and we have seen couples or individuals within the relationship who are being harmed as a result of this, who have to be, essentially, subjected to potential coercion by their spouses as a result of the fact that they’re tying things into their household income. So, again, we are seeing some really not well-thought-out policy positioning within this 1½-page bill. And if we’re able to take apart, in such a state, a bill that is only a page and a half, that is, frankly, an indictment of this Government’s ability to introduce a bill into the House.

But in the broader sense of things—and I did mention at the beginning that this is something that is quite restricted and quite limited in terms of its scope. Now, the Green Party—we did actually talk about this bill a lot within our caucus—landed on the position that we will not support this bill on the basis of the fact that what this bill does is not actually, genuinely support our seniors.

I mentioned at the beginning that one of the things we asked the Minister during the committee stage is whether other things have been considered as a part of this package, and the Minister said no; this is the only thing that was considered, again, because it was a coalition agreement requirement. But what we are seeing is that homeownership above the age of 65 is plummeting. It will continue to plummet because people can no longer own their own homes. We are seeing that the most vulnerable population, the most vulnerable part of our communities over the age of 65, will not be eligible for this particular bill, despite the fact that the Government paint a really beautiful picture that it is all about seniors; it’s not.

We want to see legislation introduced in this House that genuinely has the vulnerability and futureproofing in mind when we’re looking at our senior population. That includes things like increasing public housing, the number of public houses, looking at the priority order for how our elders are going to be looked after, and then for them to be able to—in situations where they can—actually live in dignity and live autonomously. We should be funding things like home and community care. We should be doing all of this, but this bill does none of that.

So we will not support it, because there is so much more that we could be doing, this Government could be doing, and they chose to do nothing. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party for this third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. It is a bill which is giving financial relief to SuperGold card holders on their rates, but all ratepayers deserve relief. Respecting ratepayers and their money when councils are spending that money is the only real way for ratepayers across New Zealand—the people who have been mentioned by the Opposition—to get real rates relief. Cutting waste, focusing on core spending on basics like roads, clean streets, and value for money is the only way this can be achieved. The light show that we have seen masquerading as a toilet block down in central Wellington is a prime example. Councils need to focus on services and infrastructure that can only be delivered locally, not duplicating roles that are the purview of central government.

In this Government, we are doing our part on focusing spending on outcomes, not just spending as a good in and of itself as the last lot of speakers seem to think is a good idea. Inflation, because of the actions of this Government, is down to 2.5 percent. Stats New Zealand says that rates and payments are increasing at 12.2 percent per year. This is a sign of waste. Councils need to get focused. It’s time for new faces and values around the council table so that councils get the message to stop treating their ratepayers like ATMs and focus, like this Government is, on delivery.

This is good news. It is delivering on another campaign promise that New Zealand First campaigned on. It’s delivering on part of our coalition agreement with the National Party. This is New Zealand First and the Government looking after our senior citizens who need a bit of assistance, and our SuperGold card holders.

We know in the last three years that rates have increased dramatically—stratospherically, in some cases—and this is a real concern. I’m hearing a lot of concern from a lot of people about angst, anger about this, but for senior citizens in particular, they are really concerned that they might be priced out of their own homes—not their houses; their homes. This is about this Government looking after those people.

We want people to own their own homes—a property-owning democracy is really, really important to our economy and to our society. We know that our superannuation system will not cope if most of our superannuitants are not in their own homes. This bill is good news for SuperGold card holders.

We heard from Tangi Utikere that it is about 58c a fortnight. No, it’s not. What it is about is changing the amount that you can earn before that rates rebate starts being reduced—from 32,000 to 45,000, which is roughly the level, give or take a little bit, of superannuation. That makes about $600 a year difference, or $11.53 a week—not 58c a fortnight. So the Labour Opposition should get their facts right.

The Opposition quite regularly lambasts the Government for looking after the so-called rich. Last year’s tax cuts were not about the rich; they were about from the bottom up. These rates rebates are also not about the rich; they are about the people on $45,000—that is not rich. What is rich is some of the complaints from the Opposition.

Finally, just to echo what my colleague Cam Luxton has just said, this will help some ratepayers, but the other thing that needs to be done across the board is councils have the monopoly ability and statutory ability to rate; that comes with responsibility and that means the responsibility to use the money that they get from ratepayers wisely, carefully, and to deliver good value for money. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei kaikōrero mō Te Pāti Whare i te rangi nei.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand as a speaker for the Māori Party today.]

Te Pāti Māori stands to offer support for the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill because we understand that the bill will put more money into the back pockets of our kaumātua, and this bill instantly reminds me of all our kaumātua who follow us around, to the more than 38 poukai across Waikato and throughout the country. So we support the intention and effect of this bill, which is to provide financial support for low-income SuperGold card holders who may otherwise face financial hardship due to high rates bills. Te Pāti Māori considers this to be one of the only areas of the Budget it can support, but questions why the income abatement threshold was not raised across the board.

Our view is that all households who are earning less than $45,000 are struggling and deserve to be supported. The Rates Rebate Act 1973 uses income as the primary threshold for eligibility. The current income abatement threshold of $31,510 per household, which will increase to $32,210 on 1 July 2025, excludes many SuperGold card holders from receiving the full benefit of the Rates Rebate Scheme. We welcome increases due to kick in this winter, at an extreme time when the price of butter, milk, and essentials is very hard. We note that the full effect of this scheme will not reach all kaumātua. Rebates are calculated according to a formula that includes the gross income and number of dependents of the ratepayer and their spouse or partner if accepted, and their rate amount.

The level of rebate available decreases for every dollar earned above the income abatement threshold. Those households face significant rates bills that are, on average, rising at a higher rate. Nō reira e te Pīka, Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. Tēnā rā tātou.

Thank you. This bill is a bit of window dressing. It addresses one very small part of the cost of living crisis. Does it address the housing shortage? No.

New Zealand First talks about “homes”. It only means owner-occupied homes. Some people call their rentals “homes”. Other countries have got some security of tenure; places talk about “renting for life”. This is seen as very much a second-rate option in this country. This amendment bill entrenches that difference and promotes the needs of property owners over renters. Often, the renters are much more vulnerable.

I’d like to look at how the private rental sector is likely to increase in importance. Already, about 30 percent of superannuitants rent and it looks likely to be an increasing proportion. Some people say people who pay rates should get some help. Well, I’ve got news for you: the landlord’s not paying the rates; the renters are paying the rates as part of their rent. Unless there is an extraordinarily philanthropic landlord, it’s the rent you pay every week, every fortnight, or every month that pays the council rates—the regional council rates, and some of us still think regional councils are important, and the local authority rates.

I also would argue that this bill does not address other people who are in more need. It doesn’t address students. It doesn’t address disabled people under the age of 65. It doesn’t address families with young children, whether they own their own house or not. Mind you, maybe they’re not so likely to vote for certain parties. It puts continued pressure—continued pressure—on local government. While the rebate itself comes from central government, from taxpayer funds—from all taxpayers to quite a narrow group. While the tax money goes to that group, it is also another impost on local government because it increases the administration requirements and it also doesn’t really go to the root cause. It’s a small band-aid on a big issue of: why are rates rising? Because there has been under-investment, there has not been use of depreciation—and this is, of course, the whole sector. It’s despite some very positive reports, whether it’s from chief executives, whether it’s from the Office of the Auditor-General, who—until recently so many councils got absolutely stunningly perfect audit reports, and now they’re going, “Oh, maybe that wasn’t quite”—

Quite so.

I’m delighted to have New Zealand First agreeing with me for once.

OK, so we’re going to oppose this bill. I also want to address the issue of how this Government has not helped a particularly vulnerable group, and that is women who are either single or widowed and they’re over 65. They are the larger portion of the over-65s, but they will live longer than their counterparts. You might say that that’s unfair, but they do. They have fewer savings because of the continued gender pay gap. And the women that are going to retire with all of those 33 pay claims dismissed, those women are going to find retirement tougher than their male counterparts. So we will be opposing this bill. It’s a band-aid on a small part.

Madam Speaker, did you hear that? Every superannuitant should be listening to that. The Green Party is opposing this bill, as is the Labour Party.

No, we’re not.

Labour is not? OK. Well, let’s just put it down to the Green Party. Sixty-six thousand more seniors will now be eligible for more support. The rebate increases to $805. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been interesting being in the House for this debate, where there’s been a lot of comments made as a running commentary from the other side, but very, very few substantive contributions to this debate. Actually, it shows that the other side of the House has not actually been listening to this debate, where a number of speakers, not only in this debate but in the committee of the whole House stage and in the second reading and the first reading said that, indeed, Labour supports this bill. So I’m happy to clarify that for the member, who obviously hasn’t been taking any account of what’s been going on in the House or listening to any of the arguments that this side of the House has been putting forward.

You’re the party of no. Why would we not think that you were going to say no?

Well, Mr Bates, the reason that I would suggest that you would know the correct position of our party is because it has been said numerous times in the House, and that is the role of people in the House; to be part of the debate and listen to those who are taking part in it.

So we are pleased to support this bill. We will be outlining why that is and actually looking into this bill in some detail. I think it is important to note, as other speakers have noted, that this bill was announced as part of the Budget changes and has gone through under urgency. So as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, who would have welcomed the opportunity to have received submissions on this bill, to hear from people affected by this bill, to hear debates around this bill, to hear if there are any issues in this bill, we have not been able to have that opportunity. We did have a session with the Minister in the committee of the whole House stage. There were a number of questions that were asked; a number of questions were left unanswered. So I think it’s important to note, as this is the last opportunity for this House to comment on this particular bill, that this process—although we support this bill and this bill is a good start—around bringing this bill to the House under urgency, without a select committee, has not been what we would expect in respect of good lawmaking.

This particular bill is one that would have really benefited, I think, from a select committee process and being able to have that scrutiny. I say that because when I look at the departmental disclosure statement, I can see the people who were actually told that this bill was going to go ahead. It was said that not many people were able to be consulted because it was Budget sensitive. It’s hard to know really why exactly it’s Budget sensitive. I know that there’s a lot of secrecy surrounding the Budget, but in terms of the people that are affected, these are mainly people who are on low incomes, who have a SuperGold card—so are elderly New Zealanders—and it’s hard to imagine that there would be any specific change of behaviour that would have resulted from wider consultation. Obviously, that could have been done confidentially as well.

But we do see that a number of councils have been consulted in the departmental disclosure statement: Auckland Council, Christchurch Council, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha District Council. However, hearing from those people who would really benefit from this particular rates rebate bill or those on the cusp of that as well—that’s often what we hear in select committee. We often hear of people who maybe fall just outside of the entitlement, who believe that they have a good argument about why they should be included, and we weren’t able to do that. But we did see that some of those councils were actually included in that as well.

So, as has been said, we support this bill. But the reason that we support it is because we recognise what a difficult time it is for New Zealand, and especially elderly New Zealanders. We are facing some of the hardest economic conditions that I can recall in my lifetime. And certainly in the time that I’ve been in charge of my own family and household, I have noticed in the community very, very, very struggling people within our community—unable to afford groceries, unable to afford rates, unable to afford their mortgage payments. We have seen this get worse under this Government. So it is pleasing to see the Government recognise that there is a cost of living situation in New Zealand that deserves to be addressed.

We haven’t seen a lot of action. In fact, a lot of the actions that we’ve seen have made the situation worse. We’ve seen affordability and the cost of living really ramp up under this Government. We’ve seen loss of jobs. We had a hearing this morning with the Minister for the Public Service, but across the country we can see tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost. Some of the people who have SuperGold cards do also work. So it is relevant to them and it is relevant to their affordability of rates whether there are jobs that they can particularly go to. That hasn’t been a focus from this Government. Jobs have not been a focus of this Government; in fact, we’ve seen them go backwards. That’s why these types of measures, like rates rebate schemes, are needed, because people are struggling so much.

Will this go far enough towards addressing some of the cost of living pressures that people have? I don’t think so. I think we’ve heard a lot of evidence today from this side of the House, who have been taking substantive calls on this bill, around things that have got a lot worse and have raised the cost generally for households as well. It is good to see the Minister and others reflecting on the fact that we do have people who are superannuitants in New Zealand who are making hard choices around what they can spend their money on. They’re making choices about food, they are making choices about bills, they’re making choices about heating. That is not the type of society that we want to be living in. We agree with that, but we don’t think that the measures that the Government is putting into place go far enough and we don’t agree with their choices that result in tax cuts and subsidies for those who don’t need it and not enough for the people at this end that this bill does touch on, who deserve to have more. So that is very problematic.

We also see that this is a slight recognition of the terrible situation we are in in relation to the affordability of rates for local government organisations. The House is well aware of the steps that the last Government made in order to try and address the fact that there were unaffordable rates rises that would be necessary for New Zealanders. That was, unfortunately, scrapped by this Government. We’re seeing them take small efforts to try and corral local councils into getting together in relation to water and to try and get them in a scheme that would not be as helpful as the one that was proposed by the last Government. So we hope, for the benefit of New Zealanders, that we are able to see a more sustainable rates framework that is affordable for councils to be able to continue to do their work and for New Zealanders.

This bill is a little bit of a help in that, but it, as I said, does not go far enough. That is because of those dual things: the cost of living crisis and the fact that we do have rates which are so unaffordable for New Zealanders. It is regretful that we didn’t have a select committee process, but also that in preparing the analysis for this bill, there wasn’t really able to be any consultation with a number of people affected by this, because I think some of those wider issues around rates affordability, around the role of local government and the role of councils to be able to provide things that are needed, would definitely have arisen with that too.

At the same time as we see this small benefit for some elderly ratepayers in New Zealand to address the skyrocketing cost of living in this country, we also see cuts in other areas—for example, the cuts to the pay equity scheme. Many of those, specifically care and support workers, are near retirement, and many of those people will actually be covered by this scheme. So it will be cold comfort for them to see the fact that their earnings within their lifetime would be gendered earnings that were much lower than they should have been paid if they were in a male-dominated field, but they were unable to continue with their pay equity claims, and then they enter into retirement, and they get this tiny rates rebate.

So this is about choices—Budgets are about choices. This is a bill that was brought in through the Budget process. The choice that the Government’s made here is to give a small amount of money back to some elder New Zealanders who are desperately in need of some relief. At the same time, we’ve seen much larger cuts in other areas. We’ve seen their cost of living rise. We’ve seen mortgage prices rise. We’ve seen food prices rise. We’ve seen fuel prices rise. We’ve seen the amount that they spend on heating rise. And we know that and I’ve been getting emails just this week from people talking about the choices that they have to make in relation to fuel. I met someone yesterday who lived, actually, near my colleagues Ingrid Leary and Rachel Brooking in Dunedin, who was talking about the amount of money that they had to spend on fuel.

So this is a good start. This is a bill that the Labour Party will support, but it doesn’t mean that the work here is done. There is much more work that needs to be done to address the cost of living. There’s much more work that needs to be done in relation to the challenges that our seniors face, and my colleague Ingrid Leary has been doing very good work advocating for that. There are other challenges that people have. But from our side, we believe that the proper work of Government is really to ensure that people have well-paid jobs, that they have a healthcare system that works when they get sick, and that they have homes that they can live in—whether those are rented or whether those are owned homes—that are warm and safe, and that is the right of every New Zealander. So we believe that that should be the focus of this Government, but we support this bill.

I’m so pleased to stand. Sixty-six thousand seniors will be better off. I’m going to repeat that: 66,000 seniors will be better off with this bill—one of many cost of living relief payments we’re doing. I commend this bill.

This is a split call.

Madam Speaker, thank you so much for this opportunity to contribute to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. I would like to remind the House that Labour strongly supports this bill for a number of reasons, but can I also remind the House that the original rates rebate law in 1973 was led by Norman Kirk of the Labour Government at the time. It was created to recognise that local taxes, rates, can weigh heavily on low-income homeowners. We’re proud of that kaupapa and it is great that it has endured for 52 years. I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters for including this bill in his coalition agreement and for ensuring that this Government actually supports this bill.

The Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, at its heart, is about something simple and deeply meaningful because we are helping our seniors to continue to live in their homes with dignity; a home that many of them have spent years and years working hard to pay off. Right across Aotearoa New Zealand, our elders, our kaumātua, have spent their lives working hard, raising their families, and building up our communities. They deserve more than just a thankyou; they deserve real, practical support, and this bill moves us modestly in that direction. By lifting the income threshold for SuperGold card holders to 45,000, this amendment provides long-overdue relief to many New Zealanders—many who are asset-rich, but, unfortunately, income-poor who are increasingly struggling to meet their basic needs and their costs. It is the right thing to do and for that we also acknowledge the Government and the Minister of Revenue and officials who’ve been working on this legislation.

However, while we support this bill, we cannot ignore some of its limitations. Because I rise to speak not just for our seniors who own their own homes; I am from Parliament to represent South Auckland, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, where we have just over 75,000 people, many of them who are struggling, from South Auckland. Many of our Māori, Pacific, and many thousands of our ethnic migrant community live in multigenerational homes. Many of them, even with the numbers of jobs in those multigenerational homes, are still struggling. This bill gives some help to some people, but, unfortunately, it gives no assistance to many thousands more.

So just to give you an example—and this is just an example—if you’re a 70-year-old couple who own a home in Remuera, you may qualify for support under this bill. But by comparison, if you are a 40-year-old solo mum who lives in Ōtara, you work a job, possibly another part-time job, but, say, you earn under the threshold—and you are of course still young—you do not qualify to be supported under this bill. In my opinion, that is not fair. What about a Samoan grandmother in Ōtāhuhu who is raising her mokopuna? Or an Indian auntie in Papatoetoe who owns her apartment but earns, say, $39,000 or a little less than $39,000? There is actually no support for her either. If you are a Filipino worker who works night shift and you also have a part-time job during the day just to make ends meet, you’re still struggling, and you don’t get any assistance under this bill either.

That is a gap in support. That is why so many in our communities in South Auckland feel forgotten and left behind, unfortunately, by this Government. Because this bill, as well-meaning as it is, is built around the assumption that help should only go to seniors who own homes. But in our community—Pacific, Māori, ethnic community—who make up close to 50 percent overall of the total population of Aotearoa New Zealand, many of them won’t be able to get support from this bill.

I do want to be clear: Labour supports our kaumātua and our seniors who are receiving rate rebates under this bill. We honour our seniors. We know that many of them are struggling to stay in their own homes, and we are glad that this bill will actually go through. But if we are to build a fair Aotearoa, a kind of Aotearoa where everyone should have a safe, affordable house to call home, we should support everyone.

I appreciate that the speaker before me, the Hon Jenny Salesa, addressed the need of particularly the 66,000 seniors in New Zealand, who would appreciate the support from this Government—and relatively soon, actually. But I do also want to emphasise that the Green Party oppose this bill because they believe it’s either everything for everyone, all at the same time, from money falling out of the tree—or nothing, for everyone. And that is absolutely impractical and, basically, just living in la-la land. But, anyway, this Government, the National Government, is about targeting the relief and delivering for people who need it, so I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to reflect on Government members who make a number of interesting comments about our communities, especially when we get into the weeds or the nitty-gritty. I want to come back to the bill. This is an important bill for our community. We, as Labour, do support it; however, I do have the opportunity to point out some of its shortcomings. The intent of the bill is a good intent for our superannuitants—for some of our superannuitants. We’ve heard this side of the House point out that there are 66,000 across the motu, across Aotearoa, who will benefit. That is always a good thing when you receive emails and visits from superannuitants that can’t even afford to turn on their hot water to have a shower but they need to be clean.

Coming back to the bill, we’ve heard that it is a good bill, in terms of the intention to provide financial support for the low-income SuperGold card holders who will benefit, who face financial hardship. Whilst we’ve heard, on this side of the House, some of my colleagues point out the increasing costs to councils, one of the things we believe, in terms of Labour’s offering, is the importance of having consultation, not just with the community, not just with some councils, but with all councils across the motu. We know that those who will be eligible for the rates rebate amendment have to be SuperGold card holders, but not everyone will be receiving the full rebate. Because of the way the formula is set up, you have to meet that formula.

In the committee stage, I did raise with the Minister at the time that it’s one thing to have a new system, and some of the financial benefit; the communications to the community are another thing. There is a major assumption that councils will just pick this up, run it through their systems, and, basically, inform the community member superannuitants how you can apply, what your income is, what the rebate is that you may qualify for, whether it’s a partial or whether it’s a full rebate, and to have the accessibility to do so. There’s an assumption that everyone drives a car. There’s an assumption that superannuitants are computer literate. There’s an assumption that superannuitants have got all the trappings of a modern household. Well, you’ve heard my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa point out that that’s not always the case. Some of the SuperGold card holders in our society, in our community, are really, really struggling.

They must also know where to go and how to qualify if they are entitled. I’ll just give you a very quick example. I come from Māngere, in South Auckland. It’s a very diverse community. Not all superannuitants and community members access the library service, the excellent three public library services that we have in our local community. English is not always the first language that is known, so we have a number of platforms where people can communicate with public services.

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the public needs time to digest when there are changes that are made in this Chamber. There are many changes, there are many bills that come out, and one of the things I did ask at the committee stage was how our people in the community will know that they can apply for this rates rebate and that they can get some financial relief because they qualify. Those are the things that I wanted to reflect on.

The other thing, when I did read the regulatory impact statement, which came out when we went through the process of the first reading and the second reading, is there were limitations and constraints on the analysis. I appreciate that the Minister did say it went through urgency, and there’s a process when we are making the laws of the land. The problem is the risks that come with that analysis, and then we have to look at who benefits. Sixty-six thousand superannuitants may be eligible because they are SuperGold card holders, but, as you’ve heard from this side of the House, those risks are real risks, particularly for our superannuitants who are on limited superannuation that they receive every fortnight.

I want to continue to raise that, because the cost of living crisis is very, very real in our communities, across the motu, particularly with those on very limited incomes, and many of the superannuitants are writing to members of Parliament about the unaffordability of the basics. Whilst we’ve heard some comments about things like butter and those things that people like to purchase, it’s actually the things you need to run a household.

One of the things that I also raised was the nil discussion that has been had with the community, because, when you don’t have a select committee process that the public can consult and make submissions on, members of the select committee don’t have the opportunity to ask questions. Members of the community don’t have the opportunity to actually tell us how their real life is, whether they’re from South Auckland, Invercargill, Christchurch, wherever. They don’t have that opportunity. So it’s very unfair on New Zealanders, superannuitants who have worked—and we’ve heard this from Government benches—all their lives. They may not necessarily be entitled to the full rates rebate that they’re entitled to.

This amendment bill—yes, you’ve heard us, and I hope all of the Government members are listening. In terms of Labour, we are strongly supporting this, but it only goes part way, and it’s important that, if we are going to be genuine in our contributions and we value the work that superannuitants—just because they’re retired, it doesn’t mean that a number of them don’t volunteer for community organisations in our community or continue to work because they just can’t afford their insurance, they can’t afford their petrol. I’ve had a couple of superannuitants write to me this week. They can’t afford a shower. They’re only having one shower per week. That’s shameful. That’s shameful if we are living in our society and some of our seniors can’t afford petrol, can’t afford to have a shower every day and they’ve limited it to once per week because of the health conditions they face.

The last point I wanted to raise was around the assumption that many of our seniors speak English. Well, some of them don’t. It’s either their second language or their third language, for diverse communities. When you know that you qualify for something like a rates rebate, actually, “What do I do? Where do I go?” Do I wait for my child to come home when they come to visit me, so I can speak my Mandarin or I can speak my Samoan or I can speak my Tongan, to ask my child how I qualify, where I go? There are services in our community.

It’s a good bill; however, it does not go far enough. There is always an opportunity for our Government Ministers, as they are directing the officials, in terms of consultation, to have the select committee process that is really important. Sometimes, rushing things through urgency is not the way to go. Not everybody watches Parliament TV. I can tell you now, in my community, I have to remind them that, if you’ve got Freeview, Parliament TV is the opportunity to see what happens in Parliament, because this is your Whare. This is the Whare Pāremata.

It’s helpful to make a contribution on the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and I do want to thank the Minister, the officials that worked on this, the Government members, but I also want to remind you that you have an obligation, just like we do, to continue to work hard for our community, and if we’re really serious, if we’re really serious and genuine about looking after our seniors, our superannuitant community, we have to do better. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As the last contributor in this debate, I just want to say that I’m the last person that is standing in the way of 66,000 senior gold card holders getting rates relief. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

We have presented a legislative statement on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and move, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

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

We must continue to invest in our horse racing industry if we want to double its value to the economy, create more jobs, and match leading racing countries like Ireland. This bill is a big step towards achieving this goal. We’re, therefore, pleased to see this bill moving into its final stage in the House. It was introduced in December last year, and we have moved at a pace to get here, but not at the pace we should have been to get it through Parliament a long, long time ago. However, better late than never.

This bill amends the Racing Industry Act, which established TAB New Zealand and its legislative purposes, such as the provision of funding to the racing industry. The bill extends TAB’s existing land-based monopoly on betting to online. This is about protecting returns to the racing industry and adjusting our legislation to the online betting environment. This bill will make sure that betting revenue stays in New Zealand and contributes to the industry as the Act is set up to do. We recognise that there will need to be checks and balances on TAB to ensure it continues to operate with integrity and is fulfilling its statutory duties to the racing industry. For example, the Minister for Racing and the Department of Internal Affairs will have the power to require TAB to provide information for transparency. There are also regulation-making powers for harm minimisation and consumer protection, should further constraints be needed.

This bill received excellent input in the select committee process, and I thank the committee for that. There was excellent input in the select committee process from a range of stakeholders and individuals who care about the success of our racing and sports industries, not to mention some passionate punters. We’d like to, again, thank the Governance and Administration Committee for rigorously considering the bill and reporting it back to the House with thoughtful recommendations to improve it.

Additionally, the committee of the whole House agreed to move the Governance and Administration Committee’s recommendations on when TAB New Zealand can refuse a bet from the Act and into the regulation-making powers. This change gives us time to get the consumer protection policy right and to prevent any unintended consequences for TAB New Zealand and consequential risks to the financial sustainability of the racing industry. This bill is better for these changes. We look forward to seeing the racing industry and sports thrive as a result of this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Meitaki maata. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call, as Labour’s racing spokesperson, on this bill this morning.

We will continue to support this bill. We have supported this bill at all stages, from first reading right through the committee stage through to third reading, today, because it continues the good work that the previous Government had started in this space. The Minister talks about this being a belated approach to this, so I guess we’ve got to ask the question: what’s taken the Government so long, given that there’s been support from around the House on this particular bill? But we are here, today, and we are going to pass it none the less.

The sustainability of the racing industry is so important. This is a really important industry, and I acknowledge that the Minister himself knows firsthand the importance of this industry to our economy. I’m sure many of us would have, in our communities or in other communities around the country, at some stage, been part of a race meeting. Whether they are some of the high note race meeting opportunities—if we think of the Karaka Million or the Golden Kiwi—or whether they are in smaller rural communities like Winton or Waverley, they are all experiences that we should have.

I know that what’s really important in this space is the real difference that this will mean for participants in the racing industry. If we think about that value-add to our economy—and I know the Minister has floated this figure around—it’s just shy of $2 billion. It’s $1.9 billion of value-add to the New Zealand economy. When we think of the breeding operations in this country, of the opportunities that that presents for economic development, and of the advantage there and the fact that we are a global leader in that space, that is worth a significant amount of financial capacity for New Zealand—so too is the opportunity that presents for those who work in the industry, whether it be in paid employment or whether it be by way of volunteerism. Many of the racing clubs throughout New Zealand rely on the voluntary nature of hard-workers and members in their communities who are wanting to simply give back.

When we look at those numbers and if we take into account the number of volunteers and everyone else, there are more than 40,000 people involved in this industry. If we’re looking at the actual FTE—fulltime-equivalent—figure, it’s around 14,000. Many of us may actually just turn up to a race meeting without full awareness or understanding of what the industry looks like—from the people who might assist in parking your car through to the hospo staff that are involved at a venue, through to the active participants, whether they be drivers or jockeys, whether they be trainers, whether they be owners, and whether they be stable hands. Whether it’s the officials that are there from the club or, indeed, from the integrity perspective, as stipendiary stewards or racing adjudicators or course officials, this is a huge operation. Of course, TAB operations and operators are a huge part of that as well. This will make a huge difference, I believe, to the sustainability and future focus of an industry that is so vital to New Zealand’s prospects domestically and, also, further abroad.

I want to join the Minister in acknowledging the work of the Governance and Administration Committee that spent a lot of time processing submissions and listening to people. I was able to sub in on that committee from time to time. What we’ve got in front of us, I think, is a bill that reflects the submissions that were received but also reflects the desire of members of this House to ensure that we are able to support an industry, as I said, that makes a huge contribution to New Zealand’s prospects domestically and abroad.

What this bill will do is, effectively, create a legislative net for turnover for betting operations here in New Zealand. The value of that net, based on the advice that had been provided by the Department of Internal Affairs officials, is around about $180 million annually. What this bill will do is it will, effectively, retain that $180 million here in New Zealand for utilisation by the TAB, which will then go into the employment and volunteering opportunities that I’ve just referred to not a moment ago.

One of the changes that was made by the committee of the whole House was around the way in which the TAB would be able to refuse a bet. Now, this is a real issue. I was surprised to learn, during the select committee process, that the level of communication that the TAB is required to give to someone who they refuse a bet to is actually probably not at a standard or a level that members of this House—and certainly not members of the committee—would have liked to have seen, so the committee turned its mind to that. We have supported the Minister’s amendment as part of this process to move that change from this legislation into secondary legislation through regulation. We have no issue with that, as we said through the committee stage. However, what we would like to see is some assurance—and I appreciate that can’t be achieved through this process—from the TAB and officials that they will be working with appropriate haste to give effect to what was the select committee’s desire. The Minister, to be fair, has given an undertaking that, yes, it’s his expectation that the officials would be working on this to give effect to that particular change.

One of the things that I think it’s unfortunate that the bill does not provide for—and this will not come as any surprise to the Minister—is an opportunity, I think, to look at the class 4 gaming licences that are currently retained by the TAB. Given that there would be an influx of dedicated revenue of around $180 million for the TAB that could be offset, I think, by relinquishing the class 4 licences that the TAB holds. Now, I know the TAB has said that they believe they are a gold star, gold standard operator, but I think, from Labour’s perspective, that that would have been a fair compromise in exchange for what was the legislative net. I know that won’t come as any surprise, and I understand my colleagues will, perhaps, refer to that in their contributions as well.

One of the things that I think that the Minister absolutely needs is some provision expecting that the TAB will provide them with a level of information so that they are able to exercise their duties. We absolutely support the changes in this bill that will provide for the Minister or the Department of Internal Affairs to require the TAB to provide specific information so that the Minister or the department is able to undertake their duties and exercise their responsibilities with the information at hand.

I think that this is a bill that will seek to signal to New Zealand’s racing industry that Parliament is 110 percent behind their endeavours. That is what’s needed. This is a unique industry. We have a unique position on the global stage in that we are seen by many other countries around the world as world leading in terms of our breeding within the equine code, and that’s something that we need to maintain.

Now, being able to ensure that there is an ability to have this dedicated legislative net for monies to be circulating within the industry—and I certainly expect that the TAB will be utilising that money for industry good. I mean that’s what it should be about; it should be for industry good. Now, yes, we can talk about harm minimisation and what that might mean, and that’s an important role that needs to be taken on board as well. If there is this money that’s coming through to the TAB that is being captured onshore, it needs to be spent onshore, and it needs to be for the benefit of the racing industry. It needs to be for the benefit of the more than 40,000 volunteers who, every week, go around various racecourses all around the country because they are passionate about that, which is important as well.

At third reading, albeit in urgency, we are supportive of this bill. I want to acknowledge all of those who have taken the time to be a part of this process, whether it’s the officials who have been involved, whether it’s the Minister or his office, whether it is the many submitters who had taken time to share their thoughts and experiences—and that’s an important thing, the experiences that were shared by submitters to the select committee. I think this has meant that we’ve landed at a piece of legislation that is going to make a huge difference. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Regarding the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, the Green Party, like all parties in the House, is supporting this bill. The legislation supports the New Zealand racing industry by making TAB New Zealand the sole provider for sports and race betting, both on land and online. This ensures that gambling profits are returned to the racing industry.

The bill makes several other changes, including new oversight powers for the Minister to seek information from TAB New Zealand and regulatory oversight for the prohibition on other operators, and extends regulation-making power for harm prevention and minimisation to online TAB platforms. It creates regulation-making powers to specify circumstances in which the TAB can exclude customers from using their online platforms and to prescribe consumer protections.

The net profit of the TAB is distributed to the racing industry through grants to supporting organisations. Minimising competition protects gambling revenue for the racing industry. I think around $185 million was being repatriated offshore under the present state of affairs, and this bill will ensure that more of that money is retained by New Zealand.

In terms of the Green Party position, we have a phalanx of policy writers in our membership who very diligently go through policy and make us the party with the most sophisticated and deepest portfolio of policies of any party in this Parliament, and the party policy—[Member applauds] Thank you. Thank you, mate. I appreciate that.

The party policy of the Greens requires us to prevent new forms of gambling that are associated with harm and to regulate all existing forms of gambling to prevent or minimise harm. We see this bill as being consistent with that. It does prohibit online betting services by offshore operators, and online gambling is one of the riskier forms of gambling due to its easy access and easiness to conceal. Offshore operators are also not covered by New Zealand law and the protections provided by regulation. We see that as an important step in the right direction to ensure that online gambling is covered by regulation that takes into account the significant harm that gambling can have in our society. It is a pernicious addiction for some, and this has to be dealt with seriously. We see the powers of the Minister to address that and the regulation-making power for harm prevention to be an important part of that.

Our position on opposing forms of gambling that cause harm might be a challenge for us, regarding the Government’s legislation to put class 6 land into a lottery for pine tree growing, that I hadn’t considered, in terms of another piece of legislation the Government is trying to push through the House right now. We previously supported legislation back to racing in 2019 to introduce offshore betting charges with revenue distributed among the racing codes, which we determined was sensible, given the current racing industry provides a service to offshore vendors for no compensation. The same justification applies to prohibiting offshore betting.

The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry. There is some question over whether that sustainability is a good thing for some people who are concerned about the impact on animals used for entertainment and about animal welfare across racing codes. However, just for clarity, it is the Green Party’s policy to seek to regulate racing, not to explicitly call for its abolition other than, in this instance, greyhound racing. We acknowledge the Minister’s clear indication that it is this Government’s intention to phase out the greyhound racing industry, and we obviously support that position as well.

There is the risk that protecting TAB’s monopoly and limiting competition will increase TAB profitability at the expense of betting consumers. This was an issue that was canvassed at the committee somewhat, and I know some submitters directly reached out, expressing their concerns about the loss of competition and the monopolistic nature of this new regime. That is something that I think we, as a Parliament, need to keep a close eye on because we do want to make sure that there is not a monopoly restriction of people’s ability to gamble where they’re doing that in a safe manner. We think the expanded regulatory-making powers to protect consumers offer some protection for that. In summary, the Green Party is supporting this legislation. We see it generally as a step in the right direction, and we will be commending it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to give our support to this bill. Issues raised about the monopolistic abilities and the further undertakings by the Minister, as raised by Tangi Utikere, give some confidence that this will be done in a diligent way that respects punters and respects the industry. Really, what we’re here to do today is make sure there is a long-term successful and viable racing industry, because while it may have once been known as the sport of kings, it is the sport of Kiwis. We’re an egalitarian society that enjoys these sorts of activities, which are the legacies of our forebears. I commend this bill to the House.

Now, we’re away and racing. Giddy-up! It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. One of the things I just want to touch on very briefly—the Minister for Racing did cover it—is the change to regulation-making powers in terms of how much money goes to sporting codes. Of course, it’s not just the two horse racing codes that will benefit from the more than $100 million that this bill will deliver to revitalise the racing industries but also other sporting codes. It is important to me that we see suitable money going through to that.

Also, I think one point, just for future consideration, is around virtual and fantasy sports. We’ve got students here from Kaingaroa School today in the gallery. It’s great to see them. I’m sure that will be something they’ll be interested in in the future. We should keep our eyes open for that. For now, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe. We support this bill. It was a pleasure to actually be in the Governance and Administration Committee and to hear the submissions. I do think it’s unfortunate that this Government goes through the process—when we do actually avoid urgency and go to select committees, it seems extraordinary that we ask people to submit on several complex bills in January. It doesn’t seem likely that we would necessarily get the best input from people, but, in this case, we’ve got a wide range. I’d like to thank Rachel Boyack for chairing that select committee.

It is quite unusual that—maybe we’re in a six-horse race today—we’re all supporting the establishment of a monopoly, which is an interesting place for this House to be in. I’d like to note that some of us have more interest in equestrian and equine matters than others, but, as somebody has already mentioned, it’s not only about supporting the racing industry—over 90 percent of the racing code’s annual income comes from the TAB—but it’s also a whole range of sports, from boxing to tennis, from rugby to many other sports.

It would be quite interesting to know—it is quite opaque—which sports benefit to what degree. Should the benefit be in proportion to their “betability”? I’m not sure if that’s a word, but perhaps it is now that it’s been said on Hansard—“betability”. Are there other sports that, perhaps, do more for the economy or do more for people’s physical or mental health than the ones that are easiest to bet on and most popular to bet on? I do think an ongoing discussion with Sports New Zealand would be useful for looking at that issue. Let’s not assume that everywhere in the world does do betting on sports codes. There are 28 sports codes in New Zealand that received some funding. What about the ones that didn’t? I’ll just use an example here of the cycling brevet Tour Aotearoa, where you can take from 10 days, for the superhumans, to 45 days, for some of us, to go all the way from Cape Reinga to Bluff. I’m sure there is plenty of spending on food and accommodation on the way. You don’t bet on that, so there will be, presumably, no support for that kind of participative support.

How is the visibility of that distribution going to be dealt with in the future? This is not just about whether it’s the right sports that is funded. At the moment, every sport that receives funding, I believe, has to sign a confidentiality agreement, so it’s quite difficult to see externally whether there’s a fair division. In order not to infect all of you with my cough, I think I shall finish by saying we support this, we support the regulations change, and it’s a pleasure, for once, to be supporting something across the House.

In the words of the Minister in charge of this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, this has been a long time coming. I’m really keen to see it proceed and be passed into law as of today. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. While everyone’s in a hurry to get out of here, we might just settle in and have a good hard talk about something quite important to the country. I congratulate Minister Peters on an important piece of work. For anybody who loves sports, they will actually look right now and see that the Auckland City FC has just drawn with the Boca Juniors one-all, which is an absolutely huge thing. The reason I raise that is because, if you look across three betting sites, the odds are different across all three. The interesting thing is that if you had put your wager on Auckland City to either draw or win that game, you would have come out a very rich person at the end of that game.

This is a bill that looks towards making sure we can protect the sports betting industry here in New Zealand but also making sure that we can look towards the kinds of codes that Mr Costley has already spoken to, which can allow a far more inclusive betting sector, if you will. You can bet on almost anything around the world, but in New Zealand, this bill is something that will make sure that we set the foundation for a better future in this particular space.

Just finally from me on this matter, because my colleagues have touched in it, there is an important matter around harmful betting and making sure that we can continue to protect people. There are provisions in this bill that say that the TAB has the ability to stop certain bettors, and there’s a framework to allow them to do that, but, ultimately, we know that the best way to stop people from falling into gambling harm is to stop them from gambling in the first place. In communities that many of us know and represent well here in the House, this is an important issue, and I take the words of my colleague Mr Tangi Utikere about the opportunity to, once again, have a look at pokies in communities.

While that may be somewhat of a missed opportunity in this particular bill, we do support it. We look forward to an ongoing discussion with the sector as the sector evolves. By the time this bill started its gestation period and got to this point, the sector has already changed multiple times. There are far more online gambling platforms that have started in that period of time than most people in this House can fathom. On that note, we congratulate the Minister on a piece of work that he’s worked hard on, as I know we did, certainly, in my time in the House here. We commend this particular bill to the House.

I too, on behalf of the National Party, want to commend this third reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I also want to acknowledge Nick Roberts, Chief Executive of TAB New Zealand, and his team up there—no doubt they are waiting for this to come through—and commend them on their good work. I wish them all the very best as TAB New Zealand extends its monopoly on race wagering to include online betting. I commend the bill. Thank you.

This next call is a split call between the Labour Party and the National Party. I call Lemauga Lydia Sosene.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for bringing this to the House in the third reading. It is pleasing that we are supporting such a vital industry to Aotearoa. I just want to quickly mention, in terms of the pokie machines and class 4 gambling. that it could have been a missed opportunity, as my colleague Peeni Henare has talked about. In our community in South Auckland, there is a real problem with the gambling on those pokie machines. They’re just too prevalent in our local community, and it does not reduce in terms of gambling harm behaviour. That is part of this legislation, and I did want to raise it.

I do want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee, I do want to thank the submitters and also the TAB industry—they still have an obligation to those who struggle to manage their gambling behaviour, and sometimes the proliferation of pokie machines in local communities is a real problem. There needs to be that balance. Congratulations to the Minister for this Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to support this bill on behalf of the National Party. TAB New Zealand is the financial backbone of New Zealand’s racing industry. I would also like to extend the support and advocacy for the TAB New Zealand team to Jason Fleming and to Matt Smith for their tireless advocacy for the racing industry in New Zealand, which, of course, contributes over $2 billion to our economy and creates 13,000 jobs. This bill is about continuing to support that very important industry, so I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. It was a real pleasure to chair the committee for most of the process. I do want to acknowledge the chair who took over from me, Camilla Belich, who oversaw the final stages of the select committee process as this bill made its way through the select committee and, now, to the House for its third and final reading today.

We are really pleased to see this bill proceed and to support this bill. This was work that began under the previous Labour Government, and I do note that there are some concerns, from our side, around some elements of the bill that we think are missed opportunities. I’ll just talk to that briefly. We heard from a number of submitters, and one particular theme that came through was from national sporting organisations, who also will benefit from this bill. Those sporting organisations made really compelling submissions about how the proceeds from sports betting are distributed to their organisations. I do just want to point to some commentary in the select committee report, because there were two specific things they asked for and, I guess, some—I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as saying—push-back. I would just note that, actually, some of the things they asked for are already addressed in the Act. The committee did note in its report that they’d like to see the Government look at this a little bit further.

The two things that were specifically asked for was an amendment to section 82 of the Act to set out an accounting formula to determine how profits are generated from sports events and distributed to our national sporting organisations. The reason they asked for this is so that they have, I guess, more involvement and certainty around ensuring that the appropriate amount of profit is then shared with those sporting codes. What the committee did hear and note, though, is that section 128 of the Act does provide for regulations to be made to prescribe methods, and so there would be the opportunity for this under secondary legislation. The sporting codes asked for it to go into the body of the Act, and, actually, I don’t believe that’s the appropriate place for it; I think a better place would be to have it in secondary legislation. The committee, I think, correctly noted that those regulations could be used to address the concerns of those organisations, as opposed to writing it into the primary legislation.

The second big call that the groups made was having a requirement for representatives of national sporting organisations or Sport and Recreation New Zealand to be represented on the TAB New Zealand board. It was useful for the committee to hear from the TAB board and hear about the expertise of many of them, who have actually come from sporting codes or have come from Sport New Zealand. While we appreciated the suggestion of putting a requirement in, there didn’t seem to be a problem in reality, and I note that section 56 of the Act provides that Sport and Recreation New Zealand must be given at least four weeks to make nominations to the selection panel that recommends appointments to the TAB board. On balance, I think the committee made the right decision by not writing requirements into the Act, but it did state that that they encouraged the Government to investigate these issues further. I would support that. While this bill is about ensuring the certainty of the racing industry, obviously the TAB has a really important role in overseeing betting and, then, the proceeds of betting in the racing industry and our sporting codes, which are very important to who we are as New Zealanders. I wanted to take some time just to note those comments from the select committee process, because I thought they initiated a useful conversation. I also wanted, I guess, to reassure the sporting codes that I think there are things in the Act that do go some way to addressing the concerns that they have.

The final comment I just wanted to make—because I think most of us would like to see this bill passed, if we can, before 1 p.m., particularly the Minister—was noting, in the report, the differing view from the Labour Party and the Green Party around class 4 gambling. There was supposed to be more work undertaken, and that would have removed TAB’s class 4 licence. I think that some of my colleagues, like Peeni Henare and Lemauga Lydia Sosene, have made some very good representations around the concerns that we have as a Labour Party about the impact of gambling products like pokies. Gambling products like betting on horse racing are far more regulated, are far safer, and cause significantly lower levels of harm for people. There would have been an opportunity here to take some steps and take some action around reducing the harm that comes from the use of class 4 pokies, which I’ve certainly seen in my community—some examples of significant harm that it causes to people in communities. We feel there’s a missed opportunity there. But, look, we are keen to see this bill, hopefully, passed before 1 p.m., and I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. We commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of this bill, a bill which goes a long way to supporting the racing industry in New Zealand, which is a big part of our DNA. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise just to say well done to all of those involved. This is a great bill. I did my time on the board of Hawke’s Bay Racing, and I know all of that team will be very pleased. I commend the bill to the House.

We’ve presented a legislative statement on the Invest New Zealand Bill.

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

I move, That the Invest New Zealand Bill be now read a third time.

Firstly, can I congratulate the Minister for Racing for the successful passage of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, unanimously, in the House.

I want to thank members for their contributions in the debate so far over previous weeks to this important piece of legislation. By establishing a dedicated agency, the bill helps to deliver on the Government’s growth objectives to attract more high-quality investment to New Zealand that is good for New Zealand and good for New Zealanders.

Invest New Zealand will streamline investment processes and provide a tailored support to international investors. This will deliver greater capital investment and infrastructure, help foster more innovation in key sectors, and attract world-leading talent to our shores. New Zealand produces world-class businesses with huge export potential. They’re looking for domestic and global partners to help them grow and compete, and international investors who have plenty of choices about where to invest around the world need to increasingly see global viability of opportunities in New Zealand, and for New Zealand to get on the radar with these investors.

This bill is about creating a smarter, more targeted approach to international investment attraction in New Zealand, streamlining processes and ensuring New Zealand competes for the best people, best ideas, and best capital to join New Zealanders—who also are the best people, have the best ideas, and best capital—to produce more together than we could by ourselves. Overseas experiences, notably in Ireland and Singapore, demonstrate the value of a focused investment attraction agency dedicated in achieving just that.

The objectives of Invest New Zealand include attracting foreign direct investment in high-potential sectors such as agritech, fintech, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing; attracting new research and development investment in New Zealand by multinational companies and encouraging global companies to expand their own R & D footprint here, individually and collectively in partnership with New Zealand companies; encouraging skilled professionals to enhance domestic capabilities and global connections; and identifying opportunities to streamline processes and to increase the capital available to invest in new and existing projects and enterprises.

The creation of the new agency is critical in stepping up New Zealand’s effort to attract investment, and we need to supercharge our economy. It will also boost the impact of the Government’s other economic growth initiatives, including reforms to the Overseas Investment Act and changes to the Active Investor Plus visa settings, which we have seen, this week, delivering significant investment into the New Zealand economy already.

Together, these initiatives will help unlock tens of billions of dollars in global investment opportunities and make New Zealand a more attractive and predictable destination for investors to grow our tech sectors, to grow our innovation and our R & D, and to help New Zealanders grow where they currently are restricted and unable to.

I want to recognise the officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work in supporting the passage of this bill through the House. I’d also like to recognise and thank New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and all of their staff for their ongoing work as the bill has moved through, in looking at the structure and supporting the creation of Invest New Zealand.

During the debates previously we heard much about concerns from members opposite, and I’m sure the next speaker from the Opposition will raise questions around whether or not Invest New Zealand is going to sell various things. This is a country that has always welcomed investment. We do best on the world stage when we cooperate with others. Invest New Zealand will do nothing more than that. Invest New Zealand is called invest; it’s not called sell. So I say to members opposite that, actually, the opportunity to achieve things that are good for New Zealand and good for all New Zealanders is something that we should be celebrating together. It is not too late for the Labour Party to show they support investment to grow the New Zealand economy by supporting this bill. Nevertheless, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much. People listening to the Minister’s speech may be sucked into thinking that this is going to be all good for New Zealand. Let’s put on the record that Labour has always supported good foreign investment into our economy and into our country; in fact, our history’s built on that. But we’re in a new world, and we say that Invest New Zealand is a glorified real estate agency selling New Zealand and New Zealand intellectual property (IP) and opportunities—it’s not the right time for something like this. The passage of this bill under urgency—remember, this is under urgency without proper parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be passed today at the end of these speeches.

But we have in the House as well, introduced yesterday, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. What that bill does is take away the requirement of a benefit to New Zealand test for many overseas investment propositions into our country. They have been previously scrutinised by the Overseas Investment Office, but the Government is now going to move to shift responsibility for some of those tricky decisions and put them in the hands of officials, making it easier for investment to flow into New Zealand.

Now, historic times would have said that that would have provided better benefit for New Zealand when we needed the capital. We are living now in a world where there are trillions of dollars floating around the world looking for a place to park. Our ancestors and, indeed, us in recent times have worked hard through COVID times, through difficult times, to build a reasonably secure economy, systems with integrity, reasonably high trust, and a place where people can invest their money with some certainty. New Zealanders have saved. In fact, we’ve saved to the point through the superannuation funds, KiwiSaver, ACC—these are initiatives put in place often by Labour Governments to build the level of savings within our own economy, to have a level of capital that enables us to invest in our own future. That has not always been the case. So setting up Invest New Zealand to just bring more money into this country, without the proper tests, checks, and balances that we’ve had in the past does open the door for the scouring out of opportunities for future New Zealanders.

Whether we sell businesses, whether we sell IP, whether we sell land or homes is a critical component of the future prosperity of our country. We have a low productivity economy. There are claims that we haven’t invested enough in some areas of technology. I accept that and we have to work on that. The question is: who should do the investment and for what reasons?

Setting up Invest New Zealand is a broad objective just to bring more foreign investment into our country. Without the safeguards that the Minister refers to, he hopes—and there may be, but there’s no guarantees—that there will be benefit for our country. In fact, if you go to the regulatory impact statement, there are a lot of qualifications written in there by Treasury that say that money in itself doesn’t guarantee the progress that many people might assume might happen. In fact, the Minister assumes it will happen.

This Invest New Zealand agency is being paid for by, firstly, shutting down Callaghan Innovation; secondly, taking $11 million from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—a Government agency that has been tasked with developing enterprise in New Zealand, assisting them with trading and selling those wonderful products around the world, and also attracting, where necessary, investment into those enterprises. This coalition Government has now disconnected it.

I am astounded that New Zealand First has approved this. It’s been a party that for a long time has talked about protecting New Zealand’s sovereign rights, talked about protecting New Zealand businesses and enhancing their opportunities, and now is prepared to sell them out to make it harder for New Zealanders to compete for the IP, to compete for the properties or the businesses, enabling foreigners to come in, outbid them because they have access to cheaper capital, and to make it difficult for young New Zealanders to get ahead in our own country. That’s indeed why we see 191, every day, hopping on a plane and going to Australia—because this Government is not offering them any hope.

Invest New Zealand—this piece of legislation is opening the door to more foreigners, more competition from foreign capital to develop a better future for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. If you read the regulatory impact statement, the statement in there—

It’s good.

—you’ll see—oh, the member says this is all really good. Well, he may not be so happy when his children hop on a plane and go overseas because they don’t see a future for themselves in our country. We want to see New Zealanders invest in themselves, and I think one of the questions that should be asked, had we had a proper select committee process, would be: could we use our superannuation funds, our KiwiSaver funds, in our own country to invest in the businesses that require the capital—and I accept that that is necessary—delivering us a better long-term alternative than foreign investors, where people bringing the money in will have the rightful opportunity to take the returns on that money through dividends and indeed sell on to whoever they like.

The issue of ownership and its importance to us as a country, to individuals, as business owners or homeowners, is a critical question that needs to be asked and answered. Does ownership matter? Do we require high levels of foreign investment without the checks and balances that we’ve previously had in place? Do we need that money to develop a better future for New Zealand? The Labour Party has always advocated for smart foreign direct investment in our economy, developing greenfields projects, assisting us to grow our businesses, but not simply bringing capital in to inflate the values of farmland, of business, of homes. All of this will occur unless we have proper checks and balances.

The piece of legislation that sits alongside, as the Minister referred to it, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is one that is going through; it is going to a select committee, and we welcome the opportunity. We’ll be asking the questions there, but this Invest New Zealand piece of legislation that we’re dealing with at the third reading, which is going through the House today, heard under urgency, without checks and balances, without an ability to ask the hard questions, is simply opening the door to unchecked foreign investment in our country.

I urge people to take the opportunity to submit on the piece of legislation that will go to the select committee to, hopefully, make some changes to bolster the checks and balances that will be needed to protect the rights of New Zealanders now and into the future. We understand the value of capital, but capital in itself, without a highly skilled workforce, without the proper regulations and environmental protections that we need, will not deliver a better New Zealand for New Zealanders into the future.

I say that, once again, Labour is a party that has assisted to develop New Zealand, will continue to welcome foreign investment, but not through the through the set-up of an agency without the checks and balances, which I fear will be the reality for Invest New Zealand. This is a real estate agency that is set up to sell New Zealand, to sell New Zealand ideas and businesses without the checks and balances, to ensure that our sovereign rights, our sovereign objectives of building a better, more sustainable country into the future are kept in place. Labour doesn’t support this bill, because it has not ensured that protections that we need around foreign investment will be in place through this process.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

The House is resumed. I’m sure that members will want to join me in welcoming the delegation from the Public Accounts Committee of Malaysia’s House of Representatives, who are present with us in the gallery today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose the Invest New Zealand Bill. Now, for context, this is, again, one of those bills that was introduced under urgency. I think, from the Greens’ perspective, the biggest concern we have with this bill is, because it was introduced under Budget urgency, there was no consultation and, effectively, we’re creating an entirely new Crown entity with no consultation and no genuine advice given. And we will talk more about that advice as part of my contribution.

First of all, one of the things that we do see in terms of the regulatory impact statement is that there is no guarantee that this particular Crown agency is going to work. There are a lot of assumptions and there is a lot of hope. Now, during the committee of the whole House stage, we did engage with the Minister, as well as during scrutiny week; we also engaged with the Minister, on this particular thing. One of the things that we asked consistently is how many one-stop-shops do we really need? Because there has been far too much time and energy and, to be fair, taxpayers’ money being wasted creating entities such as this one-stop-shop, when there are other one-stop-shops. There was no clarity that the Minister was able to provide, for example—and also advice that was given by Education New Zealand being, essentially, the advertisement agency on promoting New Zealand education internationally, and also potentially looking at drawing that. Yes, I agree that—and that might have to do more with what New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) is currently doing. But even if we’re looking at Immigration New Zealand, there is no advice that was being asked of Immigration New Zealand in light of all of these changes the Government is making in terms of investment visa types. I find that lack of consultation concerning and appalling.

During the committee stage, we also didn’t hear from the Minister—and we asked consistently, over and over again—what was the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). Because, apparently, according to the regulatory impact statement, MFAT advice was sought but it wasn’t included because they didn’t respond in time. We asked the Minister in the chair, what was that advice, and we didn’t get any response, other than political statements. That was, essentially, our experience of the committee stage, and the only opportunity that members of this House have had to question anyone about this particular bill.

The other concern that we have is according to the regulatory impact statement itself, that they were looking at paragraph 4 on page 6: “New Zealand ranks 26th out of 37 OECD countries in its per capita spending on research and development.” Now, the fine print of this is that this is looking at per capita spending by the Government, predominantly. Again, the Government could be like, “Oh, look, with hope, inshallah, that Invest New Zealand may be able to draw in foreign investment, who then may spur on New Zealand innovation and enterprise, who may fund for some of the things.” Again, like a lot of the things this Government does under urgency, we are looking at simply thoughts and prayers. There is no empirical evidence to suggest this is something that will work.

What we do know is that we rank 26th out of 37 OECD countries on per capita spending on research and development. And the bulk funding for this particular Crown agency comes out of the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation, which is one of the main funders of local and domestic innovation and entrepreneurship. That funding—that $40-odd million funding—is gone. And not only do we see this huge defunding in the arts and humanities space, but leaves a huge gap for the STEM subjects here in Aotearoa to source Government funding. I don’t think that our stats in the OECD are going to improve as a result of this bill. In fact, I think that concern that is in paragraph 4 of the regulatory impact statement will only exacerbate as a result of this.

In terms of other areas of this bill, I think one of the fundamental concerns that we have is while going through the committee stage, there’s still a lack of clarity in terms of exactly what is going to be the performance measures and the outcomes being sought. Yes, we understand, Invest New Zealand—it is in the title. Although I would more accurately call it “Divest New Zealand”. But there is no benchmark; it’s a complete unknown quantity when we’re looking at performance measures of this. All we do know is that, again, we’re taking a huge amount of money out of New Zealand. The price, in some ways—OK, I get it, you want New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to focus on trade and enterprise and, basically, export in many ways, whereas you want Invest New Zealand to look at export and import. You want Invest New Zealand to look more at pure overseas investment. That’s fine, but at least the minimum is to have some sort of performance measures that we’re able to say, “Is this particular agency”—this new particular Crown entity that’s going to take up $86 million—“actually going to meet any form of target?” We don’t have any such stats or data.

We’ve heard that, on one hand, the Government want to draw foreign investment but, at the same time, we don’t address the fact of why aren’t we promoting local investment and domestic investment. As part of the scrutiny week last week, we were told by officials that there are $438 billion—I think was the number that we were given—in foreign investments from New Zealand going out to other places; the New Zealand Superannuation Fund being one of the biggest ones when we were looking at that. Actually, from a New Zealand Super Fund perspective, very little of that is looking at domestic investment. If we’re asking overseas investors to invest in New Zealand, why aren’t we looking at our own investment structure first; for local and buy local, right? That was supposed to be the aim of some of these. At the same time, when we were looking at wanting to attract international talent, we want to attract all of these things, but, in just this week alone, we have seen a new immigration bill being introduced where the Government is going to place another tax on people applying for visas to come here in Aotearoa New Zealand because, and I quote, and unsubstantiated, they’re going to put education and health burdens on our already failing system.

So there are a lot of contradictions in terms of exactly what the Government is looking for when they are talking about investment, when they are looking at growth. But, at the end of the day, when we are looking at the Invest New Zealand Bill, through the hearings in scrutiny week, and also through discussions we had in the committee stage, fundamentally it sounds like what the Government is looking for is for overseas investors to bail New Zealand out of the slump that we’re currently in. But in all honesty, there are better ways to do that. Overseas investors are going to be taken along anyway. They are going to invest in New Zealand because there is investment and there’s profit to be made. Why aren’t we giving those opportunities to people here?

We have mentioned in terms of the Treasury’s very conservative estimate of the upper threshold of 90 percent before we get into risk of defaulting. If we factor in 40 percent for shock in the event of an emergency, that still leaves us a debt ceiling of 50 percent that we are able to do. But the Government has chosen, as a political choice, to limit our domestic investment and our domestic debt to 20 percent. We could invest locally, but we choose not to. So the Green Party will not support this bill.

Fortunately for New Zealand, the ACT Party and the rest of our coalition do support this bill. What does it do? People say, “Why do we need Invest New Zealand?” We’ve heard, from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: “Why do we need Invest New Zealand?” Well, because New Zealand has historically lacked a dedicated agency, a front door for investors. Responsibilities were fragmented across the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and regional development bodies. Invest New Zealand brings them all together in one place.

We need access to capital to power economic growth. We need lots and lots of capital—billions and billions of dollars—coming from overseas investors to support the delivery of major projects, like Christchurch Men’s Prison public-private partnership (PPP). If three strikes means that more people are going to be locked up for longer, we’re going to need to build more prisons. It would be very helpful if we had long-term capital to assist us. We’ve heard the Northern Corridor highway project—another public-private partnership—has attracted three international consortiums, partnered with Kiwi companies, design and construction firms, to deliver a major highway. That’s going to take billions of dollars in overseas capital on the table to pay for contractors, pay for materials, as the project gets built. We can only do that kind of thing if we have other people’s money to help supplement our own capital.

Invest New Zealand is a pillar of this Government’s Going For Growth agenda. It’s part of our economic strategy. It’s part of a transformation agenda aimed at improving productivity and improving national resilience—

Sell everything!

—Damien O’Connor—via additional capital and innovation—

Sell your grandmother!

—Damien O’Connor, I’ll get to you in a minute—global best practice in the way that we triage and test whether people’s investment intentions are good for New Zealand. Ireland and Singapore got it right, Damien O’Connor. They have benefited from focused investment attraction agencies.

Are they richer than New Zealand?

They are richer than New Zealand, Dan Bidois. For New Zealand to compete globally, it must offer, Damien O’Connor, a predictable and appealing place to invest, an environment that investors aren’t worried about sovereign risk. Invest New Zealand is also highly complementary to existing policies and new policies this Government is introducing—amendments to the Overseas Investment Act which will stop treating investors like terrorists and start treating them like a taonga, because the treasure they bring to New Zealand is a taonga, Damien O’Connor. It makes New Zealand a more attractive place, for more people.

We’ve heard from the Opposition—ideological Damien O’Connor; incoherent, anti-growth, anti - foreign investment. That previous Government wrecked investor confidence in New Zealand. By cancelling oil and gas exploration, they undermined energy security and capital growth. This bill is a corrective measure. You could think of it like New Zealand being a patient that has been in ICU because of the previous Government’s abuse of New Zealand. This is going to revive confidence. It’s going to restore economic momentum. We’ve heard O’Connor say that Invest New Zealand is a glorified real estate agency selling New Zealand and our intellectual property (IP) and opportunities. Do you know what? I think it’s fantastic that New Zealanders who come up with bright ideas get to sell them. They get to take them, maybe, to overseas stock markets, they get to raise capital through initial public offerings, and they actually get to go out there and prove why New Zealand is a good place to invest. Our IP is a taonga too, and we should be allowed to make money off of it.

We’ve heard this fearmongering about foreigners buying New Zealand assets. That is emotional and ideological; it’s not practical. It’s not going to help us. We’ve also heard the incoherency. Today, Labour’s infrastructure spokesperson, Kieran McAnulty, said he was at the Infrastructure Symposium—

Is he the new one?

He is the new one; that’s right. I don’t know what happened to the last one. She spoke at the infrastructure investment conference and, the next thing you know, they’d stripped the portfolio off her. Maybe it’s because she started to make too much sense!

Shepherd’s hooked off the stage.

“Shepherd’s hooked off the stage,” says the former dairy farmer from Murupara. Today, we heard Kieran McAnulty say that, actually, Labour would support public-private partnerships, which means inwards foreign investment, Damien O’Connor. What we hear, in the House, is that certain MPs are absolutely incoherent, maybe haven’t got the memo that New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly for a change of direction, for a Government that is rational when it comes to inwards investment.

This is a welcoming and respecting approach to private capital, institutional capital. Those banks, those insurers—they might be from Canada. They might want to build us a light rail. Who knows, they might want to build us a highway to Northland and unlock jobs and investment and growth and better homes and better education opportunities. That’s what infrastructure does. That is why ACT supports this bill. We are going to pass it this afternoon, and New Zealand, New Zealanders, our businesses, our future is going to be assured. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First will also support this Invest New Zealand Bill. Actually, it is a pretty simple bill. It’s setting up separate Crown agencies. It’s a very functional bill. Invest New Zealand will be a one-stop shop—

What happened to the old New Zealand First?

No, I’m going to get to you, the Hon Damien O’Connor, in a minute because I do think there are a few scores that need to be settled here. But this is, essentially, a one-stop shop that facilitates overseas capital investment into New Zealand.

We have a massive infrastructure deficit. We are needing to drive growth. We do need that access to expertise and to foreign markets—which I think we established in last night’s bill—that New Zealand does need and that we are chasing, as a Government. It already exists, this particular entity; it just sits within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE). So this is an issue of just getting NZTE focused on growing our exports, and the outward-facing Invest New Zealand very much a shop front for the overseas capital looking to enter New Zealand.

Damien O’Connor will be pleased because, actually, the stuff that he’s been talking about was in the national interest test bill that came through last night, and he will be relieved to know, I’m sure, that the national interest test is retained—it has been streamlined, but it is retained—for those sensitive strategically important national assets. We have ring-fenced farmland, we have ring-fenced fishing quota, and we have ring-fenced the family home, so there’s no need to catastrophise.

But I’m actually very pleased that he has taken an interest in this particular issue. It is a bit belated because he was nowhere to be seen—he talked about selling his grandmother, or he was accusing Simon Court of selling his grandmother. Well, I do recall that in the last term of Parliament that I was here, the Westland dairy co-op under his watch, which was a family owned company on the West Coast that I know that both he and yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor—your families had an interest in. That is now under Chinese ownership with the Yili Co., so it is a belated interest in this, actually, because he was nowhere to be seen, or he was certainly not effective in stopping that transaction. I can recall quite vividly that the Provincial Growth Fund and Shane Jones did try to get a rescue package to that particular company, but that’s now in Chinese ownership. So people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones on this particular issue around foreign investment.

But we are digressing. This is actually a very simple bill. It sets up the structure of Invest New Zealand, the board structure, and the details that sit below that. It will help to facilitate sensible foreign capital investment in New Zealand that will help us grow our economy and build infrastructure, and New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter—a five-minute call.

At risk of repeating myself in previous speeches on this bill, I have to say that the whole idea of Invest New Zealand is like an episode of Utopia, which is a satirical Australian show about the Public Service—and it just reminds me, like I can just imagine Christopher Luxon coming up with this, and maybe the officials who advised him: “I know. I’ve got an idea. I know how we can grow productivity here in New Zealand. Let’s set up an agency and I’ll call it ‘Invest New Zealand’, and it will go around the world and attract all those wonderful, benevolent foreign investors who will come build our infrastructure for us”—

Free money.

Free! It’s the magical money tree that they’re always saying doesn’t exist, but they do think it exists; they think it’s foreign investors, but they are so ridiculous and confused in proposing an agency called “Invest New Zealand”. Virtually all of the Government speakers on the third reading of this bill have referred to public infrastructure projects that this is meant to be a gateway to attract foreign investment into. And yet less than a year ago, they set up an entirely separate different agency called NIFFco, whose express purpose is to be the shop front for investment, private investment, into public infrastructure.

Even when I asked the Minister for Infrastructure at select committee, “Wait, where do the investors go? If they’re foreign investors, do they go to NIFFCo, or do they go to Invest New Zealand?”, and he made it very clear: “No, no,”—the Minister for Infrastructure said—“go to NIFFCo.” So it’s almost like the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of trade are competing here, setting up separate agencies to be the shop-front for foreign investors. It’s a big competition, where we’re setting up multiple bureaucratic agencies and spending tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars?—on people who are going to go out and court these foreign investors, rather than investing that money in capacity and capability, in science and research, in housing, in education, in the things that actually make a nation productive and actually grow our own capability to develop the things that are good for New Zealand.

This is the nature of this coalition Government, that they have no imagination—well, actually, it’s not so much imagination, although they probably are lacking imagination. But they seem wilfully ignorant about what actually supports economic development and productivity, because it doesn’t match their ideological preferences and the preferences of the people they represent: their donors, who want to continue milking the various ways they can sit and make money off of real estate, for example, just owning a bunch of houses and renting them out and charging a fortune in rent—not actually improving the facilities—and being able to kick out tenants any time they want.

They want to create—they want to continue to develop a New Zealand that is basically an oligarchy. It is; it’s like a feudal oligarchy, where there’s a small percentage of people at the top who get all of the money, and then there’s the workers down there at the bottom who don’t have any rights and who they can exploit. And then, somehow, the foreign investors are going to come to New Zealand and give us money. Never mind the fact that we’re going to have to pay back a higher return to any foreign investors than we would if the Crown itself was borrowing for productive infrastructure.

Then the other big talking point I hear from the Government side is how we have an infrastructure deficit. Well, one thing’s very clear: not a single person over there has read or understands the Infrastructure Commission’s draft National Infrastructure Plan that was announced today. Because what it says is we’ve been spending too much money on roads, and it says we need to spend less money on roads and more money on maintenance and renewals of our infrastructure. That’s what that report says. And it looks at other countries—says we’re not spending enough money probably on rail compared to other countries we would compare ourselves to.

All of this is like basic common sense to anyone outside of New Zealand right-wing commentators. If you go to any other country in the world, the centre-right parties actually understand that it makes sense to invest in our urban infrastructure that moves people and goods, not just cars. They understand that you invest in social housing, public housing, we invest in education. Lots of countries that we’d like to be like—they actually spend money on pure science, research and development, not trying to make everything a commercial model, not trying to make their universities commercial models for making money but, rather, actually investing in research, development, education of our people.

Because if we have educated people, it’s a risk to the right in New Zealand, because educated people tend not to vote for the right-wing parties, don’t they? Because they actually understand and care about how the world works and aren’t simply trying to prop up a failed Ponzi scheme where the 1 percent get all the benefit.

The first bit of money that Invest New Zealand can find is to dig the second tunnel through Mt Victoria, the same tunnel that that member for Rongotai goes to Seatoun and suggests that she’s all for the second tunnel through Mt Vic, but when she’s in Island Bay she’s against the tunnel. I commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Party opposes this bill and has done so right from when it was first introduced. I want to remind the members of how this bill was introduced and the process since then, because it reveals something. This bill was introduced under urgency—under urgency. What that meant was that on 22 May—because apparently it was very urgent for this bill to get passed all the way through as soon as possible—we had the first reading of this bill. Then we had the second reading of this bill. Then we had the committee stage of this bill. Then—well, apparently it wasn’t urgent anymore.

Now, we argued, extensively, that there should at least be a short—even a short—select committee process for this bill. But the Minister for Trade and Investment and the members of the Minister’s party and the people on the other side of the House assured us we had to get this through under urgency. We got to the end of 22 May—as I recall, by then it was about Saturday, 24 May in the real world—got to the end of Budget urgency, the House rose. We had not had the third reading of this bill; they had elected to defer it. So I thought, oh well, they did say it was urgent. I get that urgency was coming to an end. Then we were back in this House in the week beginning 3 June. A sitting week, legislation going through this House. Was this bill on the Order Paper, the third reading of this bill? Nope.

So from 22 May, right through to the end of May, through early June, waiting, waiting, waiting, right through until now. In terms of this bill, which was apparently so urgent that it had to go through in Budget urgency, crickets.

We could have had a select committee process.

Well, we could have had a select committee process in that time, even a short one, to iron out some of the difficulties in this bill. We could have had a select committee process to examine some of the policy motivations for this bill. It turns out there was time for a short select committee process because this bill has not reappeared in this House until today—a month and three days after we were first told that it was incredibly urgent and it had to be done right now.

That side has abused the urgency process, and this bill is an example of that. The crickets, the nothing doing, the nothing happening shows exactly why, on this side of the House, whenever they move urgency, we oppose it, and we fight it all the way, because that was an abuse of process.

We have solid reasons for our opposition to this bill. On the face of it, the idea looks good—that we want to drive investment in this country. You know, that seems on the surface—of course we want to do that. Of course we want to see our country growing. Of course we want to find mechanisms by which we can finance the projects we think we all need to engage in. But I do not think that this is the way to do it.

Even if we look at the Government’s own regulatory impact statement and looking at the policy options they put up, here was the problem. They said, “We would like to have more foreign direct investment in New Zealand.” Now, leaving aside whether or not that’s a good thing in itself, if you’re going to do that, then how could that be achieved? Well, they said, “You could just stick with status quo.” That’s the counterfactual. “You could make some improvements to existing institutional arrangements.” Seems fair enough. “You could focus on the general business settings and try to improve the attractiveness of New Zealand as an investment destination.”, or “You could establish a dedicated foreign direct investment agency.”, the preferred option.

But looking at the analysis of that, it’s quite clear that the only advantage of the Government’s preferred option is that it sends a strong positive signal to the international market. It’s an advertising gimmick. They are going to spend $86 million of our money, taking money away from science, and spend it on an advertising gimmick. That’s the only advantage that their option has in the regulatory impact statement.

They do say, as well, that other countries—around about the same size as us and so on, which want to have foreign direct investment—do have dedicated foreign direct investment agencies. The comparators they give: Ireland and Singapore. Ignoring that Ireland is part of the European Union. Ignoring that Ireland is an island country, like us, but sits just offshore from the European continent. Ignoring that one of the reasons that Ireland attracts so much foreign direct investment is its extraordinarily low corporate tax rate, which has some countries describing it as a tax haven. That’s why a comparison with Ireland is not such a flash one.

Then when it comes to Singapore, the analysis that just compares us to Singapore ignores the fact that Singapore has a very low-waged class of indentured workers; ignores the fact that Singapore provides large amounts of State-subsidised housing to its citizens; ignores the fact that Singapore, for all the surface detail, is not a democracy. It is not a straightforward combination to compare us to Singapore.

So the regulatory impact statement itself does not lend strong support to the Government’s preferred option. In fact, the extraordinary thing is that the Government’s preferred option of a dedicated foreign direct investment agency has been tried before, and it failed. They couldn’t remember, didn’t have the institutional knowledge to be able to tell us about it. But those of us who’ve got friends who worked in the agencies at the time know that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise used to have this separate agency, separately funded outside. There was an entity called—wait for it—not Investment New Zealand, but Invest New Zealand. But it wasn’t achieving what it needed to achieve and, eventually, the Government of the time realised that it would be better folded back into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise itself. You know, this strategy has been tried before, and it failed. They cannot tell us why we should try it again.

So then, in terms of this particular entity, I think there are some serious, serious concerns about the nature of the foreign direct investment into New Zealand. Now, we might be rolling out a welcome mat—could be a good idea, might not. But in actual fact, the member from ACT, who spoke just previously, pointed to one of the huge dangers. He said, “We’re going to put lots of poor people in prison; therefore, we’re going to need to build a bigger prison. What a great place for foreign direct investment.”

It is appalling to think of private investment in prisons. Prisons represent us locking up people and taking away their freedom. It is the hardest punishment we can hand out in this society. We should be extraordinarily careful about the conditions in which we lock people up. The punishment is not harsh living. The punishment is not hard work. The punishment is loss of freedom—the punishment is loss of freedom. It does not need to come with the sorts of practices that we know are prevalent in private prisons overseas. That’s the kind of foreign direct investment they want. They should be ashamed of that.

Then the particular member who spoke talked about, he said, “Oh my God”—this was verging on hysteria, really, talking about sovereign risk, that “New Zealand had become as synonymous with sovereign risk.” What a ridiculous thing to say. This is a country with a strong rule of law. This is a country with a really rigorous and highly respected court system. This is a country with a good, solid currency. This is a country which has all—all—the factors that make it attractive for direct and foreign investment. Why? Because people know that their investments here can be secure. So to say that we have a high sovereign risk here is just absolutely ridiculous.

So in terms of getting foreign direct investment into this country, it could be a good thing. We think it’s a worrying thing because of the nature of the investments that might come along. But in terms of this particular policy, this policy has failed once before. This policy fails the analysis and the Government’s own regulatory impact statement. This policy simply will not work. It’s $86 million down the drain. That Government should be ashamed.

This is a great bill, and all I’ve really heard from the Opposition—I think deep down they want to support it, but I’ve heard from Damien O’Connor calling it a “real estate shop front” and Deborah Russell calling it an “advertising gimmick”. But I look forward to, in two years’ time, when we start to get some of the infrastructure rolled out and deployed across this country, coming back and reminding them that they voted against it. I commend this bill.

Five-minute split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill and this debate in the House this afternoon are very revealing about the true nature of the National Party and their coalition colleagues, the ACT Party.

There are two, I think, significant concerns that we have on this side of the House. The first is that what this bill does is establish a new agency and, on the face of it, nothing is wrong with that, but how is it being done? It’s being done by plundering the budget that is there for research and science and technology, by taking money from what was Callaghan Innovation and also really carving out a whole lot of resource from what is a high-performing organisation with a fantastic track record—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—in order to fund what, on the face of it, looks like a vanity project that’s set up to promote sales.

I think this says a lot about the National Party. They are the sales department of New Zealand. They’re taking money away from organisations that are there to improve productivity through investing in science and innovation, and plundering a high-performing organisation that has a track record of actually attracting high-quality investment for New Zealand firms and helping New Zealand firms tap into global markets, to create a sales department. That is the mentality of the modern National Party.

I think if it wasn’t because of those things, and if it wasn’t for all the other information that’s available—including the content of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill going through the House, or having gone through the House—we probably would feel that setting up this new shop front to promote New Zealand as a destination for foreign direct investment wouldn’t be so obnoxious. But, actually, when you look at what this Government has done and is doing and is talking about in relation to foreign investment, it is cause for alarm.

They’re infatuated with the idea that if we attract rich people to come to New Zealand, somehow we’re all going to get wealthier. You can see this in the main media announcements made by the Government, by Erica Stanford, for example, for the new so-called active investor visa. They’ve dumbed it down so an investor only has to be here for one week a year for three years. They’ve dumbed down the requirements to make active investments that might generate jobs and exports for New Zealand firms. Foreign investors can buy residence now, thanks to this Government, by simply parking $3 million in a managed fund, and then, once they get their residence after three years, they can tutu off with a residence visa in their passport and they never have to come back again, unless, of course, they’re wanting a bolt hole in New Zealand for their retirement. They are so absolutely infatuated with trying to get our rich people into New Zealand, as if that will boost our economy.

We’ve seen in the Budget $200 million of corporate welfare for mining and gas companies—$200 million to promote the very kind of extractive petrochemical industries that we should be trying to get out of in order to meet our climate change requirements and commitments. The palpable enthusiasm on that side of the House for getting rid of the ban on overseas buyers of residential property so that New Zealanders when they’re buying a home—whether it’s a modest three-bedroom home in the suburbs or whether it’s a $5 million home on the shores of Lake Wakatipu—will have to be competing in a global market. The Ministers have made it quite clear that’s what they want to do and that they are talking with coalition partners to try and achieve that. So I say to the members: don’t look so shocked and innocent, but it’s actually your Ministers who are talking about that policy.

Time and time and time again in this debate, we’ve heard Government MPs stand up and say that the great benefit of this is that we’re going to have foreigners coming here to invest in our infrastructure, our transport infrastructure, oblivious to the fact that it’s not a financing problem that we have; it’s a funding problem. There is a tonne of finance around, but when you access it privately, you pay more than if the Government borrows it. The problem is the funding to pay back those loans, and foreign direct investment doesn’t help that at all. That is the problem that we have.

To put it on record: foreign investment is a good thing and it helps grow our economy. If we can’t agree on that simple fact across this House, then I’m sorry, this country’s future is screwed. New Zealand has a woeful rate of foreign direct investment, and this bill seeks to turn that around. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to oppose this bill. I must say, it is a privilege to return to this House but sometimes it does feel like I’ve wandered down the rabbit hole in terms of how law is being made and how the rationale is being set out. I think the committee stage of this bill truly felt like I’d wandered down the rabbit hole because there were so many questions left unanswered. I do wish that the Government had listened to the many, many, amendments that were proposed—very sensibly—by this side of the House, and taken them on board, but they didn’t. I want to walk through some of the concerns I had at the end of that committee stage, when my questions should have been answered—when members on this side’s questions should have been answered.

The first was, I think, the odd governance arrangements for the statutory board that we discussed at committee stage. I am going to spend a little bit of time on this because I think, on picking up the bill, what first struck me was that this is the creation of a Crown entity under urgency. Crown entities are rather special things in terms of our democratic architecture because there’s a need to ensure that the boards are kept independent; governance structure is extremely important.

So why don’t we start with the governance structure of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), where the current Invest New Zealand is being incubated, because that gives us more of what I would say is a traditional model for what governance architecture would be. We have section 19 of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act, which allows the Minister to appoint a special adviser to the board. Section 19(2) sets out who those special advisers can be. It can either be the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development, and it could be both of them at the same time. Now, we’ll notice there that the legislation is actually very specific about which chief executives can be appointed as special advisers. The reason is, you would not want to appoint the chief executive officer of the entity itself as a special adviser to the board of that entity. That would create two issues: one, it would mean that the Minister would, in effect, have almost a governance shadow in the boardroom, which would be inappropriate; the other thing that would be inappropriate about that would be that it would muddy the waters of the governance relationship between the board, who appoint the chief executive, and the chief executive who’s there to report to the board, not to be there as the Minister’s adviser. OK? So this Act has it correct. I think the governance arrangements are absolutely fine.

The problem we have with the Invest New Zealand Bill is it also has powers to appoint a special adviser. These powers are different. It is currently contained in clause 13 and reads that “The Minister may appoint the chief executive as a special advisor to the Board” and “The special advisor must not give directions”—but they can just appoint the chief executive. Now, the interesting thing to note here is that there is no specific chief executive who has been appointed. The language in clause 13 is very general. So what you’d do then, of course, is you would go to the Interpretation section where chief executive is defined, and it says this: “chief executive means the chief executive of the department.” Which department? This is a question that came up in committee stage. It’s a question that Dr Deborah Russell and I both asked the Minister in the chair, and we raised concerns about a governance system where you would have the chief executive of that entity—so, of Invest New Zealand—also being appointed as the special adviser, for the two reasons that I set out earlier.

The Minister in the chair then responded advising that it would be the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I was so perplexed by this that I went back and checked the Hansard, and it was the Minister’s response on 4 June, her fourth response to Part 2. She says: “I will respond to that question because it is … pertinent … to confirm … appointing a head of [a] department responsible for the administration of a bill or an Act, and the Crown entity, as a special adviser to that Crown entity board is indeed common. In this instance, it will be the Secretary for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment … who will be appointed as a special adviser to the board of Invest New Zealand.”

So here’s the problem: we’ve either got a situation where the Minister is correct that it will be and it should be the chief executive of MBIE, which would be more appropriate in terms of the governance function. But we then have an error in the law; we’ve got an error in the bill because it simply doesn’t say that. That’s our first problem. The alternative gives us our second problem. Let’s say the Minister in the chair was wrong and the bill sits as is. We then have an unacceptable governance situation, in my view, in terms of the Crown Entities Act, which doesn’t allow independence of the board. It puts the Minister’s shadow in the room, and it muddies the water in terms of the governance relationship between the board and the chief executive.

Now, this all sounds extremely dull, but it is incredibly important when you are allocating $80 million to create a new Crown entity at a time when the Government are telling us that we need to make hard choices, at a time when the Government are telling us there are a number of things that they can’t do. I’m sorry, but you do need to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. This is a prime example of a piece of legislation that should not have gone through urgency, and it looks to me like rather a serious mistake has been made.

The second problem I hit during committee stage was that it felt, to me, like a process of backwards lawmaking. The documents themselves acknowledged the fact that key decisions had been made before an analysis of the options was taken. There was a decision that this was going to go ahead before there was true analysis of the four options that were set out in the spreadsheet. I think that is extremely problematic. It’s extremely problematic generally, but it’s also extremely problematic in light of the fact that we heard the Government introduce that they were incubating Invest New Zealand within NZTE in, I think, December or January. There was plenty of time to be able to start that process to allow for consultation with people to rectify governance issues within the body of the legislation, and ensure that—if the intent was to have the CEO of MBIE, the Secretary of MBIE, in that special advisory role—that was specified in the legislation. The Government simply did not do that.

The third problem—and colleagues have mentioned this but I do think it’s important—is that within the course of committee of the whole House it was very clear that the problem statement identified hadn’t sufficiently linked itself to the solution that this Government have chosen. Essentially, the problem statement is that there isn’t sufficient investment in particular things that we want investment in. Now, that could be infrastructure; it could be other things as well. But the fact of the matter is that the legislation doesn’t direct investment into particular things; it just opens the door. I’m sorry, but if the intention is to direct investment, to truly direct it, then there’s an opportunity to do that within the body of good legislation. Again, my big beef here—I do have ideological problems with some of this, but my big beef here is that this is a Government who are not using the processes that are available to them to get us to a state where we have legislation that can stand and stay responsibly on the books.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there seems to be a problem, on the other side of the House, accepting that foreign investment can lead to jobs. A very quick example: in the great electorate of Northland, there’s a township called Mangawhai. There are three golf courses there, and guess what! They employ over 300 people, more than anyone else in the Mangawhai area, and that was built through foreign investment. So I respectfully say to the members opposite: take your heads out of that bunker sand and accept that foreign investment is good for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the independent monitoring of the children’s system and make it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. These changes intend to build public trust in monitoring and advocacy and improve governance of the oversight of the children’s systems. This bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, and I’d also like to put on record my gratitude to the members of the public and the organisations who provided both written and oral submissions to support the select committee process. This bill was informed not only by the recent submissions but by extensive consultation from the recent changes to the oversight of the children’s system that was made in 2022.

Feedback on the 2021 Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill raised concern about the monitor’s independence, suggesting that a departmental agency may not be seen as fully independent of political considerations. To respond to these concerns, this bill will change the institutional arrangements of the monitor to be an independent Crown entity to further strengthen its independence. Feedback on the 2021 bill also emphasised the idea of having a single individual acting in the role of advocate: in other words, having a clear Children’s Commissioner. So this bill addresses that concern by disestablishing the current five-member board model of the commission and, in its place, establishes a single Children’s Commissioner.

The recent submissions on this bill were broadly supportive of the intent to strengthen monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. The most widely supported change was the decision to make the monitor an independent Crown entity, which submitters viewed as vital for the monitor to effectively fulfil its monitoring function of the children’s system. This has been called for time and time again, including in previous feedback, and also in the final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The report called for robust independent oversight and monitoring of care as a critical way of ensuring that care providers fulfil their duties to people in care.

Some submissions expressed concern that reducing the board of the commission would result in less diverse perspectives in the governance of the entity. Having a sole Children’s Commissioner, however, does not preclude diversity and there are measures to ensure that wide-ranging perspectives are considered, including collaboration with Māori, which is set out in the bill. There are also clear functions that require the commission to promote the interests and wellbeing of children and young people, and encourage their participation on decisions that affect their wellbeing.

These changes to the commission and monitor must be viewed within the context of the entire monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. By creating more independent entities, the commission and monitor, along with the Ombudsman, will be better positioned to ensure diverse views are considered and address any gaps that may arise. Some of the submissions expressed concern about the timing for these changes given the current system came into effect in 2022. I do want to say, though, that these changes are structural changes rather than fundamentally changing the functions of the entities, which desperately needed simplification and clarification, which the previous legislation did. This was supported by the latest independent review of the legislation, which found that the functions and changes introduced in 2022 are working as intended and didn’t recommend making any significant changes at this point, given it will take time for the oversight system to mature.

To minimise any disruption to the two entities’ work, which are so important, the bill provides that the chief executive of the monitor will continue as chief executive of the new independent Crown entity for one year from the commencement of the bill, and the current Chief Children’s Commissioner will also become the first Children’s Commissioner for one year from the commencement of the bill. These continuations will balance the need for stability during a period of change as they go through these transitions over the next year.

Finally, some of the submissions asked to see clear consideration of Māori perspectives by the oversight entities. This is provided for in the current legislation by requiring the monitor to collaborate with a Māori advisory group and to make reasonable efforts to develop arrangements with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations for their monitoring. A similar provision also exists for the Children’s Commission by maintaining and building relationships with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations as part of their advocacy role. In addition, the responsible Minister must consider expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi when appointing someone as Children’s Commissioner, and these provisions will be retained under the new legislation.

During the committee of the whole House, an important addition to this bill will be made to strengthen accountability for agencies that are the subject of specific reports by the monitor. I want to also put on record my appreciation for the time and consideration that all members of this House have taken to strengthen this particular step.

This bill will amend the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act to require agencies and contracted non-Government organisations who provide care for children to complete additional reporting on their progress to improve their compliance with the Oranga Tamariki National Care Standards (NCS) regulations. These progress reports will be required four months after agencies provide their initial response to the monitor’s annual report on the NCS regulations. So, as I say, I appreciate parties in the House for their support on bringing this amendment at this time.

The bill also covers consequential and transition arrangements for the monitor and the commission to ensure smooth transition of these functions.

Overall, this bill strengthens the independent monitoring and oversight of the children’s system and makes it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. I see this as the next step in how we better protect and support children in care. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I, first and foremost, want to acknowledge all of the submitters who submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee on this bill. I also acknowledge that, Madam Speaker, you were a member of the select committee that heard the submissions on this bill. Our tamariki are our greatest taonga. Each and every one of them deserves to feel loved, connected to their family and communities, and proud of who they are. Unfortunately, our systems are falling short for our children, which is why this bill is so important. We need strong oversight mechanisms that advocate for children and keep track of where there is work to be done and where there is progress, or, as we just heard, where there may not be sufficient progress. I will come to the tabled amendment later on in my speech.

Can I say here that Labour supports this bill but, in supporting it, we do so with some reservations, and I’ll just outline what those reservations are. First, we are concerned about the return to a single Children’s Commissioner. When Labour established the Children’s Commission board, it was to provide greater diversity and advocacy and representation for our children. In the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s statement, we heard her address those issues and concerns, but I want to make it clear for the record that collaboration with Māori is not the same as having direct representation of Māori on that board. So we still hold the position that we would have preferred for the Children’s Commission—that it be made up of a board which has that diversity for advocacy and representation at that level.

We did this because we know that our tamariki and rangatahi would benefit from having people with a broad range of backgrounds and experiences advocating for them. And we know from the time that we have had this in place—and acknowledging that it is only a short time that it has been in place—there has never been any doubt or confusion, or lack of clarity or certainty, that when the Children’s Commissioner has presented those views, who that is and where that is coming from. So I believe that it is an unnecessary change to go back to a single Children’s Commissioner and that we are, unfortunately, after such a short amount of time, getting rid of something that could have enhanced the system even more. We know Māori children and children with disabilities disproportionately end up in State care, so strengthening the Children’s Commission with up to five commissioners was a way to bring wider representation to children’s diverse experiences in this country. On that note, can I encourage our current Children’s Commissioner, who I am pleased will be continuing for another year after this legislation has passed: kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui [be strong, be bold, and be stout of heart].

The second issue that I want to talk to is that we believe that the Independent Children’s Monitor, within the Education Review Office, had the independence required for such a crucial monitoring entity. When we asked these questions in the select committee process, it was clear to us that there wasn’t an issue of the Independent Children’s Monitor being able to do their work without being influenced or interfered with by anybody else—they have diligently carried out their work. So I hear what the Minister is saying: that through the consultation process and submission process in 2021, there were significant concerns about it not being fully independent, and therefore that perception does impact on the trust that people have on the organisation in its important role. What I hear from the Minister’s speech this afternoon is that these changes are more about its structure, not its substance; more about its form, not its function—because in terms of substance and function, it was able to do that and has produced useful reports about the children’s system. But in order to address those concerns raised in 2021 regarding pure independence, these changes are being proposed and being made and we support them.

Thirdly, I would like to point out, though, that there were a number of submissions which made reference to the royal commission’s report on abuse in State care and the recommendations that that report made, and the disappointment of many that the Government did not take this opportunity to address those recommendations and respond to those recommendations. So, as we heard, from the 2021-2022 time, there was information available then, but we’ve also had information since, and this legislation is perhaps a missed opportunity to have responded to the royal commission’s report into abuse in State care. In particular, recommendations 85, 86, and 87 of Whanaketia talk about these monitoring and oversight entities and what should happen in terms of those. One I’ve got highlighted here is “consolidate the existing care and protection and youth justice independent monitoring and oversight entities into a single entity.”

So, as it is, we currently have the independent Children’s Commissioner, the Independent Children’s Monitor, and the ombudsman all performing different functions, all in their separate spaces. I think that what we heard from submitters, and what I am sharing with the House this afternoon, is, unfortunately, this bill was a missed opportunity to address those recommendations. One of the things that the royal commission found was that there was a disjointed nature of our systems and that contributed to harm in care, and children and perpetrators fell through the oversight gaps. So the recommendations in Whanaketia were designed to join up the system and to close those gaps. So while I appreciate that the bill has a five-year review provision, five years is a long way off, and the timing of this bill was close enough to the tabling of Whanaketia for the royal commission’s recommendations to be given greater consideration as this bill progressed. The Government’s refusal to do this is indicative of their general approach to the royal commission: to do as little as they can get away with.

The conditions that the royal commission highlighted in their report still exist today. Last year, 519 children were harmed in State care. The children’s monitor and commissioner and ombudsman have played a crucial role in alerting us all to this fact and seek accountability, but this Government must also properly consider and implement the recommendations in Whanaketia if we have any hope of changing the system so that this harm stops.

I want to use the last minute or so to talk to the tabled amendment. We also just had a session with the Minister on the Independent Children’s Monitor in select committee where we asked questions about how we can monitor the progress that entities within the children’s system—many agencies, eight or nine agencies—make on the issues that are identified in these reports. I think that the message I want to leave here is that these reports do their work—their important work—they identify the issues for us, but once that’s happened, action is needed. So that accountability mechanism, I think, is an important addition, because what is the point of having a report if we can’t see and hold those agencies accountable to progress in terms of addressing the issues raised within it? We commend this bill to the House.

I rise today in support of this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. But I also remind the House that while this is a step forward, it is only a step and it cannot be the last. It cannot be the only action we take, because if we are serious about the safety, wellbeing, and mana of our tamariki, then we must be serious about the systems that fail them, the structures that oppress them, and the history that brought us to this point.

This bill makes necessary changes to enhance the oversight and monitoring system of our care system by establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity. It responds to issues that should never have existed in the first place—issues that have harmed generations of our most vulnerable. While it is right that we act to strengthen protections for tamariki, of course, we must not pretend that this bill alone will fix the deep systemic failures within Oranga Tamariki.

For the Greens, the existence of Oranga Tamariki itself is an admission of failure. It is an admission that our systems do not adequately support whānau to stay together; that we have built structures that intervene rather than structures that prevent harm in the first place. The tamariki of New Zealand deserve for us to do everything we can to prevent harm from happening—harm that is happening through no fault of their own.

Our country has allowed a State agency to take children, disproportionately Māori children, from their families rather than supporting those families with the resources, the care, and the wraparound support they need to thrive. The monitor’s work is a critical part of exposing these failures. Its latest report, Outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system is yet another stark and scathing reminder that—and I quote from the report—“tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are over-represented in the oranga tamariki system and the system is letting them down.”

Further to the monitor’s report, Experiences of Care in Aotearoa 2023/2024 is yet another stark reminder that our care system does not even meet the bare minimum of care required by law. The National Care Standards were meant to set a baseline, a promise to tamariki in State care that they would be safe, supported, and cared for, but the monitor has found that tamariki and rangatahi are still not even receiving that. My colleague previously reminded us that, in the previous year, over 500 tamariki and rangatahi were abused in State care. That is a system that remains broken. That is the State failing the very children it claims to protect. That should be unacceptable to every single person in this House.

The monitor is not just an oversight body; it is a mirror held up to the Government, to Oranga Tamariki, and to every agency responsible for the care and protection of our tamariki. It tells us year after year what tamariki in care are experiencing and what we are still failing to do. But a mirror is only useful if those looking into it are willing to change. Strengthening the monitor’s independence is a necessary step, but it cannot be the end goal because oversight alone does not protect children. Transparency alone does not create safe and thriving whānau. We must act on what we see in that mirror. We must ensure that the monitor has the power and resourcing needed to go even further to investigate, to make binding recommendations, and to drive systemic change. The work does not stop simply at documenting failures. It must lead to real reform.

My colleagues in Te Pāti Māori and Labour have rightly raised concerns about this bill, and the Greens stand alongside them in recognising that we must go further. The failures of Oranga Tamariki are not just failures of policy; they are failures of colonisation, of racism, and of an entire system built on the idea that the State knows what’s best when it comes to tamariki Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal has told us this. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care has told us this. Māori communities have told us this for decades. The independent monitor told us this just last week, and yet we are still here today debating incremental reforms rather than transformational change.

We cannot talk about protecting children without talking about the material conditions that drive families into crisis, without talking about poverty, housing, food insecurity, and underfunding of kaupapa Māori solutions. If we were truly serious about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of tamariki, we would be investing in a future where Oranga Tamariki is no longer needed, where no child is taken from their whānau because of poverty, when no family is left without support, where Māori solutions designed by and for Māori are fully resourced and embedded at every level. We must remove poverty from the home, not children.

This bill is an improvement, and that is why we support it. I acknowledge that the Green Party welcomes and supports the Minister’s amendment to this bill set out in Amendment Paper 292. These changes introduce new clause 6A, which requires chief executives to prepare progress reports on how they are responding to the monitor’s findings—reports that explain what’s changed, what’s to be actioned, and what remains outstanding. This is a necessary strengthening of accountability. It closes a loop that has too often remained open, and we thank the Minister for listening to advocates during the select committee. Hopefully, this will mean that the monitor will no longer issue report after report with little to no action being taken. Agencies must not only respond to the criticism but report back on the progress clearly, publicly, and on time.

These amendments would also require the monitor to publish these progress reports by the chief executive within 10 working days, which ensures transparency and timely scrutiny. This bill is an improvement, and we do support it, but let us not mistake legislative change for true transformation.

The work does not end here—it cannot end here, because if we truly want to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, if we truly want to build a future where all tamariki are safe, we must be willing to make bigger, bolder, and more radical steps.

The Greens will continue to fight for that future, a future where tamariki are safe not because the State intervenes but because we have built a society where they never needed intervention in the first place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—I see you’ve got a bit of a cold there still; hope you’re doing well. I rise in support of this bill. Currently, we know that the monitor is part of a departmental agency, and this piece of legislation aims to make it an independent Crown agency—to really give the agency some teeth. Why is this important? Because we do know that the State is a terrible parent. We know this. Report after report after report highlights the failings of the Government, and it’s really important that we do have an independent monitor that is able to come out and say where these failings are, and I do actually think it’s really important that we have some mechanisms in place to see how the Government is tracking and how the agencies are tracking to remedy these things, and that’s something that I fully support.

What I don’t support is other members of the House saying that this is all the State’s fault.

Complete rubbish!

It’s completely and utterly rubbish. It’s not the State’s fault. If a child has ended up in the care of the State, society has failed. We have all failed; society has failed. New Zealand’s got a horrible track record. Those things are not going to change by this House. These radical changes are going to change out there in the real world, and with people taking accountability for what happens in their communities and in their homes.

I support this bill, and I commend it to the House, and I urge those members to look around them in their communities and take action, as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill, in this second reading. I want to acknowledge all of my fellow committee members, most of who are in the House, and also the many who have submitted on this bill. One of the things about our committee is that we do get many bills—and I’ve mentioned this before—where there is a lot of passion in the discussion, because we are speaking about our most vulnerable in society. That is, our children, who we must care for. That is why I always stand in the House and speak in favour of the family and nurturing the family, because when we nurture the family, then the children are nurtured, as well.

So this bill—a lot of technical things here: it provides a structural change which will provide more accountability, hopefully a bit more effectiveness. It will ensure, also, that expectations are highlighted so we know what to expect, and that there are adequate processes to ensure that outcomes are received. That’s actually all I want to say on the bill; I will speak a little bit more in the third reading. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e kīia nei ko te Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party regarding this bill called the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.]

This bill is only a slight improvement to a dangerous system of care that filters in and flicks out our tamariki Māori and mokopuna Māori. The bill shall not be taken nor understood in isolation of the current Government’s dystopian policy agenda. It will realistically do little to improve outcomes for the lives of mokopuna Māori in State care. I’m sure you’re all aware that the percentage of mokopuna Māori in State care is beyond 70 percent—might be clue number one. So this shapes the position we take today in opposing this bill.

One of our deepest concerns rests in the fact that the Aroturuki Tamaraki do not, under this bill, maintain the right to effectively enact the true intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We know when entities are granted any form of power whereby they are not obligated to act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our mokopuna and our people suffer. This is a historic fact. It’s a reoccurring reality for Māori communities and this was a very clear finding within Whanaketia. Therefore, without meaningful engagement in the embedding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into this bill, our mokopuna and tamariki Māori are at risk of continued unmonitored abuse, something that has gone on unchecked for far too long.

This leads me into another area of concern. The recommendations in Whanaketia highlighted the need for significant structural changes in the child protection system. Yet the bill will not recognise this or its recommendations that would review independent monitoring and oversight entities and combine existing care and protection and youth justice monitoring entities into a singular body. This would simplify and streamline a process that, let’s face it, needs a severe revamp.

Our tamariki deserve clear and direct pathways for help. This bill will not make any significant headway in achieving this for our tamariki. In fact, the bill directly contradicts the voices of Te Whare Mōrehu, the findings within Whanaketia. To combat these concerns, the bill should mandate for collaboration between Māori and Te Whare Mōrehu in the development of the oversight system, while the bill should also indicate a clear commitment to the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations for monitoring and oversight.

Engagement is needed with Māori and survivors of abuse in State care in order to develop comprehensive amendments that actually serve the communities that this bill will impact the most. As I’ve indicated, more than 70 percent of these tamariki are Māori. Such amendments must include recognition and obligation to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi before the bill progresses any further. It is our strongest recommendation that a halt to the progression of this legislation is put in place until the latter occurs and until the recommendations of Whanaketia are recognised.

I find it somewhat alarming, but not unusual, that there’s a persistent view amongst members of the Government that somehow this is all the families’ fault and that personal responsibility is the answer. If they had spent any time researching or engaging in the history of these take [matters] that have been on a revolving door, in and out, in and out, in and out—no change; Oranga Tamariki reviewed, failed reviews, review after review after review—there may be a different attitude amongst them and more of an appetite to deal with the actual history, the actual facts, and find an actual solution. Nō reira kia kaha rā ki a tātou.

[Therefore, let us be strong.]

Tēnā koutou. We do not support the bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Our mokopuna deserve to be embraced in the warmth of their whakapapa. They deserve to be seen, heard, and loved. But more importantly, they are entitled to safety and protection from the harsh cruelties of this world. Tamariki in care and in custody have been brought and born into circumstances outside of their control. Children with nothing in the cupboard to eat, with no shoes to put on their feet, forced to look after their own siblings as children, struggling to understand the world while being challenged by disabilities and learning challenges, struggling to understand why they have been dealt such a cruel hand, and struggling to be understood as a whole person and, indeed, as a child.

This bill sets out to tighten up the rules and oversight of Oranga Tamariki and was instigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, which brought into daylight the abuse of a quarter of a million tamariki from the years 1950 to 1999. There is no greater case for intentional and carefully considered guardianship of our future—our mokopuna—which is why we support this bill and welcome a cross-party approach. Children are truly the last human beings that deserve to be caught in the crossfire of politics.

This bill is about tamariki in care, of which seven out of 10 are Māori. When we look to tamariki in custody and youth justice residences, we can see that eight out of 10 tamariki are Māori. If we look at the proportion of under-19-year-olds in our youth justice system, we know that nine out of 10 of those tamariki suffer from serious learning disabilities. Tamariki in care and in custody are extremely vulnerable. They have not escaped the worst consequences of colonisation, cycles of abuse, discrimination, and poverty, and although many tamariki who entered into State care have gone on to become their ancestors’ wildest dreams—like Ihorangi Reweti-Peters or Karah Mackie or Eugene Ryder—it is also easy to become ensnared in the justice system in an endless cycle, from youth justice residences into being arrested, into being in prison, and the cycle continues.

That’s why it’s so important that this bill establishes an independent Crown entity, which is preferable to a departmental agency because they cannot be directed by Ministers and operate under statute that explicitly provides independence from ministerial direction. I have been actively critical of this Government’s policies around boot camps and around youth justice residences. We have called for boot camps to end and for youth justice residences to be closed down. Sadly, this is not a trend that we have only just seen this term. Moral panic around youth delinquency has existed since at least the 1950s, when the Mazengarb report was delivered to every single household in Aotearoa. Imagine if we sent a copy to every household of the report into abuse in State care and faith-based institutions. That’s why independence is critical for tamariki in care to be free from political point-scoring on all sides. In Ireland, there is a degree of consensus around youth detention: their sentence centres are not managed by Government, which allows far more flexibility. So I applaud the components of this bill that provide for that independence.

We also know the importance of the Independent Children’s Monitor and the reports that they put out around the state of Oranga Tamariki, around the state of our youth justice residences—because, unlike prisons, we can’t go in there and inspect the conditions that our tamariki are subject to. We rely on these reports to tell us what is going on; we rely on our Children’s Commissioner to give us an honest, and sometimes brutal, insight into the realities of the most vulnerable tamariki in our country. It is the only robust and fair way for us to know what’s going on. During submissions on this bill, there were recommendations by submitters around an independent Māori monitor to oversee services outsourced to iwi, and we couldn’t agree more.

We have a Government that talks about social investment and removing reliance on the State, and perhaps that’s an opportunity for us to return tamariki Māori to their iwi and their hapū who want to bring them home, so they will know their identity and know that they are valued and loved. They are not just some random tamariki without a face or a name or a whakapapa. They’re not a number, they’re not a spreadsheet, they’re not a KPI; they are ours. They are not simply objects to be played with and discarded to the corrections system when they turn 18. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a relatively simple bill but an important one. It re-establishes the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity. It’s currently a departmental agency within the Education Review Office, but the Government is of the view it is important to strengthen the independence of this monitoring agency, to strengthen the independent monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system, and strengthen advocacy for children and young people’s issues generally. It will also have the power to oversee about eight different agencies and also other entities that are providing services in this space. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to stand up and give my support to this kaupapa today. I think it’s a very, very important kaupapa, and I’m glad that the Government has recognised this, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment has actually worked in a bipartisan way, which is how we should work, obviously, sometimes.

I got a bit disappointed when I was listening to some of the speeches, and I thought that there was hope for the ACT Party there for a while as they condemned the Crown and the way that previous Governments have operated with regards to Māori. I had some hope there, but then, of course, they started blaming the families for the position that they’re in today, which is disheartening, given this kaupapa has been such a prevalent kaupapa and such a major kaupapa within te ao Māori. You’ve heard that from the speeches, and to blame our families—and don’t get me wrong: I do think that our families have to take some responsibility, and I think that all Māori MPs would say that we have to have whānau who take responsibilities. They can’t blame colonisation every time something goes wrong with the whānau. Sometimes, that’s an excuse, as we know—as we know. So I certainly don’t put up with that nonsense, and I didn’t at ground level when I was working at ground level.

But to dismiss what’s happened with Māori families in terms of urbanisation, in terms of the reo, and in terms of what’s happened to our culture is very, very sad. So I found that kōrero sad, and then I found when I was listening to Te Pāti Māori that they’re voting against the bill, and I find that sad, because it brings to the table the different views in terms of incremental change and transformative change. That’s a question that we have to ask ourselves: as Māori, do we accept incremental change when we’re in Parliament?

The reality is that that’s the reality of Parliament. That’s the way that Government works, which is that you don’t get the transformative change that Te Pāti Māori are talking about. They, quite rightly, say that the basis to this kaupapa—there was a call from te ao Māori to totally dismantle Oranga Tamariki. That was a strong call, and if people want to check back in history there, just in the last few years, when we were in Government we made some real effort in getting Oranga Tamariki to reflect a tikanga Māori perspective—and don’t get me wrong: there have been some good people in that agency. But it was going down the wrong track and there were some terrible stories coming out of there, so we certainly have made an attempt in terms of changing the structure. We put Wira Gardiner, who was probably our top Māori bureaucrat, in charge of the kaupapa—

Can I just remind the member that this is the oversight of Oranga Tamariki bill?

It is the oversight; I’m just trying to give some background to this, and I understand what you’re saying. I’m just trying to reflect some of the angst within the community, but I have no problem in coming to a couple of the points, Madam Speaker, where we’re talking about some of our reservations with regards to it.

But one of the major reservations in terms of te ao Māori is the very structure of Oranga Tamariki. There is this view that it should be thrown out. I’m not of that view, and that’s why we, in Labour, will work to improve the situation.

So, in terms of the oversight, what the Minister is suggesting is pretty much what we were talking about when we were in Government. The establishment of the monitor is incredibly important because the monitor will have an independence that is just so needed within that structure. However, Labour acknowledges that the monitor will have so many pressures in terms of that position, and we wonder in terms of this position whether the previous set-up, where we had three people overseeing it, may have been a better position. We recognise there’s a perception that the Independent Children’s Monitor right now is not independent enough, but if the re-establishment of the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity—[Rima Nakhle gives the member a glass of water] Thank you very much. Gee, it’s good to have that service—thank you very much. We’re getting very by the by, so thank you very much.

I’ve got some Strepsils.

Ha, ha! Let’s not get too friendly, eh—all right? But the establishment of the independent monitor will strengthen the perception of independence.

In terms of where we go in terms of this oversight, one of other differing views in terms of Labour was the era of survivors of abuse in care, and the ryal commission into the abuse in care’s final recommendations regarding the independent oversight and monitoring, recommendations 85 to 87. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was very clear that we may have lost an opportunity there to advance the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure that oversight and monitoring of the care system is “coherent and well-resourced”.

So we do have reservations, but we’re pleased that the Government has seen the need to strengthen this area of independence. However, there’s still some way to go when you consider the amount of angst within our communities and when you consider the different views that you’ll see from some of Government and that you see from Te Pāti Māori, who want just a total change—and that is a strong view out there that oversight and just a tweak in terms of structure is not enough. But I do think and I do hope that this change will lead to further changes in terms of the culture within Oranga Tamariki, which has been under pressure for at least the last five or six years.

So I’m hoping that the change in terms of the monitor, in terms of the independence, and in terms of the culture will continue, and I want to talk about more of those changes when we get into the third and final reading. But we’re happy today to say that we support what the Minister has advocated, and we hope that further changes will continue because this is an organisation that needs a lot of support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora.

The overall policy objective of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is to improve the situation of young people and children in State care in New Zealand. It’s truly a difficult, difficult task, and it is at a point when we who are in Government and who are forced to and who have to undertake the care of these young people and children just have to do our best at it. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting day to be standing here considering this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, you and I were both on the Social Services and Community Committee last term when the changes were made. In fact, I was the deputy chair of the committee, and I do remember us agonising and being challenged and being asked to look at how we actually address the importance of this role. It’s interesting to come, three years later, and to be looking back at it again. I think that’s actually a good thing, though, that we can actually reflect and look and see how things are working, how things aren’t working, perceptions, and that type of thing.

I remember really distinctly, then looking at the select committee report from the changes this time around, they’re very much what was intended and very much, I guess, the challenge that we still speak of here as the Labour Party is how does the Children’s Commissioner—the board was established to ensure diversity. To ensure that it wasn’t just this one person—that binary one person. But you look back since 1989 with the introduction of the first Children’s Commissioner, and from memory there’ve been nine up until the changes last term. Of those nine, there were six that were male, three were female—and of those nine, two were Māori. I think that was a reason we looked at in terms of how to actually spread this out to work with people. I still stand by that, and I still think that’s something that’s really important.

I also know that there was a challenge about having the oversight sitting within ERO—within the Education Review Office. I felt OK and we had assurances that it would work. Looking at the evidence and looking at what’s been in the report, it actually has worked and it’s given fair independence. But perception has been the challenge—perception has been the challenge in terms of it sitting in ERO and is it independent enough of Government, of the agencies, to actually do its job properly.

We, hopefully, have engaged constructively in the process from this side, from the Labour Party, in the select committee process, and even in the second debate this afternoon that we want to see the best for our tamariki. We want to see the best for our children as they grow and we want to make sure there are checks, that there are balances, and that there are agencies like a Children’s Commissioner, a children’s commissioning board, whatever that looks like, that’s one that is independent, that is caring for the wellbeing, the advancement, but also the flourishing of our young people. There are a few things we’ll probably talk about in the committee of the whole House stage around this legislation around how we can make it better, but at this current point, I want to commend this bill to the House.

It is good to hear that this bill has the support from the Labour Party and the Green Party. I support this bill because it strengthens the independent oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and improves advocacy for our tamariki. By establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity and returning to a single, feasible children’s commissioner, we ensure clear rules, stronger accountability, and better outcomes for children and young people across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to talk for a minute, particularly for the people at home, about the value of the role itself, that we are looking at today. We’ve got a woman called Claire Achmad in the role at the moment. She is doing that job fearlessly, so it’s relevant to the issue over independence. The Labour Party took a different view on independence because we believed that that kind of diversity that is possible when you have a group of people from different backgrounds adds something very special, and I think it does. I think I stand by that. It’s a way of leading which is very porous to experience, so it does mean that you will have a range of people who are bringing different experiences in and collaborating on views. But that does not mean that I am not impressed by the work of an independent commissioner.

I just wanted to look at the kinds of things the independent commissioner has talked about recently. I am looking first at a statement that the commissioner made in February of 2025. She said, “There is no evidence that military approaches to youth justice work in the long term, and the government can and must focus instead on investing in prevention and rehabilitation programmes”. She talked about really changing the emphasis, and she did that from her position as an independent monitor. So she really was holding to account the direction of the Government, on behalf and advocating strongly for a group of people who are most impacted—those are our children.

On child poverty, she had some very interesting things to say. When the Budget is produced, they also produce the child poverty survey—they produce an audit of it. This year’s Budget had some pretty devastating impacts. Measures like food security and health access were right down for children—population groups with disabilities; Pacific children were in situations where they were in worse situations. One in two Pacific children—this alarmed me—ran out of food. That is what the prediction was. There was an increase in poverty in children—material hardship: that measure was 0.9 more under this Budget than it had been.

Those are really serious things, so the children’s monitor was able to say, “This report provides more hard evidence showing that the Government needs to make ending child poverty an ongoing project of national significance. Investment and commitment through Budget 2025 [is urgently needed]”—that’s what she had to say about those things, and she had the standing to say them. That’s an incredibly important role.

I’d like to comment on what my colleague Willow-Jean Prime said, however, about, perhaps, the opportunity that is missed here. In the abuse in State care report, there were recommendations that that kind of role that is being played is being played in pockets across our society. So we have an ombudsman who looks at one part, and we have another person looking at children who are in custody. Now, people will recall that there is a real issue around what happens when you haven’t got enough beds for your youth, and that’s been happening: when they’re in trouble and there aren’t beds to put them in, they have been put in cells. Now, that’s because there simply aren’t enough beds. So it’s really important that those kinds of monitoring happen and that people are coming in and monitoring it. But what the abuse in State care recommendation said is that there are gaps between our systems, and so there was an opportunity here to collaborate and look at those groups and try to join up the functions—so there was a full and joined-up focus on children, and we didn’t get children falling between those gaps. So that’s what my friend Willow-Jean Prime is talking when she talks about a missed opportunity. It’s a very real one.

I do note that this piece of legislation has a five-year review in it, and I see that as an opportunity, because I hope we’ll be in Government and we’ll be able to make good the promise to look at those things, like that extra part of abuse in State care recommendations being included. But that’s five years away. I take the point, again, from my friend Willow-Jean Prime—that she makes: that that’s a long way away and that’s a lot of children who will be impacted in the meantime.

So I would urge the Government to look at that again. Having said that, it is obviously a step forward to go through into this legislation and to do what we are doing here today. I disagree with some of my colleagues on this side of the House who have suggested that, perhaps, they should vote against this legislation. I think that’s a step too far. I take the point made by the Hon Willie Jackson that sometimes what we do in this House isn’t perfect, but we have to do it anyway; we have to do it because it’s a step forward, not a step back. So I think that this piece of legislation deserves our support because it is a step forward.

What I want to do is come back to the issue of what that commissioner does and how vital it is that we have people who are willing to say these things to all Governments—not just this one but all Governments—to say uncomfortable things to them. The independent Children’s Commissioner—that’s a person who is actually able to do that. And, actually, we always are going to have a problem with people not being able to necessarily do that because they are too connected; their career is connected to the Government—it is just difficult to do.

So I do take the point: I think that could be the case with the board. I think that has a strength in it that this lacks because you don’t have the depth that you would otherwise have; you have one person and you kind of basically put all those eggs in that basket and hope that you’ve got a person of great strength and integrity. But everybody has parts of their brain that are more impacted than others—three brains are better than one; five brains are better than one. That is basically the difference that we’re standing on in our review which we’ve put into the differing opinion and the report on this—that that is a stronger system of governance and a stronger system than one person. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t absolutely value the contribution that is made by the current person in this role, and the value—the bravery—that must come with this job.

So I just want to make sure that I put on the Hansard very strongly my support for people in positions like this to stand up to us sometimes—to say uncomfortable things, to tell us that the Budget isn’t focused enough on children and that, in fact, they’re going to suffer as a result, and that the Government needs to change its focus; to tell us those things and not be afraid of doing so. That’s an important part of a role when there’s only one of you, because it’s also a role that can be subject to power and subject to pressure.

So I would like to put on the record that I am very impressed by the comments that I’ve seen made by our Children’s Commissioner, and I would like to put on the record that I hope that what happens in this role from now on is that we continue to put people into that position—they will have a team around them: there’s a judge and other people around them who are involved in that process under this system. But I want to make sure they realise that they have the support of this House in doing their job fearlessly, because that’s an important part of our system, and we’re going to be relying upon them, and we do now. So I thank them for this and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to take the final call on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that will strengthen the independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor, which is a very important thing. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022”, Schedules 1 and 2, and proposed new Schedule 1A.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave that all provisions be taken as one part.

Leave is sought for that? Is there any objections? There are no objections. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

I’d like to open my remarks by thanking members of the committee for their willingness to engage in the next stage of improvements to the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and, in this case, in the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

I thought I would just make some introductory comments. The bill builds on the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which was a significant improvement in the oversight by making the roles of the three entities in the oversight system clearer and simpler so that it was much more easily understood by those interacting and using the Oranga Tamariki system. This bill fulfils the Government commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki, as well as ensuring we have a single Children’s Commissioner to make it crystal clear to children who their advocate is.

I just want to say that these are both changes that there was significant feedback on when the last Government made changes, and this was seen as another step. So I don’t want anyone to think that it fundamentally changes the great work that was done by the previous Government, but the concern was that the Independent Children’s Monitor wasn’t independent enough, which is what we are doing today. And the second, again, was responding to clear feedback about everybody in New Zealand knowing who the Children’s Commissioner is. By having a board, there was real concern that they wouldn’t know who that was and therefore who was their champion, who was their advocate. So that’s why this change is proposed in this legislation, and I’m really encouraged by the cross-party support. As I say, it’s about taking the next level and the next step in strengthening the oversight system. It’s not taking anything away; it is strengthening it.

I will talk shortly about an amendment that is out of scope that has got approval of the Business Committee to come into this, which is another important step in strengthening what we do, because it is clear that every member of this House and, actually, of the country wants us to ensure we have the strongest possible oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system.

Thank you. I’m just looking at Part 1 here and looking at clause 4, “Section 8 amended (Interpretation)”. Just wanting to dig into what protections are in place to ensure that the newly defined monitor and its board will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and reflect the voices of Māori, particularly given the overrepresentation of mokopuna Māori in State care.

Just a follow-up to that—and I do have some more questions after this—how will the Government ensure that the new board’s structure does not compromise the monitor’s independence, or enable ministerial influence, particularly when concerns have been raised about the centralisation and lack of community accountability during the select committee phase? Thank you.

I’d like to say a couple of things. Firstly, there is a Māori advisory board which the Independent Children’s Monitor board must consult with. So that is one of the safeguards. You know, it is an unfortunate reality of the number of Māori children in State care. I think another important safeguard is the baseline report that’s just been undertaken by the monitor. I think that will provide really good information so that the board, when it comes in, will have something to start from to then look at what the forward work plan should be.

I want to take this opportunity to stress part of this change is to make it independent so that it is not located in a departmental agency of the Government, to keep it as far as possible away from the Government of the day—which I know parliamentary colleagues of that member’s party were instrumental in getting to this change. We’re very much part of our Government’s commitment to make this change, because we know how important that independence is.

That’s also why, if I can talk now to the Amendment Paper, one of the things that is really important is that when reports are made by the Independent Children’s Monitor, there are time frames by when Government agencies must report back on progress, so that we can ensure progress is being made in a timely manner. So that is why we have included it.

Again, as I say, it is with the Business Committee’s approval that this is an out-of-scope matter that we are also addressing today.

Thank you. So now just looking at Part 1, clause 5, “Section 12 replaced (Independent Monitor of Oranga Tamariki System established)”. I’m just wanting to understand the safeguards, or the statutory safeguards, which are included to protect the operational and functional independence of the monitor, particularly in relation to clause 12(3), which allows for exceptions to the Crown Entities Act. If the Minister can just talk about what the statutory safeguards are, that would be awesome.

Actually, I’ll just go on to this next question as well, because it’s just clause 12A, so just moving down from that into 12A “Monitor’s board”. So just wanting to understand the justification for limiting the monitor’s board to only three members, and how this number is determined to be sufficient for robust governance, expertise, and representation. Thank you.

I want to thank the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for her responses so far with regard to this and the bipartisan approach that has been adopted here, as I said earlier. Can I just, further to that, say that it’s pleasing there is some acknowledgment of the Treaty and the partnership there is with Māori with regards to oranga. I think the Minister will appreciate it has been one hell of a last few years, for whoever the Minister has been. Oranga Tamariki has been incredibly hard, in terms of oversight.

I think the compilation of the board is incredibly important, so I’ll just ask the Minister what types of priorities she is giving to those three members. Will we see someone with strong iwi experience in there, for example? We have talked about diversity. Is that something she would be looking at, given how important the relationship is with Māori? My assessment and the Minister’s assessment might be that the views are divided. There are some who, obviously, still want to get rid of Oranga Tamariki. There are some who want to give Oranga Tamariki a chance. I think, in terms of giving Oranga Tamariki a chance, Labour and National are in the same waka there, and so we would like to help and support the Minister. What type of priority is she giving to diversity?

Can I also ask the Minister—because we don’t have a lot of questions in this committee time—in terms of her kōrero with various Māori, has she been working with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations? Can she give us some assurances that there has been kōrero at pan-tribal level, in terms of a consultation process? This was always a kaupapa that the iwi leaders had prioritised, so I imagine she has talked with various people. I know that Naida Glavish has been a very vocal person and also an adviser to both Governments. Has that type of person been consulted? I’m just interested in the kōrero and the process that the Minister has gone down. Is she going to transfer some of that information and actually install people on her board who do have, I suppose, the diversity, background, history, whakapapa, and reo to instil the confidence amongst Māori? Just a few questions there for the Minister.

Thank you, members, for your questions. Just a couple of things. One that I think is really important to have on record is that the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system is not just oversight of Oranga Tamariki as a department; there are eight children’s agencies that are involved. I want to make that really explicit because, in too many instances, where there are issues that emerge, and when the Independent Children’s Monitor reports have come through in the past, the finger gets pointed at Oranga Tamariki, where, actually, there are eight agencies involved. Often the lives of the children we are referring to have been at greater risk or harm because of other agencies other than Oranga Tamariki. I think it’s really important to put that on record. It is about: how do we ensure the eight agencies are working together to improve the lives of some of our most vulnerable children? So I wanted to make sure that we put that on the record.

In terms of the three board members, it’s a balance of—you can have an independent Crown entity with one board member. I didn’t think that that was appropriate. I think three gives us the ability to get the diversity that we require, the skill set. Absolutely, in terms of appointment of the initial board, it needs to be people who deeply understand the Oranga Tamariki system, who will have the trust and confidence of providers, of iwi, of New Zealanders at large, and of children themselves. They also need to be able to work with the other two parts of the oversight system, which is of course the Ombudsman and, after this legislation passes, the Children’s Commissioner. I was also really careful in drafting the legislation to minimise the amount of change at once, which is why it enables the continuity of the existing monitor and the existing Chief Children’s Commissioner for a period of 12 months. So they’re used to working together. They’ll continue to do that. That is about making sure there is an easier transition.

In terms of the number of the board members, again, I would just say there is a Māori Advisory Board that the three-member board will work with. In terms of the governance, I’m confident that that will be a strong set of governance for the Independent Children’s Monitor.

In terms of the safeguards, they are the standard safeguards that are required for an independent Crown entity. They are the safeguards that ensure it is independent, and that’s that arm’s length that we will want to see it will have.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to ask you to follow up and explain, if you can, the role of the judge in this process, because one of the appointments is a judge on to the board. I wondered whether you were looking at that judge as being someone who’s practising now, which it looks like it is, and practising in those fields that would be connected with this area, or whether that’s going to be a problem, because they’ll be practising. So I’d just really genuinely like to know: do you see that as an asset that that person’s practising at the present time in the field and seeing what they see in that or do you see that as a conflict in the role?

I also can’t see from this whether those board members will be—it looks like it’ll be a part-time occupation. So how many hours would you envisage that the board members would be engaged in this work? Because it looks like it fits alongside other work, and just in terms of the public watching this: the role of the kind of governance of a board—what this board is intended to do in layperson’s terms. Thank you.

So in terms of the position of the judge, that’s not being changed in this legislation. But if the member Helen White thinks back to previous Children’s Commissioners, we had Judge Becroft. So when the legislation was changed in 2022, that was taken into consideration. It wouldn’t mean “in future”; it would prevent a judge taking on the Children’s Commissioner’s role in the future. So that’s not something that’s changed. We’re just changing from the board to a single person.

In terms of the time commitment, I don’t anticipate the board roles would be full time, as most Government boards are not full time. I would expect, though, in year one, as an establishment board, there would be a heavier workload in year one than I would expect in the future.

It’s the appointment of a judge as a board member. It’s a different thing from appointing a judge to the position. Obviously, with Judge Becroft, that was a full-time position. There was a small amendment, which is why I picked it up, I think, in the wording on the judge. I think it said there must be a judge on the board, and then it’s changed the wording. I just wondered what that role looked like. Thank you.

Thank you. So just speaking to the experience and knowledge of the board members, this is in new section 12B, inserted by clause 5, “Experience and knowledge of board members”: “When recommending a person for membership of the board, the Minister must have regard to the need for board members to collectively have knowledge … and experience in relation to,”—and these are all great things—“(a) the Oranga Tamariki system”—that’d be good—“(b) quality assurance; and (c) data governance.”

I’m just wanting to explore why new section 12B doesn’t have any requirement for collective expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, child rights, or lived experience of care, particularly given the disproportionate number of mokopuna Māori in State care and also the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions’ emphasis on survivor-informed insight. I think those would have been some good things to have in there for the experience and knowledge of the board members.

Can the Minister for Social Development and Employment clarify how quality assurance and data governance will be defined in practice and what thresholds of competence will be applied in assessing board candidates under those categories? Because I know that we’re all really keen to get this board right and to make those steps forward in te Aroturuki and its independence and, therefore, effectiveness for our most vulnerable tamariki.

Just one more on that new section 12B, inserted by clause 5: why are the required areas of knowledge just really narrowly focused on internal systems expertise and not inclusive of areas such as kaupapa Māori frameworks or child development or trauma-informed care? Thank you.

Just coming back to Helen White’s question, just in terms of the appointment of a judge, it’s not required. It’s just saying if a judge was appointed as a board member, it wouldn’t affect the tenure of their judicial office. So that is what happened when we previously had a Children’s Commissioner who had been a judge. So it’s just picking that up and saying if a judge was appointed on to the Independent Children’s Monitor board, the same provisions would allow, because what we wouldn’t want it to do is preclude a judge for considering being on that board.

In terms of the requirements of the Crown Entities Act, that covers issues more generally around what we would expect board members who are on independent Crown entities to have. So what is specified here in new section 12B(1), inserted by clause 5, is the additional special requirements specifically related to the Independent Children’s Monitor, and the Oranga Tamariki system. I actually think that reflects some of the broader areas such as care experience and the abuse in State care considerations because that comes into that broader Oranga Tamariki system. And what happens when a new board is created, or actually any board appointments, but particularly a new board, is the Public Service Commission then looks at what are the requirements of the role, and then there is a bit of to and fro in terms of does that set of skills, attributes, capabilities fulfil the legislative requirement of what’s laid out, but also the intention of what the Minister wants to see from that independent Crown entity.

So I’m confident that is covered, including the questions around data governance, and I know particularly with Māori, through Pou Tangata, for example, there is work under way around specific Māori data governance issues that are of interest. So that would be part of the consideration in terms of suitable candidates, and that will be taken into consideration at that point.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see the other side are really keen to take a closure motion on this.

Oh, don’t make assumptions.

Oh. I don’t know why they would break with the tradition of previous short calls and take one. But, anyway—anyway—we’re being serious here, everybody. I just wanted to pick up on the question that my colleague asked around the appointment of a judge as a board member. I think the concern that we have, and we just want to raise that in the committee, is because they would be able to potentially continue—so they bring over skills, relevant skills and expertise, like we saw with Judge Becroft when he was the Children’s Commissioner. But the concern, I suppose, I want to raise here is: given it is the Independent Children’s Monitor of the children’s system, and courts play a role in that entire system, it doesn’t create some kind of potential conflict there that could threaten the true independence of the monitor and the board. I just wonder if you have anything that you want to say on that for us.

I thank the member, and I think what is useful—and it’s a good issue to raise—but just thinking about the three entities of the Independent Children’s Monitor, is they provide advice; they do the monitoring. It’s not advocacy, and I think that’s where—obviously, when the appointments are being made to the board, that would be something to consider, but I don’t see it would be an issue.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Given that answer, I do think we need to note on the record that when we look at the experiences shared in the royal commission and the complaints made, a lot of distrust exists amongst the community of the oversight in the past, and still of the current systems between courts, agencies, and so on. So I just want to note the concern around the fact that a judicial appointment to that board—I understand what you are saying their role is, that we, through this bill, are trying to make it truly independent. Just that those concerns are there, because they are real concerns that have been shared by survivors in the royal commission process, as an example.

I thank the member the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for raising that, and my feedback to that would be: this is a board, and I think, at an operational level—so when it is the staff themselves who go in to monitor a facility or go in to monitor and engage with providers—I could absolutely see that survivors would be concerned if they were confronted with a member of the judiciary who is doing that work. But this is at a governance level, and their role doesn’t include any oversight of the judicial system; that would, clearly, be inappropriate. I note the member’s concern, and it’ll now be on the record.

Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the Minister for Social Development and Employment for that explanation. I suppose what I would note here is that it does have a five-year review clause, and maybe if that turns out to be an issue once this is enacted, then that is something that could be looked at through the review process—that it didn’t have any unintended consequences. I think we can see what it is trying to address, but we are also raising concerns about what potential there could be for that perception of real lack of genuine independence. So I do note that we have a five-year review clause in here, which means that that could be looked at if it was an issue.

Mr Chair, thank you. I still do have quite a bit of—not heaps and heaps, not enough to fill the 2½ hours programmed for this committee of the whole House—but I do have some more scrutinising of the bill, just to make sure that we are really understanding it and really getting it right for our most vulnerable tamariki.

So I just want to talk to Part 1, clause 6, new section 16; this is the “(Duty to act independently)”. In here it does say: “Except as expressly provided otherwise in this or another Act, the Monitor must act independently when performing its functions and duties”. So I just wanted to know: what specific legislative provisions, either in this bill or in other Acts, override or limit the monitor’s independence? And can the Minister please provide some of those expectations? And, yeah, just reminding where it is, it’s in that clause 6, new section 16, where it says—so, yeah, some examples would be wonderful.

So the first thing is the functions of the monitor are no different than what they were previously. It is just them including it here because it now will be an independent Crown entity. But the functions are the same. As part of the legislation that was passed in the previous Government, there is a five-year review. The review of the legislation I brought forward, it has been concluded—the first review—and it deemed that there was no change necessary to the functions in the three entities of the oversight system. So there is no change in those functions. I think the committee and the public should be reassured that the legislative review that has been undertaken already, early of the five-year mark, didn’t highlight any concerns or issues with the division of the functions that are currently undertaken by the three entities.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you. I’m just moving into Part 2 now—I know that we’re just taking it as a whole, but I had it in sections, so there we are. So I’m looking at Part 2, “Amendments to Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022”, clause 13, “Section 6 amended”. It’s talking about “when recommending a candidate for appointment as the Children’s Commissioner, to have regard to the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori knowledge, and knowledge of, and experience in, tikanga Māori;”. So I’m just wanting to understand why this amendment only refers to the Children’s Commissioner and doesn’t extend to Tiriti-related appointment criteria to the board members, as we talked about previously, of the Independent Children’s Monitor.

I’m asking this particularly because we know that Māori tamariki are so overrepresented and make up about 70 percent of those tamariki in State care. So we can see that it’s in there for the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner, and just wondering why it was decided not to extend that. Thank you.

As I said before, the Crown Entities Act already covers these requirements, so it wasn’t necessary for the Independent Children’s Monitor to add that into it. It was just adding, for this particular independent Crown entity, what the requirements were for the selection of the board members.

Thank you. Moving into Part 2, clause 15, new sections 11 to 14—and this is the section that establishes the Children’s Commissioner—and we know that we’re moving into that sole commissioner model. I’m wanting to understand what advice did the Government receive on the compatibility of a single commissioner model with the principles of collective decision-making and how will continuity, institutional knowledge, and accountability be ensured in the absence of the previous structure, particularly in the event of a change in commissioner or a vacancy in the role?

Just further to that—so still looking at clause 15, new sections 11 to 14—how does the clause ensure the commissioner has adequate administrative and structural support to perform a wide-ranging mandate under the new section 12 and related legislation?

Obviously, if we think about how we got to the recommendation of a single Children’s Commissioner, as opposed to a board, it was absolutely about ensuring there was complete clarity for New Zealanders at large but, more importantly, for children and young people—that they knew who their person was. The Children’s Commissioner is the advocate for children in the Oranga Tamariki system but children at large. So, in terms of the decision to move from a board to a single Children’s Commissioner, that’s why we’ve done that. I got advice at the time about the structure. This is the same model that is in Australia and the UK and also a successful model that we had previously, before the 2022 changes. So it was going back to a structure we had.

Also, the ability to appoint a Deputy Children’s Commissioner, I think, is an important addition in terms of continuity and in terms of having support for the Children’s Commissioner. I’m aware of the importance of administrative support for a Children’s Commissioner, and you might appoint a Children’s Commissioner that is an amazing advocate who isn’t necessarily the best person at managing an organisation, and so I’m clear that the legislation that we are presenting today has the flexibility to ensure the Children’s Commissioner is able to be supported with an organisation, to cover off those skill sets, because the Children’s Commissioner should be first and foremost focused on advocacy rather than administration.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 291 set out on Amendment Paper 292 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 291 set out on Amendment Paper 293 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 291 as amended be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is going to strengthen the independent monitoring of the children’s system and make it crystal clear to children and young people who their advocate is. These changes are intended to build on public trust in monitoring and advocacy and improve the governance of the oversight of the children’s system. I don’t want anyone listening, for a moment, to think that there is anything wrong with the current oversight, but this is an opportunity for the House to take it even further and to make improvements to the oversight system. The bill fulfils our Government’s commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki.

In 2022, the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system was arranged through two Acts. These set up the monitor as a monitoring agency and it made enhancements to the Ombudsman’s functions to handle complaints and establish the commission with a role to advocate for children and young people who have interacted with the children’s system. As I said, there were some suggestions for improving the structures of the entities which were not implemented at the time and continued to be raised by stakeholders. These suggestions were: establishing independence for the entity that monitors the Government and having a clear, single advocate that children and young people can recognise and approach. Although I’m very pleased with the important work completed by the monitor and the Children’s Commissioner to date, I view their current governance structures were insufficient to fulfil these two requirements and wanted the opportunity to improve them.

This bill intends to amend the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 and the Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022 specifically to transition the monitor from a departmental agency to an independent Crown entity with a small, multi-member board, and the Children and Young People’s Commission from an independent Crown entity led by a multi-member board to an independent Crown entity led by a single Children’s Commissioner.

These changes are important. Shifting the monitor to become an independent Crown entity has been called for time and time again, including in previous feedback and in the more recent final report from the Royal Commission Of Inquiry Into Abuse In Care. The report called for robust, independent oversight and monitoring of care as a critical way of ensuring that care providers fulfil their duties to people in care. Establishing a single Children’s Commissioner ensures children and young people know exactly who their advocate is. Although the current board is led by a Chief Children’s Commissioner, having only one Children’s Commissioner is a much clearer, simpler way to create this distinction for children and young people. Together, these changes to the governance of the monitor and Children’s Commissioner will improve the trust we all hold in the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and will allow stronger, clearer advocacy for our children and young people.

During the committee of the whole House stage, an important addition to the bill was made, which will strengthen accountability for agencies that are the subject of specific reports by the monitor. This bill will now amend the oversight Act to require agencies and contracted non-government organisations who provide care for children to complete additional reporting on their progress to improve their compliance with the Oranga Tamariki National Care Standards (NCS) regulations. These progress reports will be required four months after agencies provide their initial response to the monitor’s annual report on the NCS regulations.

This is a crucial step to increase accountability and to provide the public and Ministers with important information about how agencies are tracking towards compliance with the NCS regulations. These regulations focus on whether children in care are receiving the right level of care and support and that a plan is in place to meet their needs. It will give Ministers the ability to take decisive action earlier to ensure relevant agencies are complying and working to enhance the wellbeing of children and young people in care. The additional reporting requirement will take effect from the monitor’s next annual report on compliance with the NCS regulations, which is expected in early 2026.

This is not the end of making continuous improvements to the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, as work will continue to ensure the system is effectively supporting and assisting children. We have included a requirement for the Acts to be reviewed within five years from 1 July 2025 so that we can continue to understand its purpose and be responsive to change. It is great to see when members across the House from different parties are able to work together as we have done with this legislation. So I thank the members opposite for their time, for their understanding, and for their ability to work constructively with us. I think it is really important in terms of an oversight system that there is consistency and that trust and confidence each step of the way we continue to grow it as a country. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in the final reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. As we have this afternoon completed the second reading and have given substantial speeches in that reading, and as we’ve just had the committee stage, it does feel like we are repeating ourselves over and over again in the same day. But, for the record, Labour is supporting this bill, but we do so with some outstanding issues that we still have with what is being proposed here this afternoon.

We did provide the select committee with a differing view, so while we support the bill, we still have concerns, particularly around the disestablishment of the Children and Young People’s Commission board and the reversion to a single Children’s Commissioner. We had hoped that the benefits of having diverse representation on the board of the Children’s Commission would have been given an opportunity to be embedded and for the benefits to be seen, but, sadly, this has not been the case. But, in saying that, we recognise that a simplified version of a single commissioner appealed to some submitters.

Unfortunately, I don’t think, this afternoon, this is totally enhancing what was there, because the Minister has stressed in her second reading speech and third reading speech that this is more about form and structure over function and substance—that the substance and function that was there for our oversight entities remain as it was but that the structure is changing. While we are achieving true independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor, we are losing the board of the Children’s Commission and the diversity that that offered by having that.

Secondly, we believe that the current Independent Children’s Monitor situation, as a departmental agency within the Education Review Office, had adequate independence, and the feedback that we had on the performance was largely positive. But we, Labour, do recognise that the perception that the Independent Children’s Monitor was not independent enough is important and that if the re-establishment of the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity strengthens the perception of independence, then this is a positive thing, and that’s why we are supporting this bill this afternoon.

But I do want to take the opportunity to once again note for the House that it is disappointing that the Crown—that the Government—did not take this opportunity to address the recommendations in Whanaketia, the final report of the royal commission into abuse in State and faith-based care. In there, particularly through recommendations 85 to 87, there were a number of recommendations about how to ensure that the oversight system is coherent, that there are no gaps, that there’s no duplication, and that it is providing the best oversight that our tamariki deserve in terms of the system. And so our concern is that those recommendations have not been responded to by this legislation. While the Minister has mentioned the royal commission in her speech, unfortunately, in the Government’s recent response to the recommendations of the royal commission, they are not addressing those specific recommendations. So this was a missed opportunity to be able to meaningfully respond to those recommendations from the royal commission.

The last thing that I wanted to speak about is the amendment to have reporting on progress, which was supported unanimously across the House and by the Business Committee—noting that it was out of scope and that this had been a bipartisan approach to bringing that into this legislation at this late stage. Listening to the Minister in the committee stage and also in the third reading speech, the only concern I have from what I understand that amendment to be achieving is that it may be too narrowly focused on the care standards. I want to see—and we will have the opportunity once this comes into law—that responding within four months to the Independent Children’s Monitor’s reports, and so on, is not just the report in terms of the care standards but all of its reports that it has been producing.

We had a report recently, the first of its kind from the Independent Children’s Monitor, on what they are seeing in terms of tamariki and rangatahi Māori within the system, and it was a damning report. There are a lot of concerns raised in that report that need to be addressed. We did raise this at scrutiny week with the Minister for Children, for example, because Oranga Tamariki has a lot of responsibility in terms of responding to those issues, concerns, and findings raised in that report specifically for tamariki Māori, who make up two-thirds of the children in care and protection and in custody. But also, as the Minister noted, Oranga Tamariki are not the only agency who are part of the children system—there being eight, I think, she referred to in the House this afternoon.

So ensuring that we see that response and those progress updates in response to those reports from all of those agencies, and where we are going to see all of that brought together—because we don’t just have these monitoring bodies for the sake of having them; it’s to be able to take their reports and address the issues that they raise. What we are seeing and have heard from the Minister is that her view is that previous Governments and this Government are too slow to respond to the issues and concerns and findings raised in those reports. So I hope that this amendment is going to help bring more transparency and accountability in terms of, actually, the responses to what these reports are finding, because that’s the point of having the oversight bodies—so that we can take action to address the issues that they are identifying within the system.

That’s all I want to add in the third reading of this bill. Thanks once again to all of the submitters who took the time to submit to our select committee. We commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I rise to speak at the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. However, where this bill is a step forward, we cannot mistake this as true transformation that will protect our tamariki. Because if we are serious about the wellbeing, safety, and mana of our tamariki, we must be serious about the systems that continue to harm them: the structures that remain colonial and extractive and the legacy of State violence that continues to disproportionately impact tamariki Māori.

This bill gives greater independence to Aroturuki Tamariki, the Independent Children’s Monitor. That is progress, and that is why the Greens are supporting this bill. But we also know the system remains broken. The monitor’s own reports have told us time and time again that tamariki and rangatahi Māori are overrepresented in the system and are still too often receiving care that falls far short of the National Care Standards. The National Care Standards promise children safety, stability, and love. Yet year after year, the monitor tells us that those promises are not being met.

A mirror has been held up to this Government, to Oranga Tamariki, and to all of us. But a mirror is only useful if those who look into it are willing to change. It must be acknowledged that the Green Party welcomes and supports the Minister’s amendment to this bill in Amendment Paper 292. These changes introduce new clause 6A, which requires chief executives to prepare progress reports on how they are responding to the monitor’s findings—reports that explain what’s changed, what’s been actioned, and what remains outstanding.

This is a necessary strengthening of accountability, and it closes the loop that has too often remained too open, and we thank the Minister for listening to the advocate and all of the people who took the time to submit at select committee hearings, whether written or those who came in for in-person hearings. We appreciate you and you are on record as being there for our tamariki.

Hopefully, this will mean that the monitor will no longer issue report after report with little to no action being taken. Agencies must not only respond to criticism but report back on progress—clearly, publicly, and on time. These amendments would also require the monitor to publish these progress reports by the chief executive within 10 working days, ensuring transparency and timely scrutiny. These provisions give the monitor a sharper edge, and give the public, tamariki, and whānau the information they deserve and need. This is what meaningful oversight requires, not just reporting but follow-up, not just criticism but clear consequences and change for the better.

Again, we thank the Minister for listening to the calls of survivors, advocates, and this House, and for bringing forward amendments that help make the system more accountable. I do want to give a shout-out here to my humble co-leader Marama Davidson for all of the mahi that she has done in this mokopuna space, and also, I have to shout out to previous Green MP Jan Logie for the immense amount of mahi, aroha, hours, and thought and effort that she has put into this moment today. So I just wanted to honour them there and give credit where credit is due.

Now, if we truly want to change the system, then we must change the values that underpin it. That is why the Greens are launching a campaign rooted in simple truth. We, Aotearoa, collectively, have a duty to care for every single child. This means ensuring our Government recognises that children’s safety is not achieved through surveillance or reactionary intervention; it is achieved through prevention, care, justice, and whānau strength—stopping harm before it happens. This campaign outlines core duties of care, each addressing a failure of the current system, and each proposing clear solutions across legislation, funding, oversight, and independent advocacy that is encompassing with the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State and faith-based care, recommendations, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Every child’s whānau and whakapapa must be centred—that means embedding whānau decision-making in legislation, resourcing tikanga-based wānanga, and shifting power to hapū and iwi. Every child must be free from poverty. We must remove poverty from the home, not children. Poverty is the result of political choices. We would replace the broken Working for Families system with a top-up family payment and double the Best Start payment, ensuring that whānau and tamariki have what they need to thrive. Every child must have stable, responsive support before, during, and after care.

Oh!

Were you groaning at children needing care? It really concerns me that that elicited such a response from the Government party. I’ll repeat what I said: every child must have stable, responsive support before and during and after care. I don’t know why that would elicit such a groan—seemingly not everybody in this House cares about children’s stability, safety, and aroha, which will make our country thrive.

Every child must be heard, respected, and placed at the heart of decision making. We would embed children’s right in domestic law, ring-fencing funding for independent advocacy, like VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai and require child impact assessments for every major policy and Budget decision, putting children at the heart of every decision that this Government makes. Every child’s safety must be independently protected. We support fully implementing the royal commission’s recommendations, which includes creating a care safety Act, an independent care safety agency, binding oversight powers and a national care safety strategy. Every child deserves a stable and nurturing home. This means properly supporting caregivers, creating a professional foster care model, and ending the instability that retraumatises tamariki in care. Every child deserves care from a skilled, well-supported workforce. Social workers need fair pay, safe caseloads, trauma-informed training, and long-term funding rounds. We will not achieve better outcomes without investing in people who do the work.

These are not abstract aspirations. They are concrete legislative reforms, budgetary shifts, and by fully honouring Te Tiriti, it would change the care system from the ground up, not just to monitor harm but to prevent it.

In closing, we will support this bill, but make no mistake: this bill is not enough. The Greens will continue to fight for a future where children are not just protected by the State but never harmed in the first place, a future where Oranga Tamariki is no longer needed, a future where whānau have what they need to stay together, a future where tamariki are loved, supported, and free to thrive. That’s our vision, that’s our campaign, and that is duty of care.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Members, we are up to the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. We are up to call No. 4. It is the ACT Party call. I call the Hon Karen Chhour.

It is a privilege to be standing here tonight speaking to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This has been a long time coming, and this has been a promise of the coalition Government—to make sure that we are truly making sure that our most vulnerable and those that are part of our children’s system as a whole have the right oversight and have people watching over them, making sure that they are properly taken care of, and that they are held accountable if that’s not happening. So whilst a lot of the conversation was around Oranga Tamariki, this is about the Oranga Tamariki system as a whole, which is not just about Oranga Tamariki. This includes the Ministry for Children, Police, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, Education, Justice, and the Department of Corrections, and I think there may be a few more. Each Government department plays a role in our system when it comes to taking care of our children and making sure they have opportunities to be the best that they can be.

This bill is trying to fix a problem that has been spoken about long before I even came to Parliament, and that was around a lack of oversight of the system and making sure that children are taken care of and are safe. We saw in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions that in far too many cases when things went wrong, people either didn’t notice or did notice and didn’t act. So this bill is really important, and it does three key things.

It strengthens the independent monitor. It’s truly independent. It’s no longer a part of a Government agency—it’s independent of that, a separate Crown agency, which will give it that true trust from the public that there is that independence. It will have oversight and will be working and making sure that children are being treated properly. It makes sure that the Ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints, like they do, and that still stays. They can investigate complaints from children and families if they feel that something has gone wrong. The bill also reinstates a single Children’s Commissioner. I know this is a little bit contentious, but back when this law changed, when I was in Opposition, I was very concerned at the way that the monitoring, the oversight, and the advocacy was split in such a way that it would cause confusion for those who were looking to who to speak to when things went wrong.

We needed clarity, and having a single Children’s Commissioner will set out that this is the person that children can go and speak to. It will be this person’s job to listen to children and speak up for them and push for changes when needed. But it will be very clear who is responsible for that.

I know that for far too long issues over the years, probably from even before I was born, often get swept under the carpet because they’re either too hard to speak about or nobody actually has the courage to come out and say what needs to be said. So having this independence and having this independent oversight, and also having the extra accountability of the additional reporting—for agencies having to respond to that reporting and having to keep coming back and showing their progress in those recommendations—adds that extra bit of accountability to make sure that it’s not just another report that sits on a shelf and grows cobwebs while people forget all about it.

We cannot have a repeat of history where young people are often invisible, often unheard, and often feel like the very people that are meant to protect them do the very opposite. I’m not going to speak for too long. This bill has been spoken to a fair bit today. But I’m really proud to be standing here and supporting a piece of legislation that will bring some truly independent oversight to the Oranga Tamariki system as a whole.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise again on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, the Hon Karen Chhour, said, we’ve traversed quite a lot over this bill over the past little while, so there isn’t a lot to add. What I do know is that everything needs improvement, including us, but it’s very good to see that this piece of legislation is an improvement. Issues are identified, and the best thing to do is get on top of them straight away and improve them. It doesn’t mean you’re going to find them all; there are going to be more along the way. It was very good to hear the Minister today talking about there being another review in five years’ time. That is encouraging to know. On that note, I’ll commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te whakakōpani ake i ngā whakaaro o te iwi Māori me te Pāti Māori mō te pire i tōna pānuitanga tuatoru i roto i te pō kotahi, mō te pire e kīia nei ko te Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to everyone. I stand to conclude the opinions of the Māori people and the Māori Party concerning the bill in its third reading in one night, regarding the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Amendment Bill.]

I truly hope that the adjustments being suggested and considered actually produce improvement in a system that has been broken for so long that it’s managed to fail at least 13 reviews—that every bit of tinkering has been done before.

I stand here to convey our opposition to this bill, because no amount of tinkering, over generations, has produced the shifts required to release the 70-plus percent of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki who are Māori from the clutches of its grip; this is the reality for tamariki Māori trapped in a system that’s failed them decade in, decade out. Tonight, I stand here and just share the sentiments being shared that we really do hope that change comes from what’s being proposed, all the while understanding that when it comes down to looking at the factors involved over long periods of time, we know that the small incremental changes won’t produce the change that’s hoped—that’s the reality—and that the moves aren’t courageous enough.

The fact that we’re here doing it under urgency tells me that we’re probably heading in the wrong direction again. And what’s the fallout of that? Well, the fallout of that is that young Māori children remain trapped in a system—that families remain broken and torn apart by a system. I’ve heard the Ministers, and other Ministers, speak tonight about the fact that many agencies have a role to play and it strikes me that the set of circumstances and symptoms that exist here across the management pipeline of children in State care are not too dissimilar from those in place for managing adults in State care, and that the result of that management of both children and adults in State care continues to deliver Māori the most abhorrent statistics that have been a perpetual nightmare for Māori for generations—generations.

So I do hope that the changes being proposed and that the review in five years produce more results than all of the tinkering that’s occurred in the past. But the thing I want to maybe just say for the Minister, and for those who care to consider, is that dealing with the outcomes of our systems—be they in Oranga Tamariki or be they the outcomes of Māori engagement with police, or the treatment of Māori by police or the corrections system or the justice system—is that the symptoms that te iwi Māori have had to deal with and continue to have to deal with require each of those bodies to take an equal amount of responsibility and not sit back and just say, “Well, this is our area and this is what we do and we can’t help it if that crowd over there—we don’t have any say on what happens over there. We don’t have any say on what happens over there.”

So for the hope and for the sake of tamariki Māori and their families, I really do hope that this House and all of its ministries take the view that they do have responsibility and they have a responsibility to bridge the gaps that are going to produce the better outcomes that are being talked about, because our experience tells us the siloed approach won’t, and if this is a perpetuation of that, then we need to move forward. Nō reira e te Pīka, tēnā koe.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I do want to acknowledge the points that my colleague Tākuta was just making, in terms of this bill and the historic, intergenerational harm that has happened via Oranga Tamariki, in its many different names. It doesn’t matter if you give it a Māori name; it doesn’t mean that it’s going to serve the 70 percent of tamariki Māori who are in State care or the 90 percent of Māori children who are in State custody in youth justice residences. I want to acknowledge the many submitters who said this is such a piecemeal approach. I read Julia Whaipooti, who previously worked for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who now advocates for Treaty rights, who talked about doing it once and doing it well.

Obviously, this is just part of a number of different recommendations that have come out of the Royal Commission Of Inquiry Into Abuse In State Care, but it is a piecemeal approach and we would have liked to see this go further. The reason we are supporting it is because, if we don’t have Oranga Tamariki in the state of the way things are right now, what does mean, particularly for children in custody? Is it Corrections? Even though there is a pipeline from State care into the corrections system. We can’t accept that with the Government that we have and the way they want to take away the power of iwi and hapū to look after their own children, by removing section 7AA. This is the way that it is at the moment. We have Oranga Tamariki; it’s preferable to Corrections, and therefore we must do everything we can to strengthen the oversight of that body, which is what this bill does; it strengthens the independence, it strengthens the oversight. But we don’t want to get caught in the trap of thinking that because we have more reporting and monitoring, it’s going to improve the quality of care, protection, or custody.

We have had endless reports that have outlined the failings of Oranga Tamariki, the abuse that children have experienced. We have had report after report after report, and it hasn’t changed anything. It hasn’t changed anything, and although the royal commission of inquiry covered the years from 1950 to 1999, we know that that abuse still endures to this day. That’s why we, obviously, supported the Minister’s amendments that she brought previously, which strengthened the regularity of that report back and actually makes an accountability mechanism that means we have to say how we’re actually implementing those recommendations. And we support that. But, again, there has to be a cultural shift, and, as I said in my speech earlier, we have a Government at the moment that believes that we should not too heavily rely on the State and that we should have Social Investment. And, if that is the case, why don’t we hand over the power and the resources to iwi and hapū to look after our own?

That is the plan.

If that is the plan, that is great. In my previous speech, I talked about the importance of independence that is outlined in this bill, and I spoke about some international examples where things like youth detention centres are independent of politics altogether and how that works better to build consensus on our approach to youth justice.

In this speech—I ran out of time last time—I want to talk a little bit more about the Aroturuki Tamariki - Independent Children’s Monitor and their reporting and what they’ve shown us and how critical they are. As I have said, we are not able to go into State care facilities, we are not able to go into youth justice residences to see the conditions for ourselves, and the thing that I have learnt with Oranga Tamariki is that it can attract some of the most excellent youth workers who are passionate about children and rangatahi, but, in the same vein, it can also attract people who just want to impose power over young people and who can misuse this power.

Every inch of oversight that we can have and every extra bit of power that we can give to people like Dr Claire Achmad and to her office and to her oversight bodies—to the Ombudsman—means that we can have a clearer idea of the picture, but if we don’t have the courage and the bravery to do anything with those reports, or if we just give out empty, hollow apologies every time we realise the scale of the harm that’s being caused by these systems, there is no point in reporting at all. Those are my comments. I’m glad that we can work through this collaboratively, and I hope that this approach will carry over into other areas like youth justice.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I arise to speak in the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a very good bill that is going to strengthen the independent monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system. It literally creates more independence for the independent monitor, and as the Oranga Tamariki system, that includes, without limitation, the delivery of health, education, disability, and other services by those agencies or contracted partners within the Oranga Tamariki system.

The State, ultimately, doesn’t want to have to be in a position to be required to care for children, but, unfortunately, there are parents and their communities who are unable to care for children at particular moments in time. That is where the State steps in to help them. We want to have this bill there to make sure that that job is being done well. I commend this bill to the House.

I’m very happy to stand and tautoko this bill tonight. But I want to acknowledge my whanaunga “Doc” Ferris’ kōrero, because this is what I was talking about earlier: the frustration amongst te ao Māori, in particular, with this kaupapa. It always comes down to what “Doc” Ferris was saying, in terms of: is there enough change in this? So we always face this dilemma, in terms of te ao Māori, about incremental change and transformational change, and so for Te Pāti Māori the change is not big enough. And we understand that. I understand that—I understand that. But we’re working within a system where—he should know, and certainly previous Te Pāti Māori people have known—this is not a place where you get transformative change. Sadly, it’s hard yakka, it’s hard work, and we have to pull out of the system, sometimes, what we can, which I think we as a Labour Government were able to do probably more so than any other Government in history, particularly for te ao Māori. This particular Government is not doing the business, and I acknowledge what he says and what the Greens say.

But we have to sometimes grab these opportunities because we have to acknowledge that the perception of independence will be strengthened through the establishment of the monitor as an independent Crown entity. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s a positive step. We understand that many people and organisations in the sector—and that came through the Social Services and Community Committee process—want to see the monitor as its own entity. So we want to congratulate the monitor on its work to date and encourage it to remain focused on holding us all to account for what we do for our tamariki.

But coming back to what I was saying, the kaupapa, particularly of Oranga Tamariki, came to the nation’s notice through te ao Māori. So that’s what I want to say tonight. I want to honour some of those people, my whanaunga, and my brother Des Ratima, who first brought this kaupapa up in terms of Oranga Tamariki and brought it to the nation’s attention in terms of the mistreatment of our tamariki. We need to honour some of these Māori tonight.

So we put some of those questions to the Minister for Social Development and Employment earlier during the committee process, where she was questioned about the relationship in terms of Māori going forward, about the panel that will be set up, what priority is going to be given to the panel in terms of tikanga Māori, and what type of expertise is going to come about, because when we traversed this kaupapa of Oranga Tamariki, we, in Labour, knew that we had to bring a strong Māori focus forward. So we had people like Des Ratima, who’s now moved or gone to the other side. Fantastic work in terms of uplifts and, I suppose, embarrassing us or putting the pressure on us as a Government at the time, and rightly so—there was something wrong. What did we do? We brought a whole Māori focus to Oranga Tamariki with people like Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who was appointed to the board; Dame Tariana Turia, who was an adviser; Naida Glavish, who I think helps and supports the Minister today, she was brought on; Tureiti Moxon; Merepeka Raukawa-Tate—these people of expertise were being utilised by us. Matthew Tukaki became the chair, the inaugural chair. I was proud of the work they did in terms of making it clear to their organisation that there had to be a strong Māori focus because our tamariki were being affected.

So we said to the Minister today, through the committee of the whole House process, and quizzed the Minister in terms of her commitment to te ao Māori, and we weren’t dismayed, because there seemed to be some support for what we were talking about in terms of that continued relationship with Māori and in that continued partnership with Māori, which was pleasing, given that this Government has not shown that same type of commitment over the last year, so it seemed to be out of sorts with what the Government was saying.

But this will not succeed if there is not a strong partnership continued with te ao Māori—a partnership, the foundation that was set down by those people that I talked about. And it is important, it is imperative, that that we bring a tikanga taha Māori side into this, because we have people out there—and you heard from Tākuta Ferris this evening—who have just about given up in terms of the system delivering anything for us. I understand that—I understand that. However, we have to make inroads. We have to show our people that, OK, we’ve got this independent monitor, this independent monitor will be advised by people who are strongly in the tikanga Māori area—there will be a change; there have been changes.

See, one of the strong ideas that came from te ao Māori was that Oranga Tamariki should be just wound up, thrown out, and iwi take over. That type of kōrero was put to us as a Labour Government, and that of course will be put forward to the National Government. What we said was “Give us an opportunity.” We tried; I think we were on course. Now we’re saying to this Government, “Well, what are you going to do?”

This, in my view, is probably one of the most positive steps, if not the most positive step, I’ve seen happen within the system. However, we still have our doubts, we still have our reservations, in terms of what’s happening. We’re not sure in terms of the perspective, in terms of this monitor being a supporter. We’re not sure about that perspective, but we do think that we’re on the right track in terms of independence.

Of course, one of the things that the royal commission found was that the disjointed nature of our systems contributed to harm in care, so children and perpetrators fell through the oversight gaps. So the recommendations in Whanaketia were designed to join up the systems to close the gaps. And we’re not there yet—we’re not there yet—in that area. While I appreciate, we appreciate, the bill’s got a five-year review provision, that’s still a long way off. So the timing of this bill was close enough to the tabling of Whanaketia for the royal commission’s recommendations to be given greater consideration as the bill progressed, but the Government’s refusal to do this is indicative of their general approach—and disappointing approach, I should say—to the royal commission.

But I reiterate: we support the bill. We’re on the right track. But if that partnership is not recognised and supported in terms of Māori and that Māori expertise is not tapped into and drawn on, then we will continue with the failures that we’ve had within this system. But I’m happy to say tonight that Labour will support this bill. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

On this third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill, we confirm that the object of the bill is for the improvement of the outcomes of young children and youth in the care of Oranga Tamariki. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call Glen Bennett.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. The true character of a society is seeing how the society treats its children. That’s something that we must always consider in this House, with even every bit of legislation that we focus on, whether it be one that talks about children, whether it be one that talks about infrastructure, whether it be one that talks about health or housing, education—whatever it is—we should always consider the impact on our children. I could sing a song, but I won’t, but you can imagine where it would go—beautiful, by the way; that the children are the future and are the present today.

What we had in the legislation that is about to change this evening was looking at how diversification—how we had more voices around the table, that children and young people actually saw themselves, because to be yourself, to be safe as yourself, you actually need to see yourself. So the fact of what had been set up in the last term of Government was around how does that diversity look for young people who might be Pasifika, for a young person who might be Māori, for a young person who might be Pākehā, for a young person who might be female or male or non-binary. It was about how do we see—how do they see themselves? So I cautiously support where this is going, but also want to encourage and challenge what the new iteration of the Children’s Commissioner looks like: that they will fiercely guard the diversity, that they’ll fiercely guard the inclusion of all young people, of all children; that they’ll make sure that no matter what creed, what colour, what size, what gender, they are included when it comes to the work of the Children’s Commissioner.

Now, the role of the Children’s Commissioner is important because, again, it’s a reflection on our society. So it’s around advocating for children’s rights. It’s about speaking into policies, into legislation, into the decisions that are made in this place, decisions that are made by agencies outside of this place. It’s around speaking up for the rights of children and young people, speaking up for those who have no voice, and being a point of contact—a listening ear—where they can represent, but also where they can report back to the public about how we are tracking as a society, how we are tracking as a Government, how we are tracking as agencies when it comes to our work with children and young people.

So we say yes to this change in law this evening, but we also encourage the Government to consider and continue to lean in, and lean in strongly, to the recommendations of the royal commission—to lean in strongly to what advocacy truly means, and what’s empowering, and allowing healing and voices to be heard when it comes to the hurt, to the harm, that was enabled through the halls of this building, that we allowed to happen.

I want to finish by thanking those who work, who advocate, for our tamariki and for our young people. I’m talking about those who are passionate advocates, who come and bang on the doors of electorate offices, who speak into select committees, who speak into MPs’ offices and into agencies around the country, and who go to schools. I’m talking about those who volunteer, and those who give their time; those who teach; those who are social workers; those who work in sexual harm; those who work in liberation movements, when it comes to kaupapa Māori spaces, when it comes to ensuring that every child and young person has a voice. I want to say thank you to the caregivers and to those who work tirelessly to protect, to empower, and to build the children of tomorrow—of the future, but they’re our people of today.

Finally, to our tamariki, to our young people: we talk about you being the future, but you are the present as well. Sometimes you might not know what standing up and speaking up means—what it means to advocate, to reveal what is going on. We say: please speak up, please find spaces, please find safe people that you can speak to, to advocate, to make sure that you will thrive and be incredible members of our society. To our tamariki, to our young people: the challenge for us is to be a decent society where we lift you up and treat you at your best.

It is with great honour that I stand to speak in support of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill in this third reading. It’s great that we do have agreement across the House with pretty much most of the parties in this Chamber, because this is a very important bill. It will strengthen the independent monitoring of Oranga Tamariki, and, of course, they look after the most vulnerable in our society.

This bill will return the Children and Young People’s Commission back to a single commissioner, moving away from the current five-member board, and I think it’s very important that these issues don’t fall between the cracks. This will give children and young people a single, visible advocate, and I think this is really important. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. Just to be clear, what we’ve had in recent days is we’ve had a commission where there have been five commissioners, and there’s been a chief. So we haven’t not had somebody who is taking that lead, but we’ve also had others joining in and making those decisions. What we’ve seen is a commission that—and a commissioner, a chief commissioner—that has been prepared to stand up against Government policy. I made that point in my last speech, but I just want to talk about that again because I think it’s really important to the public.

This is a group of people who are focused on the interests of children, and the current chief commissioner came out and said that she was very concerned about this year’s Budget in terms of the impact it had on our children. She was really specific about saying that this Government needed to look at things very differently from the way it was and it needed to allocate resources differently because she had a report that comes with the Budget to look at. She could see that the poverty statistics, the deprivation statistics, were going in the wrong direction as a result of this Budget, and so she was commenting on that.

She also made strong comments about what are often called “boot camps”. She talked about military-style camps in general and she said that there is no evidence that says that they work. She talked about what did work and where the resource should be going and how it would be best going to serve the children of this nation. So it was very interesting—just two of the examples of what she did, and she does a lot of things. She, I think recently, came out with strong comments also about the funding cuts to our community organisations, because that cuts straight across the interests of our children, and the Oranga Tamariki system cut funding to a lot of those organisations.

The Auditor-General has come out with a report too. It’s another independent organisation coming out with a scathing report on that funding cut and its impact on children. So this is absolutely a voice that the Labour Party values. And what the commissioner, the chief commissioner, had with her were five people from variant backgrounds. They were from all sorts of walks of life. It must be enormously helpful in a leadership team—most modern leadership teams no longer rely on one person; they are teams. It must be helpful to the strength of what they say to be able to say it as a team, to have different perspectives and disagreement and come to a consensus over what is to be said, especially when you’re doing something quite scary and brave and it really does matter what the people in power are going to make of it.

So I am hesitant about that aspect of this bill, and I remain so. Nothing that has been said today in the House has made me comfortable about that decision to go back to one person when we in fact had five joining that discussion. I don’t think it’s the end of the world. I think that we have very good people doing this kind of work, and there will still be a board, there will be a smaller board. It won’t be at the same kind of structure, but there is still a board.

I’m sure that those people who are appointed to the board, and the chief commissioner, as she changes her role back into being in the single-leadership position, will be brave and do their best. So I think that the legislation has the upside of looking more independent, and there was a balancing act to be done there. We in the Labour Party have decided to support it because there’s more up-side than down-side in this legislation. There is a small step taken in the right direction.

There’s also a really interesting aspect of this, which is the five-year review. I wish we did more of it in this House. I wish we were humble enough to say, “We might not have it all right. We really need to see what happens next, and we need to start reviewing our legislation.” It just makes sense. We cannot know what the unintended consequences are of everything we do in here, and to monitor like this, to review in five years, makes a lot of sense to me. So I absolutely commend that aspect of this bill.

I just wanted to talk now about the issue over the connection between this and maybe the disconnection between this and the abuse in care inquiry, because we’ve had this enormous effort made. The royal commission is something which was very traumatic for those involved, very worthwhile for us all. We have ended up collating terrible stories from around New Zealand of people who have been impacted, and it was our children who were impacted by what went wrong in our system. While I understand Laura McClure’s remark that it’s not all about Government, we do have a role in Government we can never shirk away from. We have a role to pull the levers that we can pull—and it doesn’t mean that’s everything, but it does mean that we never shy away from our responsibility to amend the system.

What we know in the commission was that there was also an enormous amount of information coming in from ordinary people in New Zealand who had been harmed. All those people fed into a process, and what came out of it were recommendations. There were three recommendations—and they were recommendations 85, 86, and 87—which all went to the issue of our children falling through the gaps of the different kinds of monitoring that we have. The recommendations are all about putting a system together which is more comprehensive so that our kids don’t fall through the gaps. That is the aspect of this that worries me most.

We have done so much work in the abuse in care inquiry, and we have been given the gift of these recommendations. What we could have done here is we could have incorporated those recommendations into the solution that we have today. Unfortunately, we don’t have that. It hasn’t happened. That doesn’t mean it cannot happen, and so it’s very important that I record on the Hansard the suggestion that that’s something that we should look at here.

Yes, I think five years is a long time away for that to happen. So I would hope that that happens sooner, under this Government or under the next Labour-led Government, because it’s so important—and that won’t be five years away—that we do that work, that we actually honour the horrible torture and the stories of harm and trauma that have been shared with us in that report and that have come to recommendations. This was somewhere we could have done that, and we haven’t. So I ask this House to consider its duty to do that in the near future, not wait for five years, because it’s so important. We can talk all we like about how we want a different system and it’s not us, it’s not the Government, it’s every other lever, but actually, this is absolutely in our tool box. We could make that kind of change.

So while I accept that change is often incremental, change is often about just doing what we can all agree can be done, and we should be commended for doing that tonight. Almost every party is supporting this legislation. I also ask this House to be braver about looking at those recommendations and incorporating them as quickly as possible into solutions so our children don’t fall through the gaps. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take, I think, the last call on this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s all about improving outcomes for children and young people in New Zealand, and what could possibly be more important than that? I commend the bill to the House.

Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 15, “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around clauses 12, 13, and 14, which are consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020. Now, the reason I want to ask this question is around the fact that we have so many different forms of schools in this country. We have our State schools, we also have private schools, we have charter schools, we have independent, and we have special character—we have a vast range of different schools there. Now, a lot of these—elsewhere in the Education and Training Act, those schools have separate parts that explain the different rules that govern them in the Act. For example, the reviews of schools for private schools and how they are governed with the Education Review Office. So they don’t necessarily fall under the review for public schools and State schools; they have their own special section around the private schools and how the Education Review Office interacts with them in that purpose.

Now, getting to these particular clauses, this outlines the role of the Public Service Commissioner in the Education and Training Act 2020, with the power to act as the employer during collective bargaining, and it outlines for the schools what the Public Service Commissioner does. Now, the changes in the bill are intended to make it clear that these powers include the ability to make specific pay deductions, including any notices or directions in relation to specified pay deductions and the recovery of partial strike - related overpayments. This is consistent with the approach applied in relation to full strikes and lockouts.

My question is around the fact that I cannot see there how it differentiates or if that is the same for private schools. It seems to me—are they governed by this same clause, or is there an oversight there, or are they then going back to the principal Act, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strike) Amendment Bill that we’re discussing here? When going through that, I just wasn’t clear. This is a genuine question about whether this governs those schools and this is the oversight for all of those schools, or whether there has been something missed out and something has to be corrected, or whether they go back to the legislation that we’re discussing here this evening.

It’s just a short call that I want to take to ask that question, and I would really like to have an answer, because it has come up with people with me that they aren’t clear about this. So I’d really like to know the answer to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to ask some questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on Part 2. There are also a number of amendments that I have made in my name to this particular part, and I wanted to briefly touch on those and see if the Minister would be supportive of some of the changes that I’ve suggested.

The first amendment that I have is in relation to clause 11, which refers to the Wages Protection Act, and clause 10 does, as well. The amendment that I’ve suggested is in new section 6(3)(ba)(i) in clause 11(3), and that particular section covers a slightly unusual situation where overpayments are recoverable when there’s been a specified pay deduction in relation to a partial strike. So that would be a situation where the employer considers that there has been too much money paid to one of their employees and that constitutes an overpayment under the Wages Protection Act, and, therefore, in this particular section, it outlines a process that the employer needs to go through in order to get the money back from the employee.

In this particular clause, as it’s currently written, the employer is given 10 working days to do that, which is actually quite a long time, especially for people on low pay who have been taking strike action, which would be the situation that these particular people would fall under. So I’ve suggested that that is changed to “5 working days”, and that is simply so there is a more immediate onus on the employer to discover when the alleged overpayment has been made and to actually be able to communicate that to the employee within that period of time. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. It’s an interesting situation where you have a situation where this piece of legislation is actually allowing deductions which would normally be illegal without permission under normal law before this bill was passed. But the Wages Protection Act applies to all payments, and, in certain circumstances when there’s an overpayment, they are allowed to be collected by the employer. So that’s my first question.

I also have some questions in relation to the powers of the Public Service Commissioner. The Minister will be able to see that I have suggested two specific amendments in relation to this, and they’re in relation to clause 14. The reason that I’ve suggested these amendments is because when we were looking at this particular piece of legislation in the Education and Workforce Committee, we were actually faced with examples of situations where deductions for partial strikes were allegedly justified due to the reputation of the employer and the effect that negative particular partial strike—especially in relation to wearing certain uniforms—may impact on that particular business.

Now, of course, when we’re looking at the powers of the Public Service Commissioner—and this is under the Education and Training Act, but it’s a completely separate point to the one just made by my colleague—these are people who are working in the wider public sector. They are not organisations that would suffer from a commercial disadvantage from having teachers, for example, wearing T-shirts that might constitute a partial strike, or having teachers wearing badges. Therefore, a lot of the arguments around the justification for the removal of wages from people participating in partial strikes just simply don’t apply to the people who work in the wider public sector.

Also, this particular deletion that I have suggested of new section 587(2) in clause 14(2) is in relation to quite an interesting clause, and I wondered if the Minister could explain why this clause was here—and I’m just aware that I may be running out of time to ask this question. But I just want to indicate that I do want to ask a question about it because it does seem particularly unusual in the bill, and it actually relates to some of the discussions that we were having previously about existing powers that employers already have. So in this particular section, it specifically states that employers are allowed to lock out, suspend, and make pay deductions. That already exists in law. Why is it outlined again, as in this bill?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I thought she was going to stand up, sorry, so I was a bit slow to my feet. But I have a question that’s in relation to clause 11, amended section 6(2), and it refers to the specified pay deduction and having that meaning. I just wanted some clarity from the Minister, as I noted there’d been quite a bit of analysis about the different options for pay deduction. In particular, my question is that there seems to be some uncertainty as to what the actual impact will be. There is no proportionate response available to employers, it’s argued, and that can mean an employer is faced with an all-or-nothing response. But there does seem to be some quite significant concerns that there is no way of trying to figure out the impact on collective bargaining about what this will actually do. That has been noted in some of the analysis.

I’m really interested to hear if the Minister has any additional information that may enable us to understand or predict in advance how employers and unions will respond if employers are able to deduct for particular strikes, particularly given that collective bargaining is impacted by the other collective bargaining legislative settings and the political and the economic context there. There is a reasonably good argument that officials have put forward, saying that there’s a rationale for reintroducing the ability for employers to make a partial pay deduction in response to partial strikes only if the approach carefully balances the impact on employees’ and employers’ bargaining positions. So I would be really keen if the Minister can explain how that will impact upon collective bargaining, given there seems to be no clear understanding of that that’s been stipulated in the analysis.

It was also pointed out that without both sides incurring the costs during partial strikes or at least the potential for there to be no cost, the incentives on the employee and the employer to return to the bargaining table are unbalanced. So that is a concern if there’s not a balance there. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has stipulated that providing the employer with the ability to make a proportionate response would better restore that balance to collective bargaining situations, but I’m interested to hear from the Minister as to why specifically she landed on the option she did and how she understood how that option is going to actually have an impact upon future collective bargaining. I note that while option two has been recommended, it would be really interesting to hear her views on that, because if there is a potential for it to reduce the effectiveness of the change in improving the balance or the incentives for employees and employers relating to industrial relations, I think that’s an important issue for us to be able to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act; so we’re looking at clauses 12 to 14.

I’m going to start with, I guess, clause 12, in terms of the relationship between the Education and Training Act and what we’re seeing here in terms of pay deductions for partial strikes. I want to check with the Minister, as a starting point, what this relationship between the partial strikes is with the current bill that’s going through the House—the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)—specifically clause 21 of that bill, which extends the notification of the strike days from three to seven. I guess, would the Minister then consider partial strikes being a part of that as well? Because that isn’t quite clear within the definition—at least, not to my reading. The Minister may be able to clarify that for me: whether the strike itself would also include partial strikes in that sense. In which case, do we need to consider that in combination with the other bill?

In terms of clause 14, I guess this is a little bit more on the line of semantics. I hear from the previous speakers regarding some of the elements of collective agreements. Now, the current wording of section 587(2) of the Education and Training Act states that “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to lock out [employees] or suspend [the] employees.” It creates an either/or situation and it is in some way exclusive to those two particular options.

But what we are not seeing here, in this particular clause, is any sort of conjunction that is being used which limits some of that. I wondered, from the Minister’s perspective, it says, “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to … lock out employees … suspend employees …[and] make specified pay deductions.” Without any form of conjunction, are we still looking at an exclusive list? As in, does that accidentally expand the scope of this to include other options? Because “the powers referred to” using “include” could potentially be read beyond that, unlike the previous version which limited to an either/or situation, if that makes sense. Are we looking at a more expanded scope because it’s no longer an inclusive list of two items?

So those are my two questions. The first one is around the interaction between this and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), specifically clause 21 around the extended notification of strike days; whether a partial strike would also be considered as part of that. Then number two: I suspect not, but if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying if now, with the new format, the powers referred to in the subsection is still limited to those three options, and it will not go beyond those three options or not be interpreted in a way that could go beyond those three options. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To Camilla Belich’s question about the time frames—which is also the same clause that Ginny Andersen had a question to—which is the five-working-day time frame for overpayment notices. The overpayment notice requirements—they have 10 days, rather than the five days which were previously in the law, due to concerns that large employers with complicated payroll systems would not be able to comply with these requirements. So that’s 10 days.

To Jan Tinetti’s question on schools with the Public Service Commissioner powers: the bill does not change which schools the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A very quick question I want to ask around clause 15 and that is around “Section 589 amended (Strikes in schools to be notified)”. Of course, we’re talking about partial strikes, and we’ve already deemed in the course of this committee of the whole House that the partial strikes in certain circumstances could be the wearing of a badge or could be wearing of a piece of clothing. I do happen to know that there have been schools in the past in certain regions where they might have worn a T-shirt on the specific day of the week saying something like “Stand up for kids”, which, actually, you want your teachers to be able to stand up for kids. So I think that’s a really good action that doesn’t interrupt the running of the school.

So it’s a quick question that I want to ask: that section 589(2)(a) is replaced with the notification around the strike of the nature of the proposed strike and “(i) whether or not the proposed action will be continuous; and (ii) whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer while undertaking the proposed action;”. I want to know: does that include or does it have the potential to include the wearing of a piece of insignia that sort of tells the action that teachers are taking at that time? So like those T-shirts, or a badge, or something like that. So I just want to seek some clarification around that, whether that’s inclusive of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m responding to Camilla Belich’s other part and her question on her amendment about wanting to remove the change that makes it clear that the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for pay deduction purposes. The approach in the bill is consistent with the current approach to full strikes and lockouts, and so I will not be supporting her amendment.

Thank you. I would like to ask some questions about clause 11. My questions are about the relationship between this and various other Acts, one being the Wages Protection Act and the other being the new wage theft legislation. In a situation where somebody doesn’t comply with clause 11(3)—so they don’t give the notice in the correct way and they don’t give the calculation method as they should—would you consider that would mean that they would be coming into a situation which was wage theft, and would you also consider it a breach of the Wages Protection Act?

Also, what if somebody makes a deduction of 10 percent when, in fact, somebody is just wearing a badge? When we last met over this, I talked about how I’d had a real case where people’s strike notice had that they’d go to the toilet. Those were bus drivers who didn’t usually stop, so they were doing something that’s actually lawful in every ordinary situation but, because of those circumstances, they actually gave notice of that as a strike action. So what if they were doing things like that, that you wouldn’t consider—they weren’t reducing the money of the employer in any unreasonable way; they were just pointing out that they had been going above and beyond for that employer and that kind of cooperation meant that they should have actually been paid more. If they’re doing that sort of thing, would you think that would come under the issue in the Wages Protection Act of an unreasonable deduction, and has that piece of legislation and that section been actually dealt with in this piece of legislation, even if to exempt this behaviour?

I’d also like to know about people on minimum wage, because what happens to someone on minimum wage if you deduct from that another 10 percent and you’re under the minimum wage suddenly? Is that OK with the Minister?

I’d like to know also—again in the Wages Protection Act—about the duty to consult. There is a duty to consult when you deduct money. Does this notice mean that there is no duty to consult in this case, and have the two Acts been reconciled in that way, or is it just to be read by a judge to suggest that is obvious—that there’s notice and therefore you can’t possibly have a duty to consult? Because you do for every other deduction.

Another issue there is the KiwiSaver contribution. People are on a wage and they’re earning a certain amount and they’re giving a certain percentage of their actual wage to the KiwiSaver and the employer is topping up. Is the Minister’s understanding of this that people would have their KiwiSaver reduced—their contribution and the employer’s contribution reduced—or just the employer’s contribution, or none? Is it actually that that’s well beyond wages in that sense?

Obviously, there are different treatments of commissions. So, again, we’ve got the same issue with commission workers. Is that something which would be reduced if their work was partially paid for by commission?

So I’ve given you a lot of questions, that I appreciate, there, but I hope you can see that they’re all very legitimate questions. They’re real-life situations, and it’s actually important even for the Hansard that you’ve answered the questions, because the first place that the employment lawyers are going to look is the Hansard, and they’ll want to know what the intention was of the Minister in those cases. So I’m not playing silly games; I would like those addressed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her answers in relation to my previous contribution. I did have a follow-up question, though, in relation to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commissioner’s role.

If we refer to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), there was a significant amount of consultation that was done with the Public Service Commission and also work that was undertaken by the Public Service Commission with Public Service agencies in relation to collective bargaining—essentially, the drafters, which, I understand, were the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) of this bill, seeking to get and obtain data from talking to Public Service agencies about the usefulness of this particular type of provision, being as it was previously in force. Unfortunately for the House and the public, there was unable to be conclusive evidence provided in that.

But I did want to know if, during that engagement with the Public Service Commission, these specific parts and sections that we are discussing in Part 2 were canvassed; if that was feedback that was given by the Public Service Commission in the engagement that MBIE had with them, and also in relation to the Public Service Commission response from agencies, which was collected in relation to the RIS.

The reason that I would like to know that is I think it’s really helpful to the committee to know whether there was direct involvement from the Public Service Commissioner, who is given powers under this bill—I accept—similar to the powers that are held in relation to full strikes. But it would be interesting to know if specific feedback was sought on that.

The other question that I have in relation to new subsection 587(4A), added by clause 14(2), is that provision provides—and the Minister said that provision was, essentially, for the Public Service Commissioner to act as an employer. Now, that may be the advice the Minister’s been given, but it appears to me from reading that particular clause that this particular new subsection, (4A), gives the Public Service Commissioner, essentially, a power which is already provided to all employers earlier in the Employment Relations Act 2000, around section 95.

I wanted to know: for what specific reason was it necessary, especially if there are—as the Minister has said and I’ve got no reason to disagree with it—the existing powers, as has already been canvassed, in relation to full strikes. Why is it necessary, then, to specifically state—and they’re able to act as an employer—that they can make a specified deduction when the new clause 95, I believe it is, specifically states that—and we already established that the Public Service Commissioner is entitled to it—an employer can make this. It seems a superfluous addition to the Act, considering that power already exists. So I want to know: did it come from the Public Service Commissioner, and, if so, why is it specifically necessary for that particular clause to be included? As the Minister is aware, I have suggested deleting that clause, partly for that reason. I’m interested to know the Minister’s response to that.

Also, I don’t believe I have had a response to my question around the utility of new subsection 587(2) of the Education and Training Act 2020, added by clause 14, which states only one new piece of information as far as I’m aware, which is in 2(c), in relation to the specified deductions. The other parts, new sections 2(a) and (b), are already existing powers which would exist separate to the passage of this legislation, so why have those particular parts of that clause been included?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Starting with an answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding whether or not there is an issue with the interaction of the change in the notice period for the strike notice in the Education and Training Act: there is no issue with the interaction of this bill and that change. The notice of the strike is the first step in the process, and this bill sets out what the employer can do in response to that notice.

In response to Ginny Andersen asking questions about the options I’ve pursued and landed on, the substantive provisions of the bill were debated under Part 1. This is Part 2, which is dealing with the consequential amendments to that part.

Helen White asked a question about making a deduction for strike activity that ended up not being a strike, or that someone believed was unreasonable under the Wages Protection Act. The provisions in the Employment Relations Act apply, meaning that people can recover an overpayment as long as it meets the requirements in the Employment Relations Act. The same thing applies in terms of the requirement under the Wages Protection Act, for consultation to recover a specified pay deduction. They need to meet the requirements in the Employment Relations Act, and so that’s the answer to your question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call, specifically on clause 15 in Part 2, which is around section 589, about amending strikes in schools to be notified. My question is around clause 15, replacement section 589(2)(a)(ii) “whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer”. So I am interested to hear from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about her definition of what “some work” means.

I ask that question within the context of one of the submissions that came through in the select committee from the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, where they referenced when they took strike action and it was against the backdrop of a nationwide teacher shortage. It was related to the use of teacher non-contact time. So as part of the job as teachers—and if there are any teachers that are not doing any planning or lesson planning for their students tomorrow, kia ora, tēnā koutou katoa. But an important part of teachers’ work is actually making sure that there is time for planning, making sure that there’s time for preparation and for assessment. It’s an incredibly important part of the job.

But in that particular circumstance, what happened was that time was being swallowed up because there was a teacher shortage. I guess it kind of falls into the questions that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about the interaction between this bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Because if you’ve got a teacher shortage in this particular case where teachers are actually being forced to not have that really specific and really important non-contact time, does that constitute as part of some work within the definition of this Act?

The other thing on top of that, as well—and it’d be good to get an answer from the Minister about this, because I know this is something that many teachers do. They put in a lot of work coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, doing all of that kind of stuff which actually falls outside of their contractual jobs and often is taken for granted. Does that stuff fall within the context of being part of “some work”? So I think it’s very important for the Minister to be clear so that teachers can understand exactly how this will impact them and the choices that they might have to actually make themselves. Do they take those extra hours—taking on children for touch rugby, for basketball—which will become voluntary hours, taking out kids in terms of preparing for different concerts and so on and so forth? Is that considered to be part of their work and therefore covered under this particular clause of the Act? Because it’s incredibly, incredibly important. Because what we need to be doing, actually, is encouraging an environment where teachers feel valued; where teachers feel that this Parliament, that this Government, values the work that they do.

But if you start to narrow things up and you start to say, “Well, actually, under this new clause, you’re supposed to be taking that basketball team, you’re supposed to be taking that soccer team, you should be out there taking our kids for all these different performances and so on and so forth, and that could be considered, and if you don’t do that, then you might be pinged for doing a partial strike.” That needs to be cleared up. Because it also points to the intention that this Government has towards all of these different professions and, in particular, all of those different unions who actually voiced these really, really important concerns at the select committee.

So just to recap for the Minister: my question is around clause 15, which replaces section 589(2)(a)(ii). It is around the question about, actually, what do you mean by “some work”? What do you actually mean by that? Is it all of these extra hours? If they’re not going to do it or they’re going to be discouraged to do it, who’s going to do it? So it would be good to get an answer from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m starting with an answer to Helen White, who asked what happens if somebody deducts wages off someone who is on the minimum wage. This was covered in Part 1 of the bill, and we are on Part 2. The next question from Helen White asked whether wage deductions mean that the employee will also have their KiwiSaver contributions reduced. KiwiSaver contributions are based on wages that are paid. If there has been a deduction, then that would also be accounted for.

Camilla Belich is asking why changes are needed to the provisions of the Education and Training Act. Section 587 of the Education and Training Act includes specific powers that the Public Service Commissioner has when acting as an employer, and so therefore the Education and Training Act needed to be amended to be clear that the Public Service Commissioner’s powers to act as an employer during collective bargaining also includes the powers in relation to specified pay deductions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. I know this question was somewhat addressed in your answers to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I’m slightly confused around—and I’m wanting to check my understanding of—the answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave.

I have a question around clause 11(3), inserting new section 6(3)(ba): “in the case of an overpayment that relates to a specified pay deduction, that notice—(i) is given no later than 10 working days after the pay day on which the overpayment was made”. I know that the Minister’s previous answer referenced the potential complexity around different employers and why that was changed from “5” to “10”, but my question is: if the overpayment was made across several pay days, which pay day is the day that’s picked for the purpose of that section?

My other question is around clause 14(2), inserting new section 587(4A). It says, “In any case where the Public Service Commissioner intends to make a specified pay deduction, the Commissioner may give a direction that a specified pay deduction is to be made.” I’m interested in the use of the word “may”. Is there any circumstance where the Public Service Commissioner would make a specified pay deduction where they wouldn’t give a specified pay direction anyway? Why use the word “may” instead of kind of prescribing that? Those are just some very quick questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question that was in relation to the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020, and specifically in relation to section 14. That relates to the section 587 amendment, “Public Service Commissioner’s powers when collective agreements are negotiated”, and I’d like some clarification from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to clause 14(2). It specifies here that “To avoid doubt and without limiting subsection (1),”—which is the replacement—“the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to—(a) lock out employees: (b) suspend employees: (c) make specified pay deductions.”

I just wanted to clarify if it was the Minister’s intention that a teacher or a teacher-aide would be able to be locked out if they were wearing a T-shirt. I think it’s quite important to understand if that’s what’s actually going to happen here. I think it’s important to note because freedom of expression and the ability to have statements about what you believe in—for our teachers to be able to do that. I just would like a clear understanding whether she intends for the way this legislation is going to be practically implemented within New Zealand; if teachers will be locked out of schools for wearing T-shirts. Because that does seem quite heavy-handed—with insignia, sorry, I should say. So with some union branding or a slogan that would be tied to a campaign that they were believing in, whether that be “Standing up for kids” or “Fair pay for women”, some of those statements.

I just wonder if she has understood that could potentially lead to higher-level industrial action that would be, in fact, more disruptive to students if that was taken, and whether she’d actually weighed up that, while the goal is—she said—to “restore the balance”, but the end output, if you’re just locking a teacher out for wearing a branded T-shirt, is that not going to just escalate those situations? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister considered if it was unfair, if the employer could just reduce pay during the work-to-rule with employees still performing their actual contractual duties. So if they’re still teaching, if they’re still doing those things, that doesn’t seem fair at all. Exactly how will it be estimated, that information needed to calculate those pay deductions? If they are kicked out for that, how is that exactly calculated?

I think, again, it would be good to understand how this would potentially lead to more disputes and increased litigation as parties test out this new law. It’s going to inflame things further. So I think it’s working against the very intent underlying this bill. It potentially means that employers’ notices of deductions could be worded in a way that potentially intimidated employees. So if you’re trying to restore the balance, if employees are intimidated about what they can put on their bodies as clothing in the morning to turn up to their job to teach children, is that qualifying as potentially intimidating people on their freedoms? We know that the Minister’s party is all about individual freedoms. So this bill would be looking like it’s significantly curtailing individual rights of freedom of expression.

Finally, the point I’d like to make is that some of these changes, they really concern how New Zealand’s going to operate, and whether that’s a fair way. So if the Minister was able to address that question and able to say if that is really her intention—that she is going to lock out a teacher from teaching kids in a school in New Zealand if they have a T-shirt on that says “Stand up for kids”? If that’s her intent, I’d really like her to explain how that brings us forward as a country.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A quick response to Ginny Andersen. I covered most of that off in Part 1; it’s nearly all of that question related to stuff that was discussed in Part 1.

To Teanau Tuiono, the question was what is meant by “some work” in clause 15 regarding the notice requirements. “Some work” means that the person is working and not fully withdrawing their employment, which would be a full strike. So that is to help the employer know if it is a full or a partial strike.

In response to Camilla Belich, there was a question regarding why clause 14(2) is needed. This is needed because if the Public Service Commissioner couldn’t give a direction to make a specified pay deduction, the deduction would not be able to be made.

Before I take another call, I’m going to say there is a huge amount of repetition happening now. Some clauses have been canvassed four times already. So, unless it’s very new, I will take a closure motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a new point to raise. The point that I have to raise is in relation to Part 2. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said, the Public Service Commissioner can make a specified pay deduction. Now, this is in relation to the Education and Training Act. The consequential amendments in relation to the Education Training Act are listed here in Part 2, but there isn’t a section which transfers the definition of “specified pay deduction” into the Education and Training Act, which I think is an error. I’ve looked at the Education and Training Act and I specifically looked at section 587, as referred to by the Minister, and I checked the powers that the Public Service Commissioner has in that section. As I thought, the Public Service Commissioner specifically has, in 587(1), the power to act as an employer in relation to negotiations. So, effectively, my question was: why are these sections needed? I was referred to the principal Act that’s being amended by the Minister, the Employment Relations Act. Upon reading the principal Act, I see that, in fact, the powers appear to already exist. So the Minister said, “Well, it’s for the avoidance of doubt.” Well, that just seems to be additional sections which appear not to add a lot of additional value.

Anyway, when I was going through that process, I was interested to see if the Education and Training Act did have a definition of a specified pay deduction, because it does have a particular meaning and it is defined in this bill, but it doesn’t. We look under “specified” in the interpretation section, and it doesn’t have “specified pay deductions”. So when we look at section 4A of the principal Act, we see that a very particular terminology is used in relation to a pay deduction. My question to the Minister is, firstly: is it a mistake not to transfer the definition into the Education and Training Act? I can’t see it here. I’m interested if colleagues can see that there. I cannot see that within clauses 12 to 15. If not, then what is the meaning of “specified pay deduction” within the Education and Training Act, and how will people know, when they’re just simply reading the Education and Training Act, to refer to this particular piece of legislation or the Employment Relations Act to find out the meaning of a “specified pay deduction”? It seems to me that it would have been better, if we are being clear and crossing all of our i’s and dotting all of our i’s, as the Minister has suggested, to include that definition within that section.

I know, Madam Chair, you’ve said that you are wanting new information. I believe that is a new question. I would like an answer to that, please.

Teanau Tuiono—I’ve given you the call, you probably can’t hear me.

Madam Chair?

I’m giving you the call but you probably can’t hear me.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is just a response and to get some clarity from the Minister in terms of her comments around whether or not a worker is fully withdrawing their work, or their labour; I’m not too sure exactly how she said it; she might want to clarify that for me as well. I want to try to understand about what exactly does she mean by withdrawing some of their work. The example that I gave earlier was where teachers should be having that really important non-contact time for assessment planning, lesson planning, and so on and so forth. But if there’s a teacher shortage and they’re being forced to take away that non-contact time, would she consider that withdrawing their work? So I’d like some clarity on that.

Just following up from that as well, the example around people coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, and so on and so forth—things outside of the work where sometimes contracts are not specific but there is an expectation that teachers will undertake other specific duties but it’s not actually kind of clear in their agreements. Does she consider that also as a part of their work, and, if she doesn’t, can she give the committee some clarity, give teachers some clarity, about how this particular section will pertain to them? Because I think it’d be really important, moving forward, that she’s clear about that.

Thank you. In response to Teanau Tuiono’s question, I answered that in Part 1 of this bill and the debate.

Francisco Hernandez asked why it says the Public Service Commissioner “may” give a direction. This is simply giving the Public Service Commissioner the ability to issue a direction.

Camilla Belich asked: do the provisions in relation to the Public Service Commissioner come from the result of feedback from the Publish Service Commission? The Public Service Commission was consulted on the Cabinet paper that related to this bill.

Francisco Hernandez asked: if the overpayment was made over several different pay dates, which pay date does the 10-day time frame apply to? The 10-day time period applies to each pay period when an overpayment was made.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3), new paragraph (ba)(i) of section 6(3) to replace “10” with “5” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete new subclause (4A) be agreed to.

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

Members, we now come to the final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3. This is the title clause, the commencement clause, and clause 3, “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to take some calls, hopefully, on the title and commencement. I do have a few amendments to speak to. The first one is an amendment to clause 2, which is to replace “the day after Royal assent” with “6 June 2026”. The reason that I have put that amendment forward is because I consider that there is not enough evidence on this being a good piece of law for it to be implemented so soon after this House has considered it.

The reason I say that is because, when we were at the select committee, we saw the vast majority of submissions were opposed to this bill. When we were in the House and we were scrutinising the bill and looking at the evidence provided by officials, we found there was no evidence to suggest that this bill, as it is currently drafted, will achieve any of the Minister for Workplace Relation and Safety’s aims. In fact, the evidence we heard at select committee was that it is more likely than not to result in full reduction of labour, a full strike as opposed to a partial strike, meaning that no work gets done. This means that this bill, in my view, is not fit for purpose. That is the reason we have consistently opposed this bill at every stage and the reason that we have put forward amendments to try and fix some of the problems in this bill.

That is why I consider that this bill should have a significant period of time where it is considered, and I have suggested a year after the committee stage was first started. I think that is a fair and reasonable amount of time to allow Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials, who do a good job no matter who is in Government, as neutral public servants, and you can see within their report, their regulatory impact statement, how hard they have tried to find some evidence or some direction that this partial strike bill will actually go any way towards achieving any positive aim at all for New Zealand workers or employers. And they have not been able to do so to date. I am sure, given a longer period of time in order to assess this particular Act, to look at some of the problems that potentially might arise under it, that come June 2026, it would be a much better time to either go ahead with this Act, if indeed it is possible to find any supporting evidence surrounding it, or to decide at that time for this Act to be withdrawn.

It is, in my view, a terrible Act. It doesn’t achieve a single objective. There is absolutely no evidence supporting it, and delaying commencement for a year would be a prudent and good decision in relation to this House and this legislature. So I implore the Minister to consider some of these changes to workplace laws that she has decided to bring through the House and, in this instance, to delay that so that the proper analysis and work can be done, so that we can be sure that the laws we pass in this House actually make a difference for New Zealanders, because, in my view, this one does not.

Thank you very much. In response to Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to increase the time frame to 6 June 2026, the Government will not be supporting that. But I also note that the reason for why she’s put it forward seems to be different to what was on the actual sheet here, which was to give employers, employees, and unions the chance to understand and prepare for the changes.

That was going to be my second contribution.

That was going to be your second question? OK, well, in that respect, I’ll knock off your other two amendments too, which was to 6 December 2025, and an extension then to 6 June 2027. The same answer is that the Government will not be supporting those amendments.

Madam Chair.

Camilla Belich just signalled that she had another question.

Yes. Madam Chair, thank you. I do have another question. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is correct. Another good reason for supporting my amendments was the fact that it would give employers and employees a longer period of time to actually digest what’s in this particular bill and have policies in place. I do think that that is important. I do think often, in employment law, one of the disadvantages of implementing change is that as soon as a change is implemented—and I know this from my previous work—there is a long period of time where people need to get advice on what they need to do and what policies they need to change.

In this instance, this particular bill is mainly aimed at public sector workplaces, and you can see that from the regulatory impact statement, when it states that only some private sector employers would likely utilise this partial strike law, compared with the public sector, where the vast majority of these particular actions are predicted to take place. I do think that a longer period of time would be necessary. I do wonder whether the Minister considered the period of time that would be necessary before implementing these changes. That is not uncommon in legislation—to have a period of time where that can settle in. So that is my reasoning that I’ve put as an explanatory note, which I note is not mandatory for Amendment Papers, but I do think it is sometimes helpful, especially when we’re only talking about numbers and clauses—not in this particular instance, where it’s a bit clearer what the amendment does. But I do think the explanatory note is helpful, and that is why I’ve put that in there, because of the work that I know will have to be undertaken by human resources professionals, lawyers, and people who work internally within the Public Service in relation to any change.

It is a big change in relation to industrial action. There will need to be a lot of work associated with it. So, on that point, I did also want to raise that as a consideration for a delay. As the Minister has said, I have suggested different amounts of time that might be suitable for that, but I certainly think that they are more sensible and more pragmatic than the day after Royal assent, which could be next week, and that does not give people enough time to be able to make sure that they all understand the rules. I think, when we’re talking about deducting people’s pay, it’s a serious thing—prima facie not something that would be legal under common law—so something that should be taken seriously and should be considered without haste and with due consideration.

In response to that latest contribution, the Government supports it coming into force the day after the date that the Act receives Royal assent. And that’s twofold: the changes are not a surprise; as early as December last year, we signalled our intention to reinstate previous provisions, so there has been time for people to understand that this is coming. But, secondly, the bones of this are very similar to previous provisions that were in place, and so for unions to understand, they simply just need to go back in time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around the commencement date, and, actually, I do appreciate the Minister answering the questions.

I want to just follow up with another question, which is: when we’re looking at the commencement date being the date of the Royal assent, were there assumptions being made? Like the Minister said, this has been something that’s been signalled before and now it’s being reinstated. Is the Minister planning on releasing anything on the day after the Royal assent to actually genuinely notify people, and everyone who might be affected? That would be really good to know because, like the previous speaker Camilla Belich has mentioned, there might be people who might be paying attention to this as things progress, but there might also be really small unions or, potentially, ones who may not know. So what is the Minister’s plan after the Royal assent to actually roll out an awareness campaign? That’s my first question.

My second question—and I know that this touches on the Schedule, but I want to talk about it in the context of the commencement date. So the commencement date is the date of Royal assent. This bill has been going through the House for a little while, in dribs and drabs, over a number of months. Because the commencement date is the date of Royal assent, that particular date was not fixed. It wasn’t a particular date, like, say, 1 August 2025, which would have meant that everyone was working towards that. So having the date of Royal assent could be very flexible, and now we’re nearly at the end of the committee stage and then there will be a third reading, and so—like the previous speaker said—Royal assent could be as early as next week.

I’m just checking in terms of understanding of what isn’t covered by this bill, and in clause 23 under new Part 7 of Schedule 1AA, to be inserted in the Employment Relations Act by the Schedule, it does say that “any period of a partial strike that occurred before the commencement of the 2024 amendment Act.”, but it doesn’t necessarily state that it needs to end before the commencement date. As I said, I wasn’t here, unfortunately, for the debate on Part 1, and particularly the Schedule. If this is something that the Minister has clarified, I do apologise, but I just wanted to check that reading.

Let’s say that there is a partial strike happening right now, and then there is Royal assent, but the partial strike is still in action. That, technically, fulfils the requirement that it’s a partial strike that occurred before the commencement date, but it hasn’t concluded when this bill comes into effect, and that means that that partial strike is not covered by this definition—is how I’m reading it. So I’ll be really keen to hear from the Minister with any clarification.

Helen White—but just before I take Helen White’s contribution, there’s a lot of conversations going on to my right. Either speak more quietly or take them out in the lobbies, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to suggest a title that’s more appropriate to this bill, and I take this seriously in terms of the need for the title to actually express what the bill does. So I’m suggesting to the Minister that a more appropriate title would be “(Allowing Penalties to Curb Freedom of Expression by Workers in Bargaining)”.

Now, it’s a long title, but it says something really important. Because what it says—and it’s absolutely what happens here—is that if you’re wearing a T-shirt, then your employer can penalise you 10 percent of your wages for doing that. So your freedom of expression is curbed. So this is a penalty. It’s not something proportionate, as suggested occasionally by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that, actually, if you wore something at Air New Zealand, it would affect the brand and that would be worth 10 percent. It’s not that. It’s utterly arbitrary. It’s a penalty on a worker who does something the employer dislikes and embarrasses them. It doesn’t matter the context; they are going to lose that right of expression unless they’re willing to pay 10 percent of their wages to do so.

It’s a funny thing that we’re doing when, in fact, we have enormous ability in this House to express ourselves, including the Minister, who’s made some interesting comments in this House recently. So what I wonder is, yes, whether we could afford to actually tell the public what we’re doing here, which is we are penalising them for using their right of expression, which, up until now, has been one of the tools in the tool box. They have been able to tell the public how they feel, but apparently no more. What we’re going to do now is they’re going to have a 10 percent penalty on them.

Is the Minister willing to accept that that’s actually what this bill does? It’s curbing that freedom of expression because the Minister doesn’t like it. She doesn’t like that people can wear a T-shirt that says things like “equal pay for women”. That’s going to be a problem. She doesn’t like it if they are actually saying something against her ideology or in support of their wish to be paid more, which is an interesting thing to do to people, particularly because the Minister comes from a party called “ACT”, which is all supposed to be about freedom of expression. We hear a lot about it, but this is the talk in the walk, isn’t it? So the walk here is that this Act is going to penalise those workers. So I want to know from the Minister is: will she put her money where her mouth and tell the public what this really is—which is an attack on workers—a 10 percent penalty? It is disproportionate to many things.

Now, I put an example to the Minister—I have never heard the answer to it. I put the example of people who stop to use the toilet when they didn’t use to do that because they’d run around as a bus driver doing that, but that’s what they notified their employer they would do and they got locked out. What happened in that case—because they had to notify because it was an essential industry—is when it got out that the employer had locked them out for taking their toilet breaks, the Auckland public turned on the bus company, and it actually changed the whole nature of the dispute. Suddenly, the public was sympathetic to the bus drivers because they didn’t know that they weren’t being able to go to the toilet. They didn’t know the kinds of lengths that that employer was taking over them. So, actually, it did make a difference. It was a way of them actually expressing where they were, but not actually harming the public. It was a very moderate response. So that was an example I put to the Minister.

I appreciate that this goes beyond this and the title might have to be a bit longer if we’re going to incorporate taking actions which seem incredibly reasonable but having a disproportionate penalty attached. We could extend it a little bit, but, actually, I just want to know: will the Minister front-foot it on this and tell the public transparently what her bill does by giving it this kind of title? Thank you.

Thank you. You know what I will front-foot, Helen White, is the fact that we’ve just heard more Labour Party misinformation tonight—that is, in your contribution. There’s a lot in that contribution. But the member suggested that myself and this Government are against equal pay for women; I would ask the member to stop peddling misinformation. This Government has never been against equal pay for women. The Equal Pay Act remains, and no woman has had their pay cut. Pay equity has changed, but it still remains. There is a difference between equal pay and pay equity, and so the member should stop peddling misinformation.

However, getting back to other points that people have made tonight, Helen White has also suggested a different title. The Government will not be agreeing to a different title because the bill is actually what it says it does, which is about pay deductions for partial strikes.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also had a question about if the bill applies to partial strikes before and after commencement. It’s actually quite a good question, so I thank him for it. That was covered in the debate on Part 1, however. But to clarify, the provision would not apply to the period of the strike that occurred before the commencement.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked: are there plans to notify parties of the changes? Yes, I plan to put out a press release tonight. But, also, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment provides updates on changes to legislation on its website, and they also utilise other channels to communicate with stakeholders on changes to legislation.

Right, before I take any further calls, I’m going to make the point that we are on title and commencement and, sadly for people asking the questions, I was here through a large part of Part 1 where I did hear the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety clarify about T-shirts, so I don’t think we need to go down that track any further. And I don’t want to hear any more relitigating of Part 1 and Part 2; this is about title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on the answer from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about alerting people on a press release and also on the website, could she give us some more detail there as well? My concern is you put these things out and then people just don’t know that they’ve happened, right? If that happens, then you leave people high and dry. I take her point that maybe people could go take a look at how it was back in 2018, but I think the counter-question to that is that the workforce has actually changed since then. The workforce changes regularly, and so you’ll have a cohort of people who are now in the workforce who would not have experienced what it was before 2018. I think it would be incredibly important for the Government to have very specific communications to let people know exactly how this will impact them, across all the different sectors, because there will be different impacts right across, given the particular changes that this will bring, particularly for that new cohort of workers that are now with us. I think it’s also really, really important for that to be communicated across the public sector, to teachers, and to everybody else that is impacted, so that their employers themselves can actually prepare themselves, because this thing will land on their desks and a lot of them will think, “How will this actually impact my workers? How will this actually impact my employees?”

Some of the answers that the Minister has given have, for me at least, been too vague. What does it actually mean—the definitions of “work”; that voluntary work and the examples that we gave around with teachers as well? What does that actually mean? There’ll be different arrangements. So there needs to be more specific clarity on how that will impact—in this case—teachers as well.

I think this is incredibly important. There are a lot of changes coming from this Government right across everything around workplace relations, and it is important, in my view, that this Parliament shows respect to those workers, shows respect across all the different sectors, particularly those that will be impacted, because we want these people to stay in the country. We don’t want them to wake up after—what is it?—26 June and think that they’re not being respected and that they don’t have the information to actually figure out how this will apply to them, because they’ll just jump on a plane and go somewhere else where they are more respected.

I hear that through my conversations with different workers all the time: “There’s all these different things coming out of this Government. There’s road cones.”—sector of so on and so forth. What we’ve got to do as a House is actually demonstrate to all the workers, to the people that look after our kids while they’re at school, look after our hospitals, and do all that really, really important work, that they’re actually valued—that there’s actually purpose and value from this House for those workers—and, at the very least—at the very, very least in my mind—is being able to communicate with them very clearly about how this impacts them and how their employers should be able to communicate these changes to them. Because if you don’t—if the Government doesn’t—then that will mean more workers jumping on a plane and leaving this country.

I’ll take a call from Camilla Belich, but we are getting to the pointy end of this, because I’m starting to hear more repetition, and repeating over old ground.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the call but I do note that my colleague Ginny Andersen has not yet been able to take a call on this part, and I know she’s incredibly enthusiastic.

There is no guarantee that everyone will get a call, right?

Noted, Madam Chair. I just wanted to advocate for my colleague as I feel slightly guilty having been able to take another call.

I do want to suggest some changes that have not yet been suggested to this bill in relation to the name. I think it is important, as we pass laws through the House, to make sure that they are as accurate as they can be. I have recently been chairing the Governance and Administration Committee, which has been looking at the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, and I’m convinced more than I ever was that that is a really sensible piece of legislation. One of the reasons for that is how important it is for so many different people within our society to be able to read and understand the language of Government. So I think it is really important, and not a trivial matter, to ensure we get the titles of particular pieces of legislation correct. So I have some suggestions to change the title.

At the moment, we have the title of the Act, in clause 1, as the “Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Act”. I want to suggest, and ask the Minister if she would consider, changing that title to the “Employment Relations (10 Percent Pay Cut Even If You Do 1 Percent Less Work) Act.” The reason I suggest that is because this is what this Act—as it soon will be if it’s passed—actually does. It means that people can in fact do 1 percent less work and receive 10 percent less pay. So I think that is a good suggestion for a name change.

I want to suggest another name change, which is the “Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Wearing a Badge) Amendment Act”, and the reason I suggest that is because that is exactly want can happen as a result of this soon-to-be Act. I want to suggest another title change, and that is the “Employment Relations (Pay Cut For Stopping Doing Unpaid Tasks Like Coaching a Sports Team) Amendment Act”, and that is because that is actually done in this Act as well.

This legislation institutes a number of particular provisions that result in genuine unfairness, and, in the committee stage, we did suggest sensible and pragmatic solutions to these changes. These were ignored and, regretfully, we’re left with an Act that does a number of things that I think many people in this Chamber, people watching, and the New Zealand public would not find acceptable.

I have another suggestion, which does not relate to the title and does not relate to the commencement.

New material?

It is new material, Arena Williams. It is in relation to clause 3, “Principal Act”. Now, this is the Employment Relations Act. I think that is correct and it should remain that way. What I want to suggest is whether the Minister would consider adding a more fulsome list of the Acts that are impacted by this legislation. For example, could we consider having clause 3, “Principal Act This Act Amends the Employment Relations Act and Makes Consequential Amendments to the Education and Training Act”—

Does it?

—yes, it does but it’s not listed—“and Makes Consequential Changes to the Wages Protection Act 1983”. These are the substance, as we’ve just discussed in Part 2. In fact, the entirety of Part 2 is discussing two Acts that are not mentioned in the title and commencement clauses in relation to the principal Act. So I want to ask the Minister whether, as she has suggested in other parts of the legislation, we need to cross the t’s and dot the i’s and make sure that we include all relevant information for clarity, including those pieces of legislation in those initial clauses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take a very short call in response to that question. Look, I actually have a lot of respect for the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They do very good work and they take their job extremely seriously, and the bill does what it says it does because those very good people who write our laws made sure it does.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 6 December 2025 be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 6 June 2026 be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 6 June 2027 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

I move, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will reintroduce the ability for employers to make specified pay deductions in response to partial strikes, to help minimise disruptive impacts on the public. Providing employers with additional tools to respond to partial strikes will help incentivise parties engaged in industrial action to return to the bargaining table and reach agreement in good faith sooner. Intentionally causing disruption and refusing to undertake key parts of the job not only impacts the employer’s output but often it is the public who are heavily impacted and tend to lose out or are caught in the middle when partial strikes occur. That is why I am reintroducing these changes.

Since the previous Government took this option away in 2018, we have seen the impact of partial strikes on the public—for example, cancer patients receiving later medical scans and treatment due to prolonged waiting lists due to partial strikes; kids missing out on education, and parents’ ability to work was then disrupted; and train passengers left waiting at platforms.

Employees who are bargaining have the right to strike, but those actions affect the employer and sometimes the public, so that rights should not be without consequence. This is about fairness. Once this amendment is made, there will be a balance, with proportionate negative consequences for both parties, where the employees are losing some pay and the employers are losing out too. This provides an incentive for both parties to return to the bargaining table as soon as practical, while also minimising community impacts. We have canvassed all the arguments as part of these debates, and through the select committee process. I am confident that this bill will work well and promote more harmonious industrial relations across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

What a shame; here we are again, in a real attack against workers in this country. We have seen it so much over the last 18 months from this Government. It is an absolute disgrace to this Government and it is a disgrace and a shame for our country.

Let me just remind you of some of the things that have happened prior to this bill being passed tonight. We have seen fair pay agreements that were one of the first cabs off the rank, once again, scrapped—once again going through urgency, just as we are here tonight. At least this one had a select committee, but, again, we’re pushing it through under urgency for no reason that has been given. The scrapping of 90-day trials; an effective cut to the minimum wage rate, against official advice—against official advice; stopping the work on pay transparency and stopping the work on modern slavery, even though the Prime Minister campaigned on that and said that that was the one thing he would march in the street for. That is something that has not progressed under this Government.

Stopping the minimum wage for disabled workers—an absolutely appalling piece of work that hurts some of our most vulnerable workers, and yet this Government has pushed that through as well. Cutting 6,000 Public Service jobs—absolutely horrific for our workers and our hard-working people in the Public Service. Not only does that impact upon them, it impacts upon many industries. You only have to go and walk the streets of Wellington out here at lunchtime to know the impact that that has had on this city—but not only on this city, a New Zealand - wide impact. The banning of charter school employees being able to negotiate their multi-employer collective agreements awards, something that is a fundamental right. One of the most egregious—and what I think is the most egregious, and, actually, most of New Zealand thinks is the most egregious—errors and actions that have been taken against workers is, of course, the cutting of the pay equity claims and the cutting of the 33 claims in order to make a Budget work.

Here we are again, with another attack on New Zealand workers. We are seeing pay deductions for partial strikes. Actually, people might, on the other side of the House, have thought some of those name changes in the committee of the whole House might have been a bit frivolous, but they were not frivolous at all, when you know it’s not just partial strikes. The definition of “partial strikes” is absolutely broad in this definition. A partial strike could be somebody wearing a T-shirt to work. They don’t want to take time off; they want to be able to complete their job to the maximum, but they also want to have that ability to be able to show their discontent with what is happening in the industrial process at that particular time. That could be seen as a partial strike. We have heard the Minister say, the whole way through this debate, that this is about another act of restoring the balance, that employers have had that balance taken away from them over the last few years. Well, this isn’t about restoring the balance; this is about taking any power that employees have away from them. This is about making sure that our employees, our workers in this country, don’t have any ability to make a difference in the industrial space and in the industrial bargaining times.

This isn’t about stopping disruptions. In fact, we know from evidence, both here in New Zealand and overseas, that this has the potential to cause more disruption, because now you’re taking that right away and bringing in the partial deductions. Those deductions are at an abhorrent rate. It doesn’t make sense at all, and we haven’t heard anything, the whole way through this debate, that it makes any sense that, for a loss of 1 percent production there would be a 10 percent loss of pay. That makes no sense at all. Now that this is happening, workers will be more than likely—and that has been proven—to withdraw their labour completely. So, instead of having partial strikes, partial withdrawal of labour, now there is that ability. The workers can say, “We will take that away completely.”

This is something that is, again, as I’ve said, an absolute attack on the workers of this country, and that Government has shown their true colours around how they really feel about the workers in this country. They don’t care. They do not care about the people who are going along to work every single day and trying to do their very, very best and then trying to get their absolute best in that industrial situation. It is incredibly hard when the power balance is very much in favour of the employer, and that Government does not care about those people and their ability to be able to make a difference for their families, to be able to take home more, to be able to get the best conditions they can. They need every tool in their tool box. This was another tool they could have had in their tool box that has been taken away.

Now, there has been lots of debate over this, which I still haven’t got a clear answer on, and the Minister, even in the last part, when we were talking about Part 2, still couldn’t answer questions. I noticed that that was about the only question she didn’t answer, about giving notice to the employer when there was a piece of clothing or a badge being worn. We still didn’t get an answer around whether that notice had to be given. So I feel that there is something a little bit more underhand here, which really concerns me. The fact that we tried really hard to give the Minister a solution to that. She talked about wearing a T-shirt, and St John ambulance people having to wear a vest over the top, and that that wasn’t OK. I actually agreed with that; that’s not OK. But we said, “How about we put an amendment into that and we make an amendment around that that enables that to be within good working and health and safety conditions?” But no; there was an absolute flat “No”, which says that freedom of expression of our workers is being denied as well. Freedom of expression so that our workers can tell people what they value and what they stand for has been completely wiped away with the stroke of a pen, in this bill.

That is so surprising. When we get people on the other side of the House who say they stand for freedom of expression, that is not true, because they have shown, right here with this bill tonight, that they absolutely do not stand for freedom of expression at all, and they do not stand for our workers being able to stand up and tell people their values and what it is they stand for. Those protests in the past have been very effective, incredibly effective. They have not stopped productivity at all. They have kept the productivity up.

Pull the other one!

See, Madam Speaker, you hear that over on the other side, but they don’t understand that wearing a T-shirt with your values on it does not stop productivity. They think that absolutely does, and that just shows how they absolutely have no idea of the perspective and refuse to see the world through the lens of the worker—absolutely refuse to see the world through the lens of the worker—and that is incredibly disappointing. But make no mistake: they have shown their values, they have shown what it is they stand for, and they have shown that they do not respect the people who do the work in this country, who are absolutely turning up every single day.

This is an incredibly disappointing day, but not unexpected for the people here in this country—not unexpected, because, as I started my contribution, we have seen attack after attack after attack. In fact, I have a list of 20 actions that this Government has directly taken against workers. Some of them have gone unnoticed, but make sure that we know, from now on, every single one of those is going to be highlighted to the people of New Zealand. That shows that his Government has no regard for the workers in this country, and that will come back to bite them. I absolutely condemn this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me start by saying that I think that everybody deserves dignity and decent jobs. I think that’s something that everybody around the House would agree on. I think, also, it’s important for workers out there to at least expect the bare minimum of respect for the work that workers do for us; the work that teachers do, the work that hospitality workers do—the work right across our society that they do to keep our communities functioning. We in the Greens also believe that we must uphold workers’ rights to secure an adequate income, to fair treatment and safety at work, and for workers to actually be involved in the decision making in their workplace, democracy, and collective organising.

But what we have seen over the parliamentary term is an attack on workers’ rights. From the repealing of fair pay agreements to the bringing back of 90-day trials, road cones the other week, loosening up of health and safety regulations—it’s been an ongoing onslaught. And, I guess, my question to the House is this: if you’re going to introduce so many different changes, you’ve got to be able to give people the decency and the respect for them to be able to digest these changes in a way that makes sense for them. Because there have been so many changes coming from this Government. As it has been mentioned before, we had the pay equity claims cancelled, 33 of those claims cancelled—and let me acknowledge the people: as soon as they found out about the cancelling of those pay equity claims, they were out the front there in a couple of hours—out there in the front in a couple of hours. The reason why they cancelled those pay equity claims was because that side couldn’t actually make their Budget add up. They couldn’t make their Budget add up, so what they did was take the money away from the poorest women workers. This is a disgrace.

There have been so many changes—negative changes—on workers in this Government. All I can describe it as is death by a thousand tax cuts—it’s death by a thousand tax cuts. My challenge to members opposite is this: we understand what the ACT Party is about; you can see it from outer space. I mean, if it was up to them, they’d turn this country into an overpriced mall which is owned by their corporate friends. But I think there is an expectation from the other two coalition partners that they would actually pause, that they would actually rein in their friends to the right, that they would rein in and actually give the workers a break. Give the workers a bit of a break from the myriad of assaults on workers’ rights.

What this proposed legislation, partial strikes will do is it’ll push more workers into taking full strikes. It’ll push more workers into taking full strike action. Just for people that are tuning in tonight as well: a partial strike could be something as simple as wearing a T-shirt; it could be something as simple as wearing a badge. It is a way for people to express when things have not been going well in the workplace. Some would call this freedom of expression, the ability to have one’s say, the ability to be able to express themselves. So why would this House want to curtail that? Why would this House want to stop the freedom of expression of workers, particularly when you look at the research and it shows that this is a way for people to actually have their say without going to full strike action. And so it was said a number of times within the debate that this will actually push people towards full strike action.

Let me just pick up some of the comments or lack of comments from the Minister through her speeches, but also through the committee of the whole House. When we asked her, “Well, what are you going to do to be able to communicate this with employers and with employees? How are you going to describe this? There are so many things coming from this Government that are impacting and stripping back workers’ rights, how are you going to explain this one?”, what she said is that she’s going to put out a press release. She’s going to put out a press release and she’s going to put something on a website. She’s going to put something on a website. No talk or mention about how this would impact all the different sectors out there—how this would impact teachers, how this would impact nurses, how this would impact collective action—let alone the new cohort of workers that are in the workforce at this particular point in time. What this points to is an utter lack of respect—an utter lack of respect on that side of the House for workers.

At the end of it, if this House keeps going down this track, if the Government keeps going down this track and the workers see what they’re continuing to do, what’s stopping them from getting on a plane and flying over to Australia, where there’s better work, pay, and conditions? When I’ve talked to workers across the country who are concerned about the myriad of changes coming from this Government, this is what they tell me. They tell me that, actually, “Maybe we should just get up and get out of here.” This is not what we want. We want people to feel that they are valued. We want people to feel that the work that they do is valued. We want to make sure that they feel appreciated. We want to make sure that for all of the workers, there is a career path for them as well. Where is the signal from this Government that that is happening? It isn’t. All we get is this kōrero all about “Growth, growth, growth.” What about the growth and pride for the workers? What about growth and pride for the work that these people actually do for us? We need to see more of that from this House, and it is sorely lacking, particularly from that side of the House.

So we oppose this bill. We believe it is the right of workers to collectively organise themselves to advance their interests, and we think it’s important that that is protected. It is vital that we uphold the right of workers and the unions to campaign for political, environmental, social, and work-related industrial issues, including the right to strike—including the right to partial strikes, right? We should be able to have a space there where you can actually express yourselves without going down the full strike path. As noted by many speakers on this side of the House, there is no evidence to show that partial strike provisions which existed from 2018 have encouraged more or longer industrial action. That is not what the research tells us. That is not what the submissions told us. There are a number of negative consequences to this bill, incredibly negative consequences of this bill, particularly when you look at it in the context of everything else that is happening.

The provisions from this bill can lead to manifestly unjust consequences, such as workers losing 10 percent of their pay—10 percent of their pay. Just say you might want to express yourself, just because something’s not happening that great in your work site; you might want to wear a badge, you might want to wear a T-shirt to express yourself, and your boss might be able to dock you 10 percent—10 percent. Not to mention the actual vague definitions that we actually got from this Minister of actually what constitutes “work” as well. Because we know that a lot of these workers do a lot of voluntary work. They do a lot of work which is actually attached to this work—and we have the example of teachers, who do a whole lot of other work on top of that. What happens when, actually, they’re being forced to be able to do that work as a part of this legislation?

The Greens absolutely oppose this legislation. We will continue to oppose this legislation, just like we oppose the smashing of the 33 pay equity claims, just like we oppose the repealing of the fair pay agreements, the reintroduction of 90-day trials. I would also warn workers out there, as well: there are changes coming down the pipeline where they are looking at loosening health and safety regulations, as well. So, again, I would caution members in the Government parties to actually rein in the ACT Party—rein them in. This is what they’re actually all about, but that’s not necessarily true of the others. This is too much. This is too much for the workers. There’s too much happening in this space. Workers need to have a breather, and by not giving them the decency to actually consider all these different changes that are happening day after day, week after week—what that shows is disrespect. What that shows is a lack of care. What that shows is a lack of duty of care for all those people that we are all—all of us across this House—elected to represent. It cannot just be about the bosses; it cannot just be about the employers. We’ve got to think about everybody. So we absolutely condemn this bill.

What we’re hearing this evening is that the Opposition want to tell you how to run your business and run your life. If you are in a business—whether it be McDonald’s, Mitre 10, or an accounting firm—and you agree to a set of relationships, a set way of working, a uniform as part of that, you know what you’re signing up for. The Opposition want to tell you, as an employer or employee, what you can and can’t do, and we oppose that. On the Government side, we believe in the ability to contract and be held accountable to your agreements. I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First always approach these issues of employment relations with a view to getting fairness and balance. On the matter of these partial strikes, we do believe the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is seeking to address a genuine imbalance. Employees at the present are, essentially, at liberty to take action impacting the functioning of a workplace with impunity. Despite the catastrophising of the Opposition, they are not losing any rights. They can still do all the industrial action that they’re able to before; it’s just that employers will have the ability to have a proportionate deduction to compensate them for their loss of productivity. It’s a sensible bill. New Zealand First support it.

This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what we are seeing with this particular legislation is this Government’s continued war on workers—continued war on some of the most hard-working parts of our population. We heard the previous speaker, the Hon Mark Patterson, talking about “Oh, this is the Opposition trying to tell people how to run their businesses.” Most of these are from the Public Service. They are people like teachers, they are people like your doctors, your nurses. They are the people who look after your children, look after you when you are sick, look after your parents, and yet you decided to kick them in the teeth with continued bills like this. You got rid of their pay equity. You would like to say you didn’t, but you did. You kept pay equity, but you basically said—it’s almost like running a race or if you’re in the Olympics. Suddenly, you’re like, “Yes! I’m going to get over to the finish line.” And they’re like, “Uh, uh. We’re going to just shift the goalpost. Start from scratch. You can still race, but start from the beginning. Actually, you know what, start from training.” This is what it feels like to the hundreds of thousands of workers that have been affected by the changes of the pay equity claims and by changes of bills such as this.

During the committee of the whole House stage, we’ve heard from the Minister on a number of things, but let’s be clear: the officials and the official advice that we have received—the impartial advice that we have received—says that this is going to create more risks. This is going to create the risk of more full strike action. This is going to affect your children. This is going to affect the treatment if you are sick. This is going to affect people being able to look after your parents. This is going to affect people being able to respond to you when you’re in an emergency. This is going to affect people more than if this bill was not brought to the House.

In addition, although the Minister said a lot of things, we still did not receive any clarity on the relationship between the employer and the employee on the definition of some of these elements, particularly when we were looking at what is meant when we say that some work is being done. I think that was a great question line in the committee stage from my colleague Teanau Tuiono. When we’re talking about teachers and when we’re talking about the complexity when there is negotiation or complexity of people’s workplace, this is not just simply a tick-box exercise. This is not just people who are sitting in an office, deciding on what to do. This is not Ministers sitting in their ivory tower of untouchable circumstances, telling people what to do and telling people how they should be acting. This is people’s real lives, and people’s real lives being affected.

When we were looking at situations when it comes to teachers, we have been given clear examples by people who work as teachers—not many people in this House can say they’ve stood inside of a classroom for decades. But we’ve heard from people who work as teachers, who talked about the complexity that this will create in terms of non-contact hours—how that will be considered. Are they doing work? Are they not doing work? Their contracts are complex. What is considered “some work”?

This bill, along with many other bills we’re seeing from this Government around workplace relations, is something that is simply pandering. I don’t even know who they’re pandering to, to be honest—but clearly they’re pandering to someone—because it is not the people of Aotearoa New Zealand who are affected by a suite of changes we see in workplace relations. So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will absolutely not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that outstanding contribution from the member Dr Vanessa Weenink on the opposite side! This bill, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, docks the pay of nurses, it docks the pay of teachers, it docks the pay of police, it docks the pay of firefighters, it docks the pay of any essential worker if they ask for fair pay and better conditions—better pay and better conditions. That is what this bill represents. It’s a sad indictment on a Government that has already taken a complete assault on the rights of working Kiwis, through scrapping fair pay agreements, 90-day rules, and also what they’ve done with pay equity.

In a cost of living crisis, this Government has taken it upon themselves to make the workers hurt even more than what their changes are making. At a time when families are struggling to be able to afford food, when there is high and rising unemployment, when there are record numbers of people being laid off, this Government takes it upon themselves to further drive down the working conditions and the ability of workers to stand up for their rights. We condemn other nations for stopping the freedom of expression of people. Why does that make it any different for workers here in New Zealand? It’s a double standard, what this Government is doing to working Kiwis with this bill.

Partial strikes are an important tool to flag that there is something not right with the employment relationship before reverting to a full strike. The deep irony of this bill—and maybe that’s what the intention of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety actually is—is that full strikes and full industrial action will be more likely to ensue by removing the ability for workers to partially strike. It will be even harder for employers to be able to calculate how much they will deduct, and that was one of the key reasons, in the first place, that it was removed. So those calculations will be made far more difficult.

This legislation really seeks to introduce the ability for employers to dock the pay of workers that are clearly participating in the ability to work to rule and to exercise that right, where the employee does nothing more than carry out the duties that they are stipulated to do. And that is not fair. Under this bill, as we’ve heard, a worker can be financially penalised for simply doing their job properly. For fulfilling their contracted obligations and no more, they will be docked. For wearing a T-shirt that says, “I fight for kids. I stand up for children.”, they can have their pay docked under this. It’s freedom of expression, and it’s basic workers’ rights.

It’s not just bad law; it’s cynical lawmaking. This is a pre-emptive strike on the very public sector workers—teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers—who are expected to enter into collective bargaining in the coming years. It’s a deliberate move to weaken the hand of employees before they even get to the bargaining table. It’s punitive and it’s regressive, but those members opposite do not have an eye to what that is doing to employment relations in New Zealand. Let’s call this what it is: it’s an ideological crusade by ACT, who’s Batman, and National is Robin in this sad act, and it’s shamefully enabled by the National Party. It’s a dismantling of union protections and a tip of the balance even further towards employers. Let’s be honest: we’ve heard about that balanced relationship; it’s tipped, under this legislation, for the employer to hold all of those cards, and that’s exactly what they’ve set out to achieve.

Under the proposed amendment, employers will have the statutory ability to impose pay deductions on any employee engaged in partial strike action. That could be refusing, for example, to work overtime. It could be deciding not to take on duties outside what is already a contracted role. A clear example we’ve given a number of times is those lovely people that teach your children softball or netball or football or touch rugby and they do that after 3 o’clock on the school field. Well, that is outside of what their contracted employment relationship is, and if they refuse to do that, then they can have their pay docked. So you are pressuring and, really, standing over people to take up jobs for free without being remunerated.

All of these flaws with this legislation have been picked up by the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that we’ve been through. Let’s just take a moment to reflect on that, because if there was ever evidence that this bill is not backed by evidence, then the regulatory impact statement gave a pretty good case. It completely lacks any qualitative data. It relies on anecdotal and historical examples, and it makes completely untested assertions. It fails to outline how the Government intends to meet any of its Treaty obligations. The Labour Party considers it an absolute shocker to have no evidential basis to make such sweeping changes. In fact, I’ll quote from the RIS: “Neither the number of partial strikes and [the] full strikes, [nor the] number of persons days lost, show any clear pattern in relation to the ability of employers to make pay deductions during partial strikes.” There is no evidence that the previous law caused any problem whatsoever, and so what is the point of this bill? Why are we reversing it? The truth is it’s not about evidence; it’s completely about ideology.

In 2018, when Labour amended the Employment Relations Act to remove pay deductions for partial strikes, we did so to restore that balance and working relationships in the workplace. We recognised that industrial action is a fundamental right for working Kiwis in New Zealand. We understood that partial strikes are a legitimate and a proportionate way for workers to express their dissatisfaction without resorting to the full withdrawing of labour. This Government’s proposal will remove that option. It will force unions and workers into the binary choice: either stay silent or go full noise and strike. That is dangerous. It’s dangerous for working relations, but it’s also dangerous to productivity. I really fear that this will undermine New Zealand’s productivity down the line. It does not promote industrial harmony; it just escalates conflict. My concern is that is the intent of what this bill is there for.

The likely result of this law will not result in any fewer disruptions, and we’ve heard that. We heard that in the submissions. We heard it from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. One of their quotes I liked the most was “This will escalate disputes, it will tip the balance of power even further in favour of employers, and it will lead to more litigation and prolonged industrial conflict at the expense of both workers and also employers.” It’s absurd that a Government would introduce a bill that increases the risk of full strike action in the middle of a cost of living crisis and looming industrial negotiations.

I’d like to conclude by saying that, on this side of the House, we believe that workers deserve dignity, fairness, and the right to take reasonable proportional industrial action. We believe in collective bargaining. We believe that strong employment relationships should be grounded in respect, not fear. But this Government—they’re rolling back fair pay agreements, 90-day trials, and now they’re targeting unionised workers with legislation that will make it easier to intimidate and punish workers. Make no mistake, this is not the end; this is part of a wider pattern, a pattern that attacks the most basic protections that working people rely on. I want to speak directly to those workers watching this debate—nurses, teachers, emergency responders, cleaners, and everyone else who keeps this country running—we hear you and we see the work you do, and we know this law is not about fairness; it’s about control and it’s about weakening your voice. Labour opposes this bill because we believe in partnership. We believe that the employment relationship works best when there is trust, when there is dialogue, and when there is a fair playing field. To the Government—if they really wanted fewer strikes, they would be investing in good-faith bargaining and equitable pay and settlements, not this rubbish.

Let me close with this thought: the right to strike is not an inconvenience to be legislated away; it is a cornerstone of a democratic society—and, without it, there is no balance, no accountability, and no justice in the workplace.

The principle is simple: a full day’s work equals a full day’s pay; a partial day’s work equals a partial day’s pay. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Well, it’s a pleasure to be able to have the right of reply after that speech, because basically everything that the last speaker, Grant McCallum, said was wrong in relation to this bill. It is not a full day’s pay for a full day’s work or a partial day’s pay for a partial day’s work. This particular piece of legislation means that even if you do a full day’s work, you can receive only 90 percent of your usual earnings, even if you do every single thing in your employment agreement. So that is totally wrong, Mr McCallum, and I think you’re aware of the fact that it’s not as straightforward as it seems, this particular bill.

This particular bill, as colleagues have said, has come after a myriad of anti-worker legislation that has been passed by this House. It feels a little bit like Groundhog Day. We’re here again, we’re nearing 10 p.m., we’re under urgency, and we are discussing backward legislation that only takes workers and employers backward in New Zealand.

This particular bill that we’re discussing tonight has absolutely zero evidence that it will work. I’ve read all the documents, I’ve read the departmental disclosure statement, I’ve read the regulatory impact statement, I’ve read the departmental report, and there’s absolutely nothing in there that says that this legislation will do anything other than inconvenience New Zealanders more and take pay away from hard-working Kiwis. That is all that we know, as a result of the select committee process and as a result of the evidence provided to us by officials, this bill will allow you to do 1 percent less work and receive 10 percent less pay.

This bill will mean that if you wear a badge or a T-shirt with a political message and still do all your work, your employer can deduct 10 percent of your wages, and those wages can be deducted by up to 10 percent even if you’re on the minimum wage. So this bill allows New Zealanders to be paid less than the minimum wage. The minimum standard we have for remuneration for adults in this country will be taken backwards, will be cut during a cost of living crisis at a time where things are tough for New Zealanders, when it’s difficult to even get a job. This Government is making those jobs worth even less for New Zealanders. It is a shameful act that they have done this.

You may say—

Did anyone think this was a good idea?

—and it’s a good question that my colleague raises: did anyone think that this was a good idea? Well, I went and I checked the departmental report, and I looked at the submissions that we received, and I can tell you that 97 percent of submissions received by this Parliament on this bill oppose this bill.

That’s 606!

So 606 submissions in opposition to this bill. Basically, no one supported this bill. It was not called on by anyone. It was brought into place by a Government that simply wanted to attack workers and give employers tools that they didn’t want, to hurt their employees more. It is totally retrospective. The Minister herself said that we’re going back in time, and we are. This is a backward step for workers, and it will result—and this is what we heard at select committee: we heard that it’s much more likely to result in a full removal of labour.

When we talk about the inconveniences of strike action—and strikes are meant to be inconvenient, that is the entire purpose of them. But when we look at what’s more inconvenient, a partial strike that people do because they know that they can do that and they can make their point and their wages won’t be touched, or a full withdrawal of labour, I know which one’s going to be more inconvenient when you’re talking about accessing medical services. I know which one’s going to be more inconvenient when I’m a parent wanting to drop my child off at school. This bill takes us backwards. It does absolutely nothing.

Before I end, I think it’s important that we recognise how retrograde this particular bill is by looking at the actual advice provided by officials on this. The officials themselves said that this bill will result in a disproportionate use in relation to low-level strike action. This was why the last Government repealed this legislation: “disproportionate use for low-level strike action”. This Government’s bringing it back. It will bring back unfairness and it will take workers’ wages down.

Restoring pay deduction provisions supports the Government’s commitment to improving public services and maintaining service quality during industrial action, so I commend this bill to the House.

I’d like to give you a different example from one that I’ve used with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety at the start of my speech. It, again, comes from my background in employment law. One of my many clients was the midwives union. They had a situation with midwives where you know that we don’t have very many of them—there’s not enough. We’ve had issues with safe staffing levels of midwives. So we had a situation where those midwives were in a position where they couldn’t strike in the ordinary way of withdrawing labour, because they could not actually leave their post, because they had an obligation to staff safely.

What this legislation means, from what I can see, is that if those midwives want to take an action which is much more moderate than that—they want to wear a badge or they want to do some part of the job where they think, “This isn’t going to affect safety and so I can put that part aside and that can be my strike action”—they will have their pay deducted 10 percent. Midwives are people who work incredibly hard—we have enormous amounts of burnout. It’s a very stressful job. They have just been subject to the changes that the Government’s made in terms of pay equity—so we have compounded the problem of low pay in this area—and they have just had another way that they might be able to show their concern taken away from them.

We have strikes as part of an order of business. It’s not something that just comes out of the blue; it’s a built-up structure where we have strikes and we have lockouts and we have bargaining that happens within a certain time frame. So we have a time when you can strike and a time when you can’t. And because we are organised in the way we are organised, the whole population buys into something that would otherwise not work for us.

We’ve moved from a situation where there used to be random strikes and there used to be suits against people and businesses. We’ve moved from that situation to a well-organised situation where people give up certain rights at certain times so they can have those rights in bargaining; they can organise around it. What is happening here is that we are playing with fire.

If you take away the levers from people, what do you get? Well, the first thing that you get is that all the moderate actions that people want to take—and there’s a lot of us who would be hesitant to strike—they tend to be the people who have got less confidence. Your very confident, stroppy workers might strike; but your, often, female workers, low-paid workers, are less likely to. So you’re taking the power away from that very group that is the one you want to be able to progress a claim.

Now, I did talk about my bus driver case. I talked about these bus drivers—

Repetition!

—who were—and it’s not fiction. It absolutely happened, sir.

I talked about those bus drivers because those bus drivers were actually being treated in a way I was shocked by. They already had split shifts. That meant that in the morning they worked because we all needed to get to work. They sat around for four hours in the middle of the day not being paid—and they got no money at that time and they were stranded in town for four hours because it wasn’t enough time to go home and come back in—and then they worked this shift after that, taking people home again. They were not being paid very much. At that time, my recall was it was about $18 an hour. That was what they were doing, and they weren’t taking their toilet breaks because this inconvenienced the New Zealand public because there was nowhere for them to stop. If they did that, it was going to delay the bus service and people weren’t going to get to work on time. That’s what they were doing.

They are the kinds of workers I want to protect. I want them to have ways to express themselves which actually engage with the public in their terms and conditions in making them understand. When we wrote the strike notice and they had to do that because any action—any action; that’s not a non-strike action, that’s an action—to say that you’re going to take your toilet breaks. So we wrote the strike notice about that. As a result of that, those workers were locked out. As a result of an inquiry by the New Zealand Herald, the New Zealand Herald understood that that was not fair on those workers and wrote an editorial which said it was not fair. As a result of that single action, the public understood these drivers needed to be paid more. That’s what happened as a result of a partial strike.

Now, tell me that that is not in the interests of the New Zealand public. It was so much better than a situation where the workers struck, had no money, the company blamed them completely for what had gone on, they ended up on the other side of things—and those workers would never have won that dispute in that way. They were smart, but they were also fair. They took the least possible action to inconvenience people for the maximum benefit. That’s smart and I’m proud of them for doing it, and it was one of those disputes that got sorted out and changed people’s lives. Actually, that’s what puts food on the table.

We hear from this coalition Government over and over again how they believe in giving people a hand up and people helping themselves. They don’t want charity. Isn’t that exactly why we need strong labour relations where people can take actions like this in this sort of situation? Because nobody wants charity in that way. They want to earn a decent living, and they need to be able to do it by using this tool in the tool box. This tool is a good tool in the tool box. What is going to happen now is that this Government—because it’s fanatical about unions and it’s got no sense of the actual value of workers—is going to stop this happening, and there’s going to be an unintended consequence. The unintended consequence is that people will have no other option but to strike in a complete way.

The other unintended consequence is that people will lose faith in Government. They will totally lose faith.

And the third unintended consequence is that people will get poorer. People at the bottom end—who haven’t got much power, who are hesitant to strike fully—those are our low-income workers; those are our people without a lot of confidence. They will be the ones who become poorer. In this country, we have a problem. We have a problem of poverty. It’s going to be an unintended consequence that affects our children.

We already have a report out in conjunction with our Budget which says the levels of child poverty are going up in this country, not down, under this Government. We already had that happening and, on top of it, we lay another law—another law to crush anybody who wants to wear a badge or a T-shirt or express their view or take their toilet break or put a button on because they’re a midwife who is already under the pump.

None of those things is allowed anymore because this Government, which said it was going to help people in a cost of living crisis, has other priorities. It wants to ignore the reality of people’s lives and pretend it’s all part of a beautiful trickle-down situation. I wish I could say that I had any faith in that view; that it’s all going to come down to people, but it’s not. Our job is to make sure that we do our job; that we help people from our seat. And this abandons people to poverty.

I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, and what a disgraceful bill this is.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a split call from the previous round—

This is a split call for—

—so it should be a five-minute call, not a 10-minute—

A five-minute call—a split call. That will be why it’s saying it’s five minutes up there.

Thank you.

I seek leave for an extra five minutes, for a 10-minute call.

Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection?

Yes.

Guys—guys.

Well, more disgraceful behaviour from this Government, which doesn’t even want to listen to the views of anyone who opposes them, not even the workers who are trying to raise legitimate issues in their workplace. They will have to pay for that now. Like me being denied the ability to speak for another five minutes, the young people in businesses around this country will not be able to raise their concerns. In fact, they will have to pay for it—pay 10 percent of their wages—if they want to have a say.

This is ACT Party ideology at its worst, and it’s a race to the bottom. This is a Government that says it’s going for growth. Does it call growth the suppression of the wages of young people and vulnerable workers? Because that is exactly what this bill does.

Young people will bear the brunt of this because the minimum wage is the de facto wage for young people in any advanced economy. The minimum wage is what young people make when they are in their first job, and this minimum wage will be further cut. It will be cut from the minimum legal wage for adults and young adults if they are trying to raise their concerns.

I want to tell you a story, a story about my best mate, Melissa Cosgrove, who—

Is it an exciting story?

She was a Timaru meatworker in her first job—you’ll like this one, Grant McCallum. She worked at a meatworks close to the heart of many a community in the mid-Canterbury region. She didn’t have the worst job in the factory, because her dad was also a meatworker—and that’s how it works in the industry. You’ve got to stick with your line of work in the families, and the Cosgroves from Timaru are a meatworkers’ family. They’re a well-unionised family, as well.

She wasn’t on the slaughterboard or on the chains, Mr McCallum, but she was in the offal room, which was considered a good job, and much better than the yard. So she was lucky to get that job, and she worked really hard. For two summers, she had that job, as a teenaged young woman, and it was pretty hard in those jobs. There aren’t many young women who work in them. But of those who get into the job because their family are in that line of work—and it pays pretty well, especially when you’ve been doing it for a bit. Especially if you’re a young person in a training opportunity, or you’re going to university and trying to put a bit of money away in your summer that you can then cover your costs, this is a good line to be in if you’re a young person.

But the thing was that, for her, over two successive summers, in the job that she was working in with the other young women in that factory, the line that she was working on with those young women—because they were separated from the other workers—was really, really far from the women’s changing rooms. You can imagine that when you’re working in the offal room, you’ve got your big gloves on, you’ve got your white boots on, you’ve got your apron, you’ve got your covering over the top—a little apron over your shoulders—and then you’re using your hands all day.

It’s physical work and it’s back-breaking work because you’re standing on your feet all day, so when your tea break comes up, you are thrilled. As a 19-year-old, you are going to race back to your locker way down the other end of the room, and you are going to get out your little Snap Lock bag with your bickies and your hot flask and you are going to have such a good break.

But for these young women, they were up the other end. Their changing room was way down one side because there were not many women working there at all, so in their 15-minute break, they would make their way from the chains. The bells would go, and they would make their way down the other side. It took about three minutes to get there in their gumboots. They’d take off their gumboots, take off the gloves, take off the top, and leave the apron on, even though you’re covered in muck—you’re covered in absolute, literal muck from the offal line, and I won’t repeat what was actually on it. Melissa would like to have a shandy and tell us all about it, but I won’t tell you tonight because it would gross some people out.

But she’d make her way down there, get her kit off, and by the time she’d gotten her kit off, it was about eight minutes—that was as fast as she could possibly do it, and this was by moving really quickly. She would then go into her bag, bring out her lunch, eat it as quickly as she possibly could, and then go to the bathroom, and the problem was that these young women had absolutely no time to go to the toilet. If they were menstruating, they had no time to deal with that situation for themselves in the only break that they had.

So, for about a week, every time she would go back to the line, she would take an extra five minutes, and her boss told her—this 19-year-old woman, who had fought really hard for this job that is better than being in the yard and is better than what her dad had for seven years when he worked at that meatworks—that she was striking. She was 19 years old and she was doing her best, and she had a boss that was taking advantage of her because she was a vulnerable worker. This bill would mean that her pay was cut, too.

This bill is a race to the bottom for young people who don’t know that they’re being abused by their crap bosses. It’s about people who are just trying to get ahead to put a bit of money away for their university degrees. The National Party should not be standing for a race to the bottom on wages for young people.

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

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

I move, That the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to be leading this bill through its final stage in the House. I particularly want to acknowledge the bravery of victims who have shared the personal experiences that have shaped this bill. Our Government has been clear from day one that when it comes to law and order, victims are our priority. It underpins all the work we do to achieve our two key targets: 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029—something we’re currently tracking ahead of—and a 15 percent reduction youth offending, which we know we’re closing in on. This bill further builds on our plan, which we know is working.

I’d like to briefly outline the issues under the current law and how this bill addresses them. The purpose of this bill is to improve the experience of sexual violence victims who are participating in criminal justice proceedings. Specifically, it addresses two issues these victims face during proceedings. The first issue is deeply disturbing. Right now, under the Crimes Act, it is possible for victims to be questioned in court about whether they consented to or even enjoyed sexual abuse that happened to them when they were under 12 years old, as part of deciding whether that abuse was a crime. This experience is unacceptable and is especially harmful if the complainant is still a child during proceedings.

The second issue is that the current settings for name suppression are confusing and out of step with what most people would expect. In too many cases, victims do not automatically get interim name suppression, causing victims additional distress. The current settings can also end up silencing victims who would like to talk about their experiences, because the court has the final say on whether to supress the offender’s name. This situation leaves victims unable to speak out or warn others, even though the offender has been convicted. That is not justice. That is a system that protects silence over safety and, once again, takes choice away from the victims.

The bill addresses these problems by making it clear that the age-specific offence of sexual conduct with a child must be used when the person was under 12 at the time of the offending, aligning the maximum penalty for sexual conduct with a child under 12 with the maximum sentence for sexual violation: 20 years imprisonment. Clarifying the process for victims lifting their own name suppression by including the process in the criminal procedure rules; extending victims’ automatic interim name suppression to all crimes of a sexual nature, including offences related to intimate visual recordings; only allowing permanent name suppression for people convicted of sexual violent offences if the victim agrees.

Two additional changes were made by select committee to clause 6A to clarify that victims’ agreement to name suppression orders is only applicable for permanent orders and not interim orders, and require that all reasonable measures are taken to contact the victim to seek their views on the offender’s name suppression. I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee for their work on this bill; and the victims, their support people, and their advocates, who shared their experiences and insights. Your input has been key to the development of this bill.

The Government has heard from victims and their advocates that name suppression settings have disempowered victims, prevented victims from speaking out about their experiences, and prevented victims from warning others. We have also heard that the way children are questioned in court is not acceptable to New Zealanders. This bill responds to those concerns. The changes we are making are about one thing: protecting and empowering victims. This bill makes it crystal clear that children cannot consent to abuse. This bill empowers victims with choice and it makes sure their voice is heard loudly and clearly. Children under 12 years old cannot consent to sexual activity, full stop. It should never be a defence to say they enjoyed it or agreed to it.

These changes will better protect some of our most vulnerable victims who are being brave enough to come forward to talk about their experience in a courtroom. The changes to name suppression are a powerful step forward. They restore dignity, choice, and control to those who have had it taken away from them. Let me be absolutely clear: these changes do not force victims to decide whether their abuser’s name is published. If they don’t want to make that decision, they don’t have to. The bill doesn’t impose it; it empowers.

The bill will come into force four months from the date of Royal assent. The Government’s message is this: it is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We are fixing that. It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws, especially when they have braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We are fixing that too. This Government firmly believes in centring victims, and it is my pleasure to be here today, championing these much-needed changes. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you. I was not in the select committee process for this, because I’ve just picked up this portfolio. It’s one of those portfolios that you pick up and your heart is heavy with it immediately. You know the weight of it because it is such a serious issue in our society. Lots of us know people who have been impacted by this kind of violence towards them. It’s a terrible ride; it’s not an easy process through our justice system. We absolutely have to do more to address the way that we treat victims. We also have to, I think, look beyond our justice system, in terms of how we treat those victims, because court is a small part of what we probably need to do.

There’s a lot of work to be done, I think, on first picking up this portfolio, in the area of education. We have some pretty strange views out there in the world about consent and what is acceptable. One of those views is the view that people could enjoy or consent to this behaviour at a very young age, and, unfortunately, it’s not something that has happened occasionally; it has happened habitually—that people have used this kind of defence when they have abused a child. That is something that has come to the attention of many of us in the legislature because people have come and complained about the old law.

I remember talking to a group about this, who were explaining this issue in the law to me and how the way that the matter was prosecuted had different penalties in it, one of which was lighter than the other. If the matter was prosecuted under the lighter law, it wasn’t necessary to prove the consent issue; so it was being chosen. Effectively, the person was getting a lighter prosecution, a lighter sentence, because those prosecuting didn’t want to put a child under this extra scrutiny and have this extra defence raised. That was an unacceptable situation, and I’m very pleased to see this law amend that today. That’s a really important thing that’s happening today, and the Labour Party is supporting that change.

With regard to name suppression, I do see the issue with regard to automatic name suppression tending to feel, often, like a disempowering act to a victim. I think that is an absolutely valid point of view. But the issue is more complicated than that, because the sad reality is there are often more victims than one. There are often more victims than one. If this has happened in a family, it may be that there will be two sisters, and one sister will be the person who has asked about the suppression issue, but the other one will be equally impacted by the result of it. There may well be two different views in that situation. So it is a much more complicated thing, and hence you’ll see, in the report, the Labour Party take a more nuanced view on this issue. It is a difficult matter. It’s hard to reconcile that issue.

One of the things that I think we need to remember is that we also place a lot of weight on someone, particularly someone young, making a choice like that. Because they live in a community, there is real weight attached to such decisions, and there is also going to be family pressure. All of those issues are going to be difficult, and so it may well be that this part of the law doesn’t necessarily have the impact that we hope to see by it; hence the reservations that have been expressed by the Labour Party members who were part of this select committee.

There were real concerns from the Law Society about this aspect of the bill. I always take real notice of those submissions, because I think that you have people giving submissions in those circumstances who’ve worked a long time in an area and they’ve seen a lot of different scenarios. I don’t think that the arguments they’re putting up are academic ones that we should dismiss; I think we should respect anybody who works in these areas long term, because they bring all those layers of experience in. I don’t believe there’s a kind of dichotomy between listening to the victim and listening to the people who have been expert in those fields. It’s very important we do listen to them. I take on board that there will be people out there who’ve got serious reservations about this aspect of the law, but today we’re going to support this law going through, and it is very much part of something that, I hope, will be a much bigger focus on sexual violence in New Zealand and trying to eradicate it and support those who have experienced it.

I just wanted to talk, lastly, about the seriousness of that situation. I went to something today which was on the marae just down the road, and it was about sexual and family violence. It was a group of people who are being disbanded that were advising the Government. One of the people spoke up in the group and said that sexual violence was misunderstood in this country—that people didn’t have a clue how bad it was; how most New Zealanders would be horrified if they knew how prevalent it is. I have to agree. I think we’re moving into a society with new dangers, with regard to this, one of which is the area of digital development, where kids are playing games that involve sexual violence and it’s changing and making them less realistic. It’s changing their norms. I think we will have to think about sexual violence more widely and differently than we have. It is going to matter, not just to do things like this but to think very widely about how committed we are to eradicating this problem in our society and spend some money on educating our kids about what’s wrong with it. We are entering a new world and people don’t know.

What that man made me think today was that it’s not just our kids; it’s a society that has thought, in the past, it was appropriate to argue that there were people liking this who were under 12. It’s that society; it’s throughout our society. It’s our children, but it’s also our adults who need to understand just how bad this problem is and how harmful it is. We really need to spend some money on it. We really do. We hear a lot from this Government about wasted spending. Well, I hope I never hear those words used about this. I just wanted to remind this House that there was no money spent for the Minister who was in charge of family and sexual violence work—no Budget bid, no extra money this term—and I hope that that gets reviewed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in strong support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, an incredibly important piece of legislation designed to enhance the legal safeguards for victims of sexual violence within our justice system. This bill is a testament to our collective commitment to ensuring that survivors of sexual violence are treated with dignity, with respect, and with autonomy when navigating the complex and often retraumatising legal processes.

The key aspect of the bill—well, there are a few parts of this bill. We’re looking at the impact of sexual violence on children. We’re looking at strengthening those legal protections for all victims of sexual violence, and empowering victims to have control over name suppression, and ensuring a fair and consistent process for those name suppression applications. Then, of course, it’s where to from here? How do we prevent this violence from ever happening? We have some really amazing cross-party, cross-agency work there with Te Aorerekura, which was, of course, stewarded by the Hon Marama Davidson.

A key aspect of this bill is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961, which introduces a crucial change regarding the offence of sexual violations for victims under 12. Oh, I know that we all feel this really heavily when we hear that “for victims under 12”. It seems so obvious, and I’m glad, today, we are bringing our legislation, our laws, into line with what is right.

The bill’s new definition is “sexual connection with a child”, ensuring that the legal processes better reflect the vulnerability of young victims. This change acknowledges the profound harm caused to children. The reason that we’re doing this is to reduce the risk of subjecting them to those invasive and distressing and retraumatising questions around sexual consent in court, including, in some cases, being asked disgusting questions like, “Did you enjoy it?”—absolutely appalling. I’m so glad that we are protecting those victims who are 12 and under.

It is an important step in protecting our tamariki and aligning the maximum penalty for this offence with that of sexual violation towards adults by removing the possibility of victims under the age of 12 being cross-examined in court around these very invasive questions and this questioning, and we send a clear message that our justice system is committed to prioritising the safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable in our society, our tamariki.

In addition to these changes, the bill also addresses critical issues around name suppression. This was a key theme that came through in the submissions in select committee. I do just want to take the time to thank everybody who submitted and who went back over their own trauma and the people who are working with these traumatised people and survivors. Thank you for taking the time to write in submissions. Thank you also to the people who came in and gave oral hearings. It was so important for us to really strengthen this bill and make it really workable in our justice system. I do take my hat off to the Justice Committee as well for working together on this bill.

One of those key themes that came through, of course, was around name suppression. Currently, automatic name suppression is only provided for victims of certain sexual offences, leaving victims of other sexual crimes, such as intimate visual recordings. This is inconsistent and creates a situation where some victims may be exposed without their consent or even awareness. For many victims, the fear of being publicly named can be deeply, deeply distressing and contribute to further trauma, and we want to reduce that. That’s why the Greens strongly support the extension of automatic name suppression to all victims of sexual violence. We know that being publicly named can cause further trauma, and we want to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

During the select committee stage, we heard very clearly that an equally important provision in this bill is one that gives victims greater control over decisions regarding that name suppression. This bill will promote that the victim’s view will be paramount when considering the suppression of a convicted defendant’s identity. No permanent name suppression could be granted without the victim’s agreement, except in cases where the victim is unreachable or unable to engage. We think that this is a really important change because this empowers victims and acknowledges their agency in determining how they wish to engage with the legal process. This is something we heard, over and over, really strongly from a range of submitters in select committee.

Another one of the themes that we heard at select committee from our submitters was around the fair and consistent processes. That’s what this bill is aiming to do. It is aiming to create more consistent and transparent processes for lifting that automatic name suppression. This aligns to ensure that victims who wish to lift this name suppression can do so more easily and, in a way, that’s consistent with rules that are already in place. This is about good lawmaking; it’s about listening to our communities, listening to the people who have been the most affected, and ensuring that our laws are in line with the realities faced by people who have been victimised and assayed.

I want to acknowledge, again, the extensive and really important work of the Justice Committee, which scrutinised this bill and worked really hard together to enhance the legislation. I’m really proud of the work that we have done together. It’s been a critical contribution to improving the framework within these legal protections.

Of course, in concluding and talking about the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, it’s an important and necessary step and reform that will improve our justice system. We want to make sure that we are strengthening those legal protections for our vulnerable victims and survivors. We also must recognise that there is still so much more work to be done. That’s where things like Te Aorerekura come in, that prevention of family and sexual violence. Te Aorerekura is about eliminating family and sexual violence. That’s why it is a cross-agency initiative that works together to ensure that prevention work is happening across the board. We want to continue to see the Government put its money where its mouth is and really invest in prevention and in the community services and community providers who are ensuring that there are these programmes and that there is education out there and support wrapped around these whānau. We must continue to work together to create a future where survivors and victims are supported and prevention is at the heart of our efforts.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the third reading of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. As has already been said tonight, we’re proud to be part of a Government that actually is victim focused, and we’ve actually put a target on reducing victimisations in New Zealand. What this bill does is—really, it is about improving the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, particularly those victims of sexually based offences, which are particularly heinous and unpleasant. It makes two really important but simple changes. It makes sure that the victims of sexual offending under 12 are appropriately treated in the criminal justice system, and we’ve heard some talk about that tonight. So we’re making sure that those vulnerable children are appropriately protected as a prosecution is happening. It makes these really important changes around name suppression, and, particularly, allowing victims to speak out if they want. That’s the key thing: empowering victims to be able to speak out if they want, by clarifying the process under which they can lift name suppression. So I commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. The introductory Minister has given an outstanding outline of what this piece of legislation is. It is important we get this into law, and we commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This is something that we do support from the Green Party because of the fact that although they are considered reasonably minor, they make really meaningful changes to people’s lives and to people who should not be subjected to additional trauma or be put through repetitive traumatisation as a result of something like this.

So just two particular elements of this bill that we wanted to address. The first one is, rightfully, when we’re looking at amending the Crimes Act 1961 so that the offence of sexual violation cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old, which then would reduce the risk that the child would undergo questioning about certain content when giving evidence in the court. I think this is something that even during the committee stage was something that the House broadly had clear consensus over.

I think the other thing when we are looking at the second part of this bill, again, we wanted around the automatic name suppression for complainants in sexual cases—we want to draw back to the work that could be done and the work that is intended to be done by Te Aorerekura, the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. Again, that particular action plan and documentation is something that is going to move towards addressing this really concerning and systemic issue here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

So, specifically, one of the things that we looked at during the committee stage is around some of the details and potentially some of the improvement or consistency that’s been met as a result of this. I think, for Part 2 in particular, when we were looking at the Criminal Procedure Act, which talks about the automatic name suppression for complaints cases, that we have heard from survivors and victims and from complainants that they do not need to have such protection and find that applying to lift the suppression can be a slow and difficult and expensive process, which, again, reinforces the idea that we are looking at people who have suffered a lot—and are potentially retraumatised—as a result of this process.

I think—again, I know I mentioned it in previous speeches as well, but I really want to draw the House’s attention again to Gisèle Pelicot, who bravely lifted her name suppression against her husband in France and is able to bravely talk about her story and experience, so that way it raises a nationwide campaign, highlighting the concerns around sexual violence in France. I think this is a really, really good example of different people wanting to get through and reclaim themselves and feel a sense of empowerment in different ways, and name suppressions may not be able to achieve that.

We did, however, ask the Minister a couple of specifically nuanced questions and we did manage to get some responses from the Minister around what happens when there are two complainants and one decides to lift name suppression while the other doesn’t. Those are kind of the things that potentially may play out in situations and may not be anticipated as a result of the regulatory impact statement or the introduction of this bill. We are quite happy with the way that the Minister conducted themselves and being able to respond to our questions.

So, again, overall, the Green Party is supportive of this bill, as we have been supportive of other bills that strengthen protection against the most vulnerable communities and the most vulnerable parts of our communities. It could be this, it could be litigant abuse, it could be other forms of family violence that we’re looking at, but ultimately these are kind of the things that we really need to be looking more towards when we’re introducing bills to this House—how we can have equitable treatment, being victim-centric, and have better access to justice. So, with that, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to take a short call on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This is a rare occasion when the House comes together on an issue that is really important. I’ve personally, and I know many other members have also, acknowledged the courage of the submitters. I think many of them had a lot of courage in talking about it. Dr XuNan just talked about a case in France, but only just last weekend, 21 June, we had our own case being revealed in the New Zealand Herald about two daughters who’d been abused by their father. They were taking the opportunity to be clear and open about what had happened to them, and I think this is a bill that helps them stand up for their rights. That is why it’s such a great occasion to be standing in this House, talking about this bill, and to see it passing the legislation very shortly. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. So this bill does two different things. It clarifies law in the area where there are sexual crimes, and there’s two separate offences specified where it makes an offence to have sexual connection with a child or a person defined as under 12. Consent is not relevant under section 132(1), but under section 132(2) it explicitly states that consent is not a defence, which means harmful lines of questioning are less likely to be pursued.

However, despite the age-specific offence being available, rape or unlawful sexual connection with a child is often charged as sexual violation under section 128B, inserted by clause 4, and under this section, lack of consent and lack of reasonable belief and consent are key elements that may be proved. Therefore, children could be cross-examined about whether they wanted, asked for, or even enjoyed sexual activity. So what this legislation does is it makes sure that sexual violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment, whereas sexual connection with a child had only 14. So it brings them into line and it stops children being asked if they consented to sexual abuse or rape. So this was first looked at by both Camilla Belich and Emily Henderson when we were in Government, and they relentlessly pursued this with the Minister of Justice at the time, to the point where they finally agreed to put it in a bill. So it’s a good example of backbenchers taking up an issue and relentlessly pursuing it to see a legal change.

The second area that this covers is the area of name suppression. Before I go into that, I’d just like to quickly relay a personal story from when I first started working at New Zealand Police. One of the areas I was working in, a senior adviser to me lay out a roll of paper and it was about three A3s altogether. So it stretched right out. They rolled it out and they said, “That is a rape trial, Ginny. That’s a timeline from the point of charging to conviction of a rape trial.” That’s still the case in New Zealand. It takes years to go through a rape trial. Women are still questioned about details of their life and retraumatised through the criminal justice system to the point where it prevents people from reporting sexual violence because the process of holding the offender to account is so traumatising that it actually puts people off from reporting and enabling justice to happen.

So this is a small step with these provisions. These are small steps to try and make that traumatic process slightly less traumatic. But we have a really long way to go to enable a system which enables victims to want to come forward and to give evidence and be treated fairly before the court, but also to have their dignity retained through that process. I would like to acknowledge everyone who’s had to go through that process. It is a very difficult one indeed. I’d like to acknowledge that there had been some good changes made in terms of the way Whangārei and the court they run up there, in terms of how the courtroom is set up, how victims are treated, how evidence is given, and enabling victims to come forward and tell their stories in a way in which they’re not traumatised.

We already made changes; what would happen is someone would be questioned about their sexual history, about their promiscuity around what they were wearing. Those sorts of questionings were able to be made. So there’s already been changes made around that to be more in line with the UK. So some of these changes are just a few of the ones that we made when in Government. This is actually the last couple of bills that I introduced as the Minister of Justice, that are getting their final reading now.

We do have some concerns with the provisions in and around name suppression, and there’s been some excellent examples given of cases where—whether it’s France or I think of the Mama Hooch cases in Christchurch—victims stepped up and were pleased to be able to hold their offender to account publicly. They have every right to be able to do that. But that is their choice and their ability to do that. We, along with other advocates in the sector, have raised some concerns about the pressure being placed on victims to have, effectively, a veto right on whether name suppression will be provided or not to the accused. So those reservations have been highlighted.

The one in particular is that there is more stress or pressure because of the weight of that decision and that there could be victims that are exposed from other family members who have a vested interest in getting a conviction of the person in the dock. There’s no bottom age limit in this bill where victims could be consulted, which could potentially result in children being given the decision power despite potentially not fully understanding the consequences. So there are some concerns there.

There’s also an issue in and around multiple victims. It is unclear what would happen in the situation where there is intergenerational sexual offending. There are cases where this occurs, where there is a small community in New Zealand where there is a known sexual offender who has committed sexual offending against three generations. There’s been instances where that has occurred. So while some of those older victims of that sexual offending may well want that sexual offender’s name to be made public, there may be younger members who are still at school who have the same last name and don’t want that to occur. So that’s a real concern as to how that would be weighed up, because there’d be some strong views that they should be called out, but as long as the interests of all those victims are being weighed up, we really hope that that occurs. We would really dislike for this to prolong the trauma of sexual violence within our justice system, which is already—as I’ve explained—incredibly traumatic for victims of sexual violence.

The policy process of developing the name suppression amendments in this bill was quite concerning, and part of the reason why this bill has come halfway through this Government’s term, when it was introduced by our Government back in 2023—it is because the Minister of Justice took quite a bit of time to take a look at name suppression and to make those changes. It was held up for close to a year while he did that. So we still have some concerns around that policy process. I felt it was important to put it on the record, about what was the process to arrive at this decision. It’s well and good to say that you support victims and you’re doing this for victims, but we should talk to victims and the people who work alongside of those people and take into account those views.

The officials in their advice to the committee stated that the Minister directed us to consider adding the proposal to the bill that, before the court can grant a permanent name suppression to a person convicted of sexual crime, it must have the agreement of the victim of that crime. They state that: “We did not have access to a fully detailed problem definition.”—this is problematic—“We have discussed the proposal with the Minister to better understand his intention, and to more clearly define the problem. However, we were not able to obtain full context or clarity.” This is after they spoke to him—“We have therefore made some assumptions in our assessment of the proposal.” So it’s great that you’ve clearly done something to help victims, but the officials themselves have stated that this was not done with a clear problem definition.

So, yes, we support this bill, but we have some real concerns that it hasn’t been done with a full, thorough analysis of what the problem is you are solving, which, to be honest, is quite typical of this Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very good piece of legislation, and I would also particularly like to acknowledge the courage of the submitters. I would commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s disappointing that we’ve got an important bill here about matters that are important and we’ve got a Government that’s putting this to the House and its members have got fundamentally—Mike Butterick had nothing to say. It’s just really disappointing.

Look, this bill raises difficult and challenging issues. The bill as it was presented to the select committee was relatively straightforward in making it clear that, essentially, consent should never be a defence when there is sex with a child. That’s a good amendment. We entirely support it. Then halfway through the process, an Amendment Paper was introduced and put to select committee, which introduced a pretty significant change. That was what can best be called the right of a veto to name suppression by a victim. At first blush, that looked very like a very good idea; that, if you’re a victim of a sexual offence, you get to choose whether or not the perpetrator gets name suppression. In many cases, that will work and that’s all well and good.

But as Ginny Anderson has just said, life can be a little more complex than that, and when we’ve got multiple victims, some of whom are of age and some who are not, it becomes a lot more complicated. When we’ve got offending across family members, where not all family members accept, sadly, that the perpetrator is the wrongdoer, life becomes a lot more complex. The difficulties, the possibilities of pressure being brought to bear of the victim’s life being made more difficult by this reform is real. We think that this is a blunt approach. We support this bill because overall, in sum, it’s a good reform, but we have reservations around that particular aspect of it.

The other challenge is this: it’s a philosophical challenge in some ways, but it makes the victim the judge in terms of the perpetrator, in that they get to decide what the punishment is, because name suppression or a name being published is recognised as part of the punishment. One of the aspects of the rule of law is that judges decide punishments and that between the victim and the perpetrator we have the State to decide those things, because judges can impartially balance the competing interests of parties in such situations. But this very blunt tool—the right of veto of name suppression that was introduced at a very late stage by the Minister—doesn’t recognise that. It says to the victim, “Well, you decide.” That’s actually a dereliction of duty. The State is not doing its job.

I accept that name suppression rules need work, that we haven’t struck the balance perfectly and that better direction could be given by this House to the courts, but a carte blanche to victims to say “You decide.” is putting the victims actually in a very invidious position. So that’s why we don’t support that part of the bill, but we will be voting in favour of it for the wider purposes.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great day that we support across the House this piece of legislation. It’s been a long time coming, as previous speakers spoke about. Therefore, I’d just like to commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call and speak to this very important bill that actually has some history in the House. While I’ve been out of Parliament for 18 months, I do remember the introduction of this bill to the House when it was first introduced in its first iteration, which was that first section or the first part of the bill in regard to the consent issue when it didn’t have the name suppression issue attached to it. But I didn’t leave the issue there when I left the House. I went back into legal practice and I was also involved in a project that was led by the wonderful Hon Anne Tolley and Dr Emily Henderson, who the House will be very familiar with. They, with others, were and are working on a project to identify the gaps in our legislation and policy in regards to sexual violation and sexual assault. Part of what they were working on was consent law reform, and as part of those conversations, we certainly had a lot of feedback on this issue.

So what I’d like to touch on today are the parts of this bill which we do agree with and some suggestions that were made by those who submitted to the select committee. I wasn’t there to receive those submissions, but I’ve read those submissions, some of which, I think, contain some excellent suggestions that the House must turn its mind to in due course. I will also talk about parts of the bill that we disagree with, which the Hon Duncan Webb has spoken to as well.

Part 1 of the bill amends the Crimes Act so that a person cannot be charged with the offence of sexual violation if the victim is under 12 years old. Instead, the charge would be sexual connection with a child, and this would, as other speakers have said, reduce the risk that a child must undergo questioning about sexual consent while giving evidence in court. The bill would also increase the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to align with that for sexual violation.

There are many submissions on the bill that reference the need for the bill and HELP Auckland is one of those submissions where they talk about research from the office of the Chief Victims Advisor in the report called That’s a Lie, which demonstrates that some defence lawyers have accused children of having consented in spite of presentations to the contrary, and that kind of questioning and accusation can obviously have quite serious consequences for the young person. So we do support that section of the bill.

However, HELP Auckland and YouthLaw Aotearoa also mention in their submission that there is a gap in terms of this particular issue. The YouthLaw submission says, “As a related issue we have concerns about consent still being argued in relation to young people between the ages of 12 and 15, particularly in cases like R v Christian which involved a teenage girl and a significantly older man. The maximum penalty for sexual connection with a young person is still 10 years, so that’s half of that for sexual violation under section 128(B)(1), which means that those young people in that higher age group can still be questioned about consent.”

I think that some of the submitters acknowledge that there is a policy question here in terms of young people who might be in a relationship with someone who’s just slightly older than them but older than the statutory bar, and that it is something that may involve the need for police discretion in terms of which charge is more appropriate. However, it is important for the House to consider that issue, which hasn’t been addressed in this bill.

The other issue that was raised by YouthLaw in their submission was the proposing of a review of consent more broadly and looking toward adopting a positive definition of “consent”. Now, this isn’t a new issue for us in the House. It was something that was actually raised in 2019 in a Cabinet paper on improving the justice response to victims. It was also a submission that came to the 53rd Parliament though the petition of Layba Zubair, who presented to us along with a number of experts. She was interesting. She didn’t argue for a precise change; she argued that we needed to consider whether the law of consent needed to change or not. I would certainly argue that it’s timely that the House starts to look at that.

There is an academic called Anna Hide, who is working with the Hon Anne Tolley and Dr Emily Henderson on this project, and she argues for consent law reform so that we have proactive consent. She talks in some of her writings about the fact that, in case law, judges are more willing to accept that you need proactive consent for the most part. However, we have the case of R v Christian, which, on appeal, the Supreme Court declined to read an affirmative consent standard and they said that being passive plus an X factor meant that consent could be presumed. At this time, I’m sure the Government members listening are wondering what that X factor could be. Horrifyingly, it can be that you have a history of being in a relationship with the person. So you can imagine in circumstances of domestic violence that if this were to come up in front of the court, we still at least have some case law where silence plus X, plus something like being in a relationship, could be seen as consent. So my sense is that there have been some really valuable submissions, not only on specific issues on the bill but what the bill doesn’t cover in terms of this area of sexual assault, as well.

I just want to turn briefly to the Labour members’ dissenting view, and Dr Duncan Webb has covered this in detail, but I wanted to recognise the submission of the Law Society which raised very valid concerns about the rule of law. They actually very helpfully made some proposals for a residual discretion where the judge could still exercise discretion to grant name suppression. My colleague Helen White proposed during the committee stage quite a narrow residual discretion on the basis of some of what the Law Society said. She proposed that where the identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the victim, including whether sexual offending has occurred within the family, or where the identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the offender, there ought still to be some residual discretion.

I was a little bit alarmed that the Government members didn’t really seem to be considering those very valid residual options that had a focus squarely on the victim. They were not the full set of proposals that the Law Society had suggested. They were focused very squarely on the victim and actually also on the offender’s family. But I thought that they were very helpful, very pragmatic suggestions that, unfortunately, were discounted.

Interestingly, some of the submitters who work in the sexual violence space also believe—well, some of them—that there should be some flexibility in this space, and I’d encourage members who have an interest to go back and read HELP’s submissions. They proposed changes such as that for young people under 16 who are complainants in those circumstances there should be automatic name suppression and that they should be able to decide later down the track, because they would face, potentially, a lot of pressure in those circumstances. Of course, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has said, where there are multiple victims that can also be a valid space for there to be residual discretion.

Finally, I just suggest to the House that this is one of those issues where it may be well worth our time to return to some of these issues in due course and just really be sure that they are working, that they are fit for purpose, and that those who are working on the front line truly believe they’re serving the needs of complainants but are also fair in terms of the rule of law.

I’m the last person to speak in the third reading of this bill, the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill; a bill that really tugged at many of our heartstrings as we listened to the submissions and we considered what so many of our tamariki have had to go through in the past. This is a child-protection-first - approach bill. This is a victim-protection-first - approach bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise as a member of the Labour Party who has worked extensively in this space to ensure that good legislation is brought to this House, to ensure the empowerment and also the voices of victims of sexual violence, as has been traversed from my colleagues on this side of the House, in terms of how this came to being in this Parliament from the previous term, and as our conversations have been had over the evening, through the committee stage, through the select committee stage, around the importance of traversing the complexities of what can be done in terms of supporting victims of sexual violence and strengthening legal protections.

Now, we have an issue in this country when it comes to sexual violence, and we need to continue working on that and we need to continue fighting that. This legislation is something that takes us a step closer and further to a nation that does what is right by victims but also doesn’t allow sexual violence to be something that’s ever condoned or accepted, but also ensuring that it’s not just something that’s hidden away, which often can be done when it comes sometimes in families who protect family members, when it comes to things like name suppression. We can do better, and I’m glad to be part of a mostly robust and engaging Parliament and lawmaking community that can actually make changes for the betterment of victims.

As I was looking through the legislation and thinking about what I could say this evening, it’s interesting to look at the changes that are being made. So we look at Part 1, that would amend the Crimes Act 1961. Think about that just in terms of the dates and what has happened and changed since the 1960s. We live in different times and this place should always be a place that is always moving and stretching and keeping up with what modern society is doing. So the fact that this legislation would amend the Crimes Act 1961 so that the offence of sexual violation cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old—instead, the charge would be sexual connection with a child.

Now, this would reduce the risk that a child must undergo questioning about sexual consent while giving evidence in court. We know that there’s been a track record in this country when it’s come to this process with under-12s. So it is good to make some moves and move forward in this space. The bill would also increase the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to align with that for sexual violation, and that is a good thing.

Secondly, as we look at Part 2, that other colleagues have talked about, it’s around amending legislation from 2011. When I was looking at that and thinking back to the culture and the time of 2011, I think of social media and the difference that time was to now, and the fact that social media was something in 2011, but it was something that was far less and far more engaged than it is now. So the fact that we look at legislation like the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which relates to name suppression, it is a good thing for us to look at working on and changing.

It’s around protecting victims. It’s around protecting their privacy, while supporting also their autonomy to have name suppression lifted if they wish. I think that is important for us to sit with: that a victim has a choice and a victim has a voice. Being someone who’s worked in this space with offenders and victims over the years, I know the fact that to have a voice and to be able to speak up as part of the healing, part of working through trauma, is the fact that you have the power restored in you.

So my colleagues have spoken about some of the challenges that we had through the select committee stage around things that we thought could be done better to improve this. But, on the whole, we think it is a good step forward for this House and for this country, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I present a legislative statement on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 October 2025.

This is my first piece of legislation in the House, and I had a rather dramatic, flowing 10-minute eloquent speech all ready to go. But given the hour is nearing midnight—it’s 20 past 11, and we all want Reuben Davidson to get a good night’s sleep—I will curtail my first reading contributions to get to the crux of it, and that is that this bill further supports our Government’s view that the hunter-led and community-led conservation effort is the key to improving and protecting our nation’s biodiversity.

The Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill proposes a small but significant amendment to the Game Animal Council Act 2013. This amendment will provide certainty and will clarify that a herd of special interest designation can be made within national parks, as originally intended by the Act. Herds of special interest are simply herds of game animals on public conservation land that have been formally designated by the Minister to be managed for hunting purposes. The designation enables certain valued introduced species already present in a specific geographic area to be managed for qualities prized by hunters, such as the size and quality of individual animals. However, there is some ambiguity in the current legislative framework.

Specifically, Subpart 3 of the Game Animal Council Act allows the Minister to establish a herd of special interest within national parks. Now, managing a herd for hunting purposes includes maintaining a sustainable population of healthy game animals by targeting cull stags and hinds and does, and allowing strong, healthy older stags and bulls to propagate. This creates a smaller but healthier herd as having less browsing pressure and better genetics results in better, healthier animals, bigger trophies, and larger sources of protein. However, section 4 of the National Parks Act 1980 requires that introduced animals “shall as far as possible be exterminated”. It is, therefore, arguable that you cannot manage a herd of game animals for hunting purposes by completely exterminating them.

The legislation for herds of special interest needs to be clear and unambiguous in order to provide certainty around their designation, particularly those in national parks. It is our view that in passing the Game Animal Council Act back in 2013, this House was clear in its intention to be able to designate herds of special interest in national parks, and so what we are doing today is giving effect to that intention.

To address this inconsistency and to clarify that the final decision to designate a herd of special interest rests with the Minister, this bill will make a single amendment to the Act so that the National Parks Act requirement to exterminate introduced species does not apply to herds of special interest. These herds will, therefore, be able to be sustainably managed, alongside improving our conservation outcomes. The legislation will retain all the requirements for herds of special interest to be consistent with New Zealand’s wider conservation framework. This means that a herd of special interest must be consistent with, amongst other things, the preservation of indigenous species, habitats, ecosystems, and natural features, and, in fact, the wapiti case study proves this to be so.

The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation has been successfully managing red deer and wapiti populations in Fiordland National Park for decades. Not only do they undertake regular culling of deer and wapiti and manage the increasingly popular wapiti ballot during the bugle; they also maintain our huts and our tracks, and they carry out thousands of hours of trapping to better protect our vulnerable native species like the whio / blue duck on behalf of the Department of Conservation. The sustainable management of wapiti within Fiordland National Park has undoubtedly led to greater conservation outcomes than the alternative, which would be to have no involvement from hunters at all.

I could go on at length about the great benefits that our hunting population adds to our conservation sector, and I could go on at length about how the wapiti herd descends from the generous gift of American President Teddy Roosevelt in 1905, but all I will do is go on to say that this legislation provides clarity to the real champions of conservation in the deep South to continue doing what we all need them to do. I’ve met with the wapiti foundation, I’ve met with hunters across New Zealand, and I can tell you now that they love their local environment. They do what they do to ensure that it will be available for generations to come, and today I’m proud to take one more small step in the right direction to support them on that journey. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether James Meager has been to Fiordland National Park, one of our last wilderness areas—10 percent of New Zealand covered in prehistoric forest—and did you know that it’s a world UNESCO heritage area? Here is what UNESCO has to say about it: “Invasive species are the biggest impact on the property, despite their impacts being restricted to small areas of the property. Population increases of red deer as well as impacts from other browsing mammals such as wapiti, fallow deer, goat, chamois and tahr have caused severe damage in some parts of the property,”.

So here we have the area of New Zealand which we most pride ourselves on as the most pristine part of New Zealand, and what does this Government want to do? It’s, basically, putting New Zealand up for sale again, because, let’s face it, what this is about—it was in the Minister’s own speech, and I don’t think he’s been to Fiordland National Park—is trophy hunting.

I know, because I was speaking to someone recently, that there have been studies into what the economic benefit of trophy hunting is: it’s trivial. We have a treasure, and it is those parts of our beautiful natural environment which remain largely unaffected by introduced species. We have a mandate to say that where that exists, let’s keep them unaffected by introduced species, but this Government says no.

I’ve got no problem with hunting. I’ve got—

Oh!

Well, the other side can scoff, but if you want to come hunting with me, just let me know. They speak a big talk, but I suspect that most of them have never picked up a rifle.

Exactly.

Yeah. Scott Willis and I will happily take you hunting any time you like. But for you city folks—for you North Islanders, and for the so-called Minister for the South Island—let’s get out into the wild and see what we really value. Those truly unaffected areas are so rare, and yet here we have a bill which is part of a programme to, essentially, say, “Let’s set up a hunting park in Fiordland so that we can make sure that wapiti are always there, because we like the idea that people can go out and hunt them.”

Well, look, I think that if you look at Fiordland and if you look at its true majesty—the beauty of its primeval state—then we should absolutely preserve that, and the idea that that is tradable with trophy hunting for wapiti defies belief. But we have a Minister for the South Island who is happily selling off some of the most valuable jewels of the South Island in order to say, “No, no, it’s fine. Let’s have a grazing park for wapiti so that hunters can come down and shoot their trophy beasts.”

Now, look, I want to say that I appreciate the work that hunters do in keeping the herds as low as they can be, and I appreciate that many hunters go out there to get kai for their whānau. That’s a good thing, and it’s great that they can do that, but Fiordland is a treasure and we should absolutely keep that in its pristine condition. The idea that we can have a herd of national significance which rampages through our forest and damages our indigenous species is entirely unacceptable, and that shows how much the so-called Minister for the South Island is actually interested in the South Island. The answer is not at all, and the Minister for Hunting and Fishing—without a budget, without a real portfolio—needs to buck up and get a proper idea.

Mr Chair—Mr Speaker, thank you.

Yeah, it’s 11.30 at night, and I get it.

Ha, ha! Well, firstly, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. We know that they do work on maintaining huts, tracks, and the pest control. That’s really valuable stuff and is protecting our native species, but it is also providing meat to people who need it from wapiti that have been harvested. I think we can all acknowledge that the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation has been successful in showing that hunting and conservation can coexist and can be complementary, and that’s often the case. Many hunters are conservationists. That’s something we should all acknowledge.

I’m a proud hunter. I love going out into the bush. I also want to hear the bush and I want to hear the birdsong in the bush, and one of the things I have noticed when I’ve hunted on a little block near where Mark Patterson lives, actually—there’s a hunting block that I go to. Part of it has been fenced off. When you go through the gate into that fenced area where all the deer have been removed, you can barely move through the bush. For the rest of it, you can spot the deer everywhere because it’s mud and mature trees. There is no understory because the deer have taken it away.

This bill makes me sad—sad because it openly states that our national parks should become sanctuary for pest populations with special protections when we face a biodiversity crisis, and sad because it undermines the conservation goals of the National Parks Act—and it’s unnecessary. That’s the tragedy of it. Because the work that has been going on has been successful, this bit of legislation will actually create division, and it doesn’t need to be that way.

National parks exist to protect our national heritage of taonga species, and hunting isn’t about simply protecting trophy herds of deer in national parks; it’s about respecting ecosystems.

You’d have taken the trophy—if you’d shot the trophy, you’d have taken it.

Yeah, it’s true that I’m not a trophy hunter. I hunt for meat and I hunt to take animals out of the bush. This should not be about keeping imbalance in our ecosystems in our national parks. It’s giving priority to invasive species over our nature and over our native biodiversity.

National parks exist to protect that biodiversity; not to preserve trophy herds for international or domestic hunters, and this is where I just can’t understand where we’re going to get economic growth from this. It’s minuscule—it’s minuscule—and what are we losing? What are we losing? We’re losing something really, really special, which is our unique place, and it really does demonstrate that the alliance between hunting and conservation doesn’t count for this Government, because it is turning a blind eye to all the concerns that all of us who care about the environment have for the natural places we go to—the places we find really, really special.

It opens the door not only to wapiti in Fiordland, so why not whitetail in Rakiura, why not tahr in the Southern Alps, and why not sika up here, in the North Island? That’s what it will do—it will ensure that we destroy our biodiversity—and, quite simply, there has been no engagement with iwi, no assessment of biodiversity, and no good public consultation. It would have gone some way to maintaining relations, even if this bill proceeds, but there hasn’t been any.

This is opening a door to greater division and to losing the justification that hunters have for working with conservationists. The Green Party policy is that we should, where possible, remove or eradicate large, non-predator, invasive species in the areas where they threaten important ecological values, and if this bill proceeds, any eradication efforts in national parks would not be authorised.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, given the hour, I will save my soliloquies about how much hunting means to so many people in this country, including my good self and many others in this House. Look, I will just say quickly that in two parts of this country and two islands, we’ve got the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Sika Foundation doing amazing work, showing what can be done when hunters have a chance to actually have a decent say about the way our conservation estate can be managed and can be run, and about the way we can support our ecosystem and allow a whole lot of good things to be happening in our ngahere.

It’s time we stop treating our valued introduced species like pests by default and started treating them with the value that they have, with some wise management for both conservation and for the connection that hunting gives us to our land. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many of us experience our conservation estate and enjoy that in many different ways. For several decades, there’s been obvious disagreement and debate between conservation groups and hunting groups about the place of introduced animals. This bill is about trying to resolve some of those anomalies between the National Parks Act and the Game Animal Council Act, and I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support this bill brought to us by our second ever hunting and fishing Minister. I would like to congratulate James Meager for bringing this very practical bill before the House. It backs our hunters and our amazing conservationists, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

What a bizarre situation that we face tonight in Parliament here. The so-called parties championing the rights and the values and the aspirations of our rural community are now supporting the protection of an introduced species that is at the core of both bovine tuberculosis and the destruction of our indigenous flora and fauna, and they’re going to spend a whole lot of money and effort not only in Parliament here tonight but in actually setting up protection for an exotic pest—that’s what it is.

I can’t understand the logic. Look, I have been West Coast - Tasman MP and I appreciate—not only from a regional perspective but from a rural perspective and a national perspective—hunting and its value as a recreational activity. We have a whole lot of people who go out every weekend or every night and they hunt possums or they hunt goats or deer, and they do a great job. But they’re actually failing, because we have big issues with possums, and if it wasn’t for the utilisation of 1080, we’d be overrun with possums.

We are now facing increasing numbers of red deer and other deer across our rural network, and farmers are asking what the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Government are going to do to knock down these deer numbers, because not only are they eating our grass and impacting on our bush—and many farmers want to protect their local indigenous flora and fauna, right? So they’re asking what is the Government doing, because a lot of these animals come from the DOC estate. In Parliament tonight, let the farmers be clear that that this Government is protecting deer—protecting deer, which not only eat grass on farms around this country but also actually contribute, potentially, to the spread of bovine tuberculosis, and they are not an indigenous or native species.

There are a couple of questions I’d ask of the Minister. In passing this legislation, what’s next? Because there will be a group—and I know there are people who like to go out and hunt possums and they like to go and hunt goats or pigs. So will the Minister bring to this House a piece of legislation that will protect wild pigs? Is he going to do that?

Wild pigs, sika deer, fallow deer—are they going to be protected as well by the Minister’s proposals, and what do the farmers think about that when they are spending millions and millions of dollars to knock down deer numbers and keep on top of bovine tuberculosis? What’s the Minister going to do? He doesn’t know. Well, we’ve had three more farms with outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis in Hawke’s Bay because, arguably, there hasn’t been enough pest control in that area. Is it the possums, or is it the deer?

The Minister is saying, “Oh, this is just about Fiordland and it’s just about a unique species.”—actually, no. The legislation enables this Minister to be able to designate any species, anywhere, as a protected species. Well, let’s push the boundary out. Will it be rats—is he going to protect rats?

Stoats.

Stoats? [Interruption] Oh, no, no—that’s OK. Well, it’s good to get from the Minister that he won’t protect rats or stoats or weasels. What about possums? There are people who say that, actually, the possum population is quite valuable for fur.

This piece of legislation is completely bizarre when we have a Government that claims to protect and advocate for the rural community in this country. The single biggest threat—not the single—one of the largest threats to the rural community and the rural industries is bovine tuberculosis, and this Government and this Minister is bringing in protection for deer, which spread TB across this country. It is a bizarre piece of legislation at a time when this country doesn’t need it.

This is a blue-green bill which strikes a perfect balance between hunting and conservation, and I commend it to the House.