Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 16 September 2025

E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

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

A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Mayor Weston Kirton requesting that the House urge the Government to act quickly to save the Chateau Tongariro Hotel.

That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered three papers.

Outcome of the Prime Minister’s consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee on the reappointment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Ministry of Transport, long-term insights briefing 2025

Government Superannuation Fund Authority, statement of performance expectations 2025-26.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Seven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the briefing on the multi-agency approach to injury prevention and rehabilitation

report of the Environment Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Going with the grain: Changing land uses to fit a changing landscape

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

briefing on the Petition of Holly Brooker

petition of Eugene Greendrake

petition of Ponsonby Chambers

another petition of Ponsonby Chambers, and

petition of Te Pāti Māori.

The briefings and reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Members, I have received a letter from Rawiri Waititi seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the omission of profiles for Māori ward candidates from local body election voting packs in some areas. While this is a matter of concern and an appalling omission, the provisions of Standing Order 399 are not met. There is no ministerial responsibility for the operational activities or decision making of local authorities—Speakers’ Ruling 183/1. The application is declined.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

He aha ngā mahi a tōna Kāwanatanga hei tautoko i te kaupapa o tēnei Wiki o te Reo, “Āke Āke Āke”, kia manawaroa ai, kia arotau ai, kia toitū ai te reo Māori?

[What actions is his Government taking to support the theme of this te Wiki o te Reo, “Āke Āke Āke”, to ensure the resilience, adaptability, and endurance of te reo Māori?]

The interpretation’s taking a while to come through. It’s important we get the question to the Prime Minister correctly. The Prime Minister will just take a minute to hear the question through his earpiece, which is playing up a bit.

Well, I mean, firstly, this is a Government that is spending a huge amount of money—$142 million—with the four Māori language entities. It’s a Government that I am very proud of spending money on teaching resources in te reo, and I’m very proud of that.

E māharahara ana ia i te whakatūpato a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori ki ngā panonitanga a tōna Kāwanatanga o te Ture Mātauranga, arā ka “Undermine the status of te reo Māori as a taonga and as an official language of Aotearoa”, ā, ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Is he concerned that the Māori Language Commission has warned that his Government’s changes to the Education and Training Act “Undermine the status of te reo Māori as a taonga and as an official language of Aotearoa”, and, if not, why not?]

Well, I totally disagree. This is a Government that is spending money on resources to make sure that they are available in te reo and English.

E whakaae ana ia ki tā Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, arā ko te hāpainga ake o te reo Ingarihi ki runga ake i te reo Māori hei reo kawe kōrero matua mō ngā hinonga tūmatanui ehara i te hinonga Māori, he whakawhāiti kē i te kitea o te reo, he whakawhāiti hoki i te whai wāhi ōna hei reo o ia rā?

[Does he agree with the Māori Language Commission that prioritising English over te reo Māori as the primary language of communication in non-Māori public entities reduces visibility of te reo and makes it less accessible as an everyday language?]

If I understand the question correctly, we want to be able to make sure that our Government agencies are navigable by all New Zealanders, and, as a result, having their names in both English and te reo. If you’re a fluent English speaker—of which 95 percent of New Zealanders is their first language in the last census—they can navigate their Government in English; and if you’re a fluent te reo speaker, you can navigate your Government in te reo.

Kei te māharahara rānei ia ka whāiti kē atu te āheinga ki te whakaako, ki te tautoko hoki i te reo Māori nā runga i ngā poronga pūtea e marohitia nei, he pūtea mā ngā kaiako rauemi o te reo matatini me te reo Māori mā te 174 tūranga mahi?

[Is he concerned that proposed cuts to funding for resource teachers of literacy and Māori by 174 roles—affecting Māori-medium education and bilingual learning support—will reduce the capacity to teach and support te reo Māori?]

No, I’m very proud of the resources being made available in te reo and English, as I’ve said before. I’m more proud of the fact that we’re teaching our kids structured literacy, structured numeracy, encouraging them to get to school so they actually have a greater future—Māori or non-Māori.

I whakaaro rānei ia he hāpai tāna mahi i te reo Māori i te whakaurunga a tōna Kāwanatanga i te Pire Mātāpono Tiriti o Waitangi—me te whakaari anō i tētahi whakamārama hē o te reo Māori hei whakaiwikore i ā te iwi Māori mōtika?

[Did he consider he was uplifting te reo Māori when his Government introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill—demonstrating an incorrect interpretation of te reo Māori to weaken Māori rights?]

The Treaty principles bill has been discussed and resolved.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Why does he claim to have the cost of living under control, when administered inflation—the component of inflation that Government can most directly influence—hit 10.8 percent last month, the steepest rise in at least 35 years?

Well, I’m very proud of this Government’s focus on reducing inflation. This is a Government that has put inflation back under 3 percent again. There are items like rates running at 12.5 percent. That’s why we support a rate cap, and I encourage that member to support it too.

Does he accept that the Government’s decision to increase transmission charges is driving up power bills, its decision to increase natural disaster levies is driving up insurance premiums, its decision to hike civil aviation levies is driving up the price of airfares, and that increased Government charges are now one of the biggest contributors to the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families are facing?

In light of the first part of that question, I’d say to the member that the energy prices are a function of his administration’s banning of oil and gas and the fact that we do not have a supply of gas in this country, which has led to elevated electricity prices. Again, I would say to that member: think about the position, and support reversing the oil and gas ban.

Did his Government’s decision to cut funding for public transport, forcing some commuters and families to pay up to 50 percent more just to get to work or school, increase or decrease the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families currently face?

Well, I can say to the member: what is helping those families deal with the cost of living is our expanded role for FamilyBoost. What is helping and supporting those families in a cost of living crisis is the tax relief that we have offered them. What is supporting them is, actually, rental stability—that is a good thing—and also making sure that we give people tax, inflation, and interest rate relief, which is what this Government is delivering.

Speaking of FamilyBoost, has he found one single family that has received the full $250 a fortnight that he promised Kiwi families with kids during the last election campaign?

Well, look, I want to thank the member for his question, because I really do appreciate answering this and bringing the attention of all New Zealanders who may be watching this to the fact that FamilyBoost rebates have been expanded, the thresholds have been extended, and, as a result, there is even more money. Actually, for the last 13 weeks, you can now access and get more support from this Government, which is absolutely fantastic. We think, actually, another 22,000 families will receive some support, and isn’t that a great thing?

Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government is carefully managing its own finances so that New Zealanders face a lower rate of inflation and falling interest rates as a result?

I can. What I can confirm is that this is a Government that won’t be looking to increase prices for New Zealanders by increasing the inflation-band target, as that member proposes.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The claim that the Prime Minister has just made is totally and utterly incorrect, and it is an exact example of what you have said the Government shouldn’t do, which is use patsy questions from the people sitting right beside them in order to attack the Opposition and to make false claims about the Opposition.

The question itself was in order; the answer was most certainly not, and I think the last comment should be withdrawn.

Withdrawn.

Did his Government’s decision to increase car registration fees by $50 increase or decrease the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families are currently facing?

Well, again, I’d just say to the member that we are proud of the fact that we have lowered inflation. In this Government, yes, we have food inflation running at 5 percent, but that’s a lot lower than 12.5 percent under his Government. You know, 2.7 percent inflation is lower than 7.5 percent under his Government. Interest rates have been cut multiple times. Rents are stable. This is a Government that is focused on economic growth. Why? So that we can get New Zealanders getting more money in their back pocket, and that’s how they get ahead.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of the first actions of his Government was to stop the petrol tax increases which had been scheduled by the last Government—

OK, that’s an out-of-order question.

If his Government has inflation under control, as he is now claiming, why is the price of food continuing to increase, with statistics released today showing butter is up 32 percent, milk is up by almost $1, and the price of mince is now $22 a kilo, all under his leadership?

Well, I’d just remind the member that when he was Prime Minister, food inflation hit 12.5 percent. It is 5 percent today. Yes, we have elevated prices for red meat and for dairy products. That’s due to global commodity prices, and that’s why our farmers are having record years and record levels of farmer confidence in this country. This is a Government that is focused on lowering inflation, and I’d just say to the member that that’s why you’ve seen us fast track supermarket entrants so that we can actually do everything we can to make it as easy as possible to open up the supermarket sector. But, again, the answer is not to increase the inflation target and increase prices for Kiwis, as his finance spokesperson has suggested.

Has the Government increased petrol taxes since being elected?

No.

Does the Government plan to increase petrol taxes by 12c a litre?

The Government has had no discussions about increasing fuel taxes at this time, but what we are very focused on is lowering inflation and making sure we lower interest rates, we get our economy growing, and we lower unemployment.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the documents the Government has tabled in this House indicate that it is intending to increase petrol taxes by 12c a litre, will the Prime Minister be required to correct that answer?

Well, if the Prime Minister chooses to correct an answer, then that’s his prerogative to do so. If you knew the answer, why ask the question—but, anyway.

A question to the Prime Minister: is he proposing to introduce a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, and has he taken any advice as to what impact that might have on the economy?

Well, I don’t think that taxing more, borrowing more, and spending more is the way that we move this economy forward. I think that’s what’s put us in the almighty mess that we’ve actually seen. A capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a death tax—God knows what’s being proposed; I just know that that’s not the answer.

to the Minister for Regional Development

What reports has he seen regarding the West Coast?

Last Friday, I had the privilege of being in Reefton, down on the West Coast—otherwise known as “Mining-opolis”—where, previously, there were over 59 mines. I had the pleasure, along with the district council and the local development corporation, of opening new accommodation to cope with the flood of employees that are coming to the West Coast to fulfil a famous saying of this party that I belong to: “Dig, baby, dig.”

What else can he tell us about economic development on the West Coast?

So much and so little time. We are rekindling the golden age of the coast. Mining is now driving the coast. Not only are people expressing more confidence to invest there but money is flowing. There is a pipeline of production projects. It will stimulate the economy for many years to come. It’s only disappointing that it has taken this long—in particular, with those who derive their heritage from such industries abandoning, demonising, and tainting such an industry, and I’m glad to be rid of them.

How does this help the regional economy?

Coal—I’ll have more to say about that within a week—oil, gas, and metal ore mining represent a key positive development in terms of those families and those employees who enjoy earnings beyond the median salary of $100,000. We are in a period of the world’s trajectory where minerals are more important. New Zealand has a high position of influence in creating not only more jobs but boosting our minerals production.

And more floods.

Not only will it enable finance, engineering—

And droughts.

No, we don’t need any more luddite contributions. That’ll happen at the final speech at the end of the week. Not only will we see more realistic appreciation of the natural resource sector, you will find that those in Opposition will be pushed to the margins of society because they’re only interested in the dole.

I might take this opportunity to remind Ministers that answers should mirror the concise nature of questions. Standing Order 396(2) particularly directs that.

Why are regional economies important to New Zealand?

Regional economies are thriving. There is an acceptance that legacy industries—including farming, forestry, mining, fisheries—are doing the heavy lifting. It is very disappointing that these particular industries of a regional character have not been respected. As we grow in the regions, I hope to spread that good story by encouraging appropriate levels of mining around our capital city, Wellington.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

What recent announcements has she made on competition?

Today, alongside Minister Simpson and Minister Seymour, I announced the most significant package of competition law reforms in nearly 20 years. The changes to the Commerce Act that we announced are about fostering healthy competition in the economy. Competition empowers consumers with greater choices and ensures efficiency in the use of resources. Competitive markets are good for consumers, good for business, and good for the economy. They drive innovation, productivity, and growth.

What changes are being made to the Commerce Act?

A number. Key changes include stopping unfair tactics, like creeping acquisitions and predatory pricing, to allow genuine competitors to thrive; introducing clearer merger rules to give businesses certainty while keeping markets fair; establishing a stronger, better structured Commerce Commission to deliver faster, more transparent decisions; streamlining approval for beneficial collaboration, making it easier for businesses to work together where it helps the public; and allowing businesses to make voluntary behavioural undertakings to limit their market power as part of merger applications.

What do these changes mean for businesses?

The changes will give small and medium enterprises in particular more confidence to invest, hire, and innovate knowing they won’t be shut out by unfair practices. For larger businesses, the changes mean clear rules and faster decisions, so they can pursue growth with certainty. For the wider economy, they mean a more dynamic, competitive environment that drives productivity, attracts investment, and, ultimately, delivers for Kiwis.

How do these reforms fit within the Government’s wider economic strategy?

These reforms are part of the Government’s Going For Growth agenda, which is the work we’re doing to shift New Zealand to a faster growth track. Growing the economy requires competitive, dynamic markets that reward innovation and reward investment. By modernising the Commerce Act, we’re making sure New Zealand is an attractive place to do business and that consumers are being protected. The initiatives we announced this morning are one part of an ongoing suite of measures that will help lift productivity and, therefore, contribute to rising incomes, more jobs, and a stronger economy.

to the Minister of Finance

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the resignations of the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor?

Once again, in context, yes.

On what date did the Treasury Secretary inform her of the letter the board chair wrote on 27 February?

On 27 February, I received a text from Iain Rennie informing me that the Reserve Bank Board had written to Adrian Orr about its concerns.

Was she aware or informed about the contents of the letter on 27 February?

No. The public record shows what I was informed of via the text message from Iain Rennie.

Did she seek any advice from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, or Crown Law about her ability to correct the Reserve Bank Chair’s statement, or the public record, about the real reasons the Governor resigned?

I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank Chair at the time, that that was as much as he could say, subject to the legal agreements he was a party to.

How can she stand by her statement that “I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair, that … he was saying as much as he could say”, when she knew his words were misleading and she failed to seek advice on what her responsibilities were, given the serious nature of the resignation?

Quite simply, because I knew that he was subject to an exit agreement, the terms of which I was not aware of. I was also not aware of the specific concerns the bank had raised with Mr Orr. I was not aware of how Mr Orr had responded to those concerns, and the legal disputes that may or may not have occurred. I was not aware of the details of the agreement the bank had entered into with Mr Orr.

Does she agree with Heather du Plessis-Allan, who says, “It just looks like a giant cover up, doesn’t it?”

No, although I have made clear that I’m very disappointed with the way the Reserve Bank has handled this matter, as Neil Quigley’s resignation shows.

Was the Minister negligent in her oversight of the Reserve Bank resignations, or are these resignations a case of ministerial interference?

No, and no.

Is the Minister concerned about her Government’s management of the Public Service, given the number of high profile senior resignations that have occurred since she took office?

I’d simply observe that, in some cases, resignations would be better for the reputation of organisations than people not resigning, staying on, defying their leadership, and saying very racist things.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Wait—just wait for the House to calm itself.

When will she meet with the priests that drove past the Reserve Bank, where both the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor formerly worked, and meet with the protesters on the Government’s refusal to impose sanctions on Israel for genocide in Gaza?

I’m inclined to rule that question out, despite the creativity in trying to bring it into order.

to the Minister for Infrastructure

What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s infrastructure pipeline?

Last month, the Infrastructure Commission released a quarterly snapshot of the infrastructure pipeline for the quarter ending 30 June. It shows the value of infrastructure initiatives in the pipeline grew to $237 billion—an increase of $30 billion from the previous quarter. It’s great news for the construction sector and for growth. The value of initiatives with a confirmed funding source also increased, up by $13.5 billion to over $125 billion. Overall, the pipeline now contains 9,200 projects that are under way or being planned.

Why is the National Infrastructure Pipeline important?

The pipeline is important for sending a signal to the market about upcoming activity. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the previous Government in setting up the commission in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get this very important independent assessment of what is happening. It allows construction firms to plan ahead for major projects. We do need to improve the quality of information in the pipeline; there are some laggard councils who are not participating. It is important that we have as much data from the private and public sector, including local government, in the pipeline as possible. The more accurate and complete it is, the more useful it is for decision makers.

How many infrastructure projects are under construction?

The pipeline shows that there are 2,500 infrastructure projects under construction right now, with 483 in procurement that will begin shortly. In the June 2025 quarter, we were building, as a country, 560 water projects, 600 transport projects, 75 school projects, and over 30 health and hospital projects—280 initiatives under construction are valued at over $25 million each. Many more projects are likely to come to market in the forthcoming weeks and months.

How many infrastructure projects are under construction in Hawke’s Bay?

I’m very pleased—as I’m sure that member is—to know there are 126 projects currently being delivered in the Hawke’s Bay, with around 60 projects in procurement that will begin shortly. Of course, the big mother within those projects under construction is the fantastic Hawke’s Bay Expressway.

Is the National Infrastructure Pipeline growing?

Yes, indeed it is. We are looking forward to the September updates that will be published towards the end of the year, and indeed, more participants in the pipeline so we can get this economy growing and building again.

to the Minister of Health

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What is the impact of delayed allogeneic stem cell transplants on patients with blood cancers, and how is that harm being measured at New Zealand’s three transplant centres?

I’m advised that, for some patients, disease recurs while they are waiting for a transplant, leading to them no longer being suitable for transplant. For some patients, this means additional rounds of chemotherapy while they await their transplant; for others, unfortunately, it means being referred for palliative care. This is deeply concerning for me. I understand how stressful this is for patients and their families. That is why, in addition to existing investment, Health New Zealand has allocated over $6 million this year to increase capacity, support recruitment, and improve the model of care. Health New Zealand is also working closely with clinicians to deliver further investment across all three transplant centres this financial year and in future years. I expect Health New Zealand to act with urgency on this. I’m advised that harm is measured and monitored differently across the country and that Health New Zealand is working to implement a standard national data monitoring system to ensure patients receive timely quality care.

Why hasn’t this improved already when it is the very first action listed in the Government’s health targets implementation plan?

Well, there has been an improvement in the number of stem cell transplants that have been done. Between April 2024 and March 2025, the total number of stem cell transplants in New Zealand rose to 363 from 336 the previous year. Nationally, 219 patients were waiting for transplants in March 2025—down slightly from 225 in 2024. I understand that this is not good enough, and that is why I have asked Health New Zealand to work with urgency. This is a problem which has developed over a number of years, including the time that that member was the Minister. It is my expectation that Health New Zealand works urgently, with clinicians, to increase investment to reduce the wait-list.

Is it correct that failure to implement their very own plan in the first year that it was put down for means patients like Liz Barnes, whose cancer was curable, now have incurable cancer?

Well, as I said in my previous answer, there has been an increase in the number of transplants being completed. There is still significantly more work to be done. That work is under way so that we can reduce that wait-list, and it’s my expectation that Health New Zealand works incredibly close with the clinicians on the front line to do just that.

Will he commit to appropriate rooms for bone marrow transplants at Wellington Hospital this financial year?

One of the issues, in relation to the capacity at Wellington Hospital, is the amount of space. Work is under way to create more room and increase staff as part of regional service planning in Wellington.

Is it acceptable that patients, like Tawhai Reti, have to go to Australia for treatment because the Government excluded blood cancer patients from their cancer medicine initiative?

That member may not be aware, but the $604 million increase in cancer medicines that we provided in Budget 2025 funded 33 new cancer medicines, including six for blood cancers. We are very proud of the investment. We are always aware there is more work to do, but we also had to fill in the hole in the Pharmac budget left behind by the last Government.

Can the Minister confirm that the approximately $1.7 billion being spent on medicines through Pharmac, by this Government, is approximately $600 million more than was budgeted when we first came to office?

That is correct. We were left behind a fiscal hole in the Pharmac budget, which we’ve had to fill, plus we have funded an additional $600 million for new cancer medicines. There are now thousands of New Zealanders receiving access to cancer medicines and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders receiving access to treatments, which they would otherwise not have had if the other party had been re-elected.

Does he stand by the Government’s promise to blood cancer patients, “You are not forgotten”, when that is exactly what has happened with respect to their exclusion from the cancer medicines funding?

As I said in my previous answer, of the $604 million increase in Pharmac’s budget that this Government delivered—and the 33 new cancer medicines—six of those have been for blood cancer medicines. Those cancer medicines would not have been provided if Labour had been re-elected.

Ki te Pirīmia—

Double dip.

Hang on. Wait on. Questions are heard in silence.

to the Prime Minister

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes.

Ka whakarongo tōna Kāwanatanga ki ngā kaitautohe neke i te tekau mano i hīkoitia i Tāmaki Makaurau, mō te Kāwanatanga kia whakatau mēnā he motu motuhake a Paretīnia, me te mahi hāmene i te teitei ki a Iharaia?

[Will his Government listen to the more than 10,000 protesters who marched in Auckland over the weekend, calling on the Government to recognise Palestinian statehood and sanction Israel?]

Well, as the member will be aware, we have a longstanding bipartisan position on support for a two-State solution in Israel and Palestine, as was imagined in 1947. It’s a very complex issue. There are strongly held views across New Zealand society—probably across this Parliament—and we are carefully considering our position on that statement about recognition. I would just say to the member that this is also a Government that has imposed sanctions on Israel, and we continually look to see what more we can do as well.

He aha tāna whakahoki kōrero—[Interruption] 

[What is his response—] 

 Start again.

He aha tāna whakahoki kōrero ki ngā pirīhi Karaitiana i waho i te tari a Nicola Willis, nā rātou i kī atu “it is clear New Zealand is not doing all it can to intervene and put pressure on Israel to uphold international law”?

[What is his response to the Christian priests protesting outside Nicola Willis’s office, who say, “it is clear New Zealand is not doing all it can to intervene and put pressure on Israel to uphold international law”?] 

Point of order. It should be completely evident to you, sir, that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for randoms holding signs up outside a list member’s office.

No, but the question was “What would he say?”, and the assumption is that Prime Ministers do have opinions.

Well, I disagree completely with the assertion that there have been no sanctions applied to Israel. We have placed travel bans on extremist politicians and senior Ministers because of extremist rhetoric that has been used. We have placed travel bans on Israeli extremist settlers in the West Bank, and we have very limited trade. We’ve had no records of approval under our export controls regime since 2003. What I would love to hear from the member is calling out Hamas as a terrorist organisation for 7 October, where 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed and 251 hostages were taken, and calling for an immediate release of those hostages, as much as we call for Israel to make sure it looks after civilians and it gives unfettered, unhindered access and humanitarian assistance and aid.

Ka whakatau te Kāwanatanga i te motuhaketanga o Paretīnia, ki te kore, he aha e kore ai? 

[Will the Government recognise Palestinian Statehood, and if not, why not?] 

Well, as the member is aware—we have been very transparent—we are working our way through a Cabinet process to arrive at a final decision about our position on that. Some of our friends around the world have moved forward with recognition; others have not. We will make our own independent decision and work our way through this issue carefully, considering all the different factors and the complexities involved. But I’ll just say to the member, irrespective of a decision on the recognition of a Palestinian State, what is very important is that Hamas releases hostages, Israel makes sure it protects civilians and allows unhindered humanitarian assistance and aid, and everyone gets to a ceasefire so peace and stability can come out in the Middle East.

He aha te Kāwanatanga e kore nei e whakamōhio atu ki ngā tāngata o Aotearoa i te kōwhiringa a te Kāwanatanga me te tūranga e kawe atu a Winston Peters ki te Rūnanga Whakakotahi i ngā Iwi o te Ao?

[Why isn’t the Government informing New Zealanders what decision the Government has taken and what position Winston Peters is taking to the United Nations?] 

Well, we will when we have a final Cabinet decision.

: Ki te whai painga ngā rauna toru tekau mā rua a te Kāwanatanga i ngā hāmene ōhanga ki a Rūhia, ka whai hoki te Kāwanatanga i tētahi rauna ake o ngā hāmene ki a Iharaia kei tua atu o ngā hāmene ki ngā Minitia e rua anake? 

[If the 32 rounds of the Government’s economic sanctions on Russia have been effective, will the Government finally implement a round of sanctions on Israel beyond sanctions on only two Ministers?]

I think the member is misunderstanding, or not understanding, what actions have already been taken. We have issued travel bans on two extremists and senior Ministers in the Netanyahu Government. We have called out illegal settlements on the West Bank and, likewise, put bans around travel associated with extremist Israeli settlers. We have very little trade with Israel ourselves. Importantly, we’ve made sure, with our regime, that we haven’t sent products to the Israel Defense Force since 2006, 2003—as far as records go back. So I just put it to the member that we have had sanctions on Israel. We are consistently calling out actions that we disagree with, but I would ask that member to take a balanced view and actually call out the unacceptable, abhorrent behaviour of Hamas as well.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcements has she made about boosting major events and tourism across New Zealand?

I was pleased to announce a next-level boost for major events and tourism with the Prime Minister on Sunday. The $70 million package will increase the Government’s investment in events and open New Zealand up to a wider range of opportunities, including concerts, which haven’t previously been eligible for Government funding. Major events are an absolute bonanza for our cities and regions and support local jobs, boost incomes, and grow our economy. This investment will allow us to compete with Australia to host big acts and to give international visitors even more reasons to come and explore what New Zealand has to offer.

What does this package mean for events and tourism across regional New Zealand?

Our boost for major events and tourism is significant for our regions and for our communities. Communities up and down New Zealand benefit hugely from regional events, and our $10 million Regional Tourism Boost Campaign will incentivise international visitors to come and see what our regions have on offer. Our first round of regional tourism boost drove large economic opportunities into our regions that don’t traditionally see as many visitors. This is good for jobs and lifts incomes across our communities. I’d encourage any MPs from across the House to talk to their local tourism operators and ask how they can get involved. New Zealand is open for business, where we welcome visitors from anywhere at any time.

Just be mindful of Standing Order 396.

What other announcements has she made to encourage major events in New Zealand?

Our Government also wants to boost Eden Park’s status as a major events venue, and my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop is starting an investigation to change the local rules to ensure it’s no longer held back from its full potential. Last summer alone, Auckland’s economy received a boost of nearly $33.7 million from several big concerts. These events created jobs, supported local businesses, and meant more bookings in our restaurants, accommodations, and local tourism providers. Our Government is keen to see more major events in Auckland, and we need to ensure our venues are fit for purpose. The investigation will look into where the rules around events at Eden Park are negatively impacting economic growth, and Minister Bishop will announce further details in coming weeks.

Standing Order 396 requires concise answers.

What feedback has she received on this announcement?

The feedback’s been fantastic, so I’ll speak fast to get it in. The Restaurant Association of New Zealand has called this a “much-needed injection into New Zealand’s economy and a vital boost for … hospitality” providers. Brent Eccles, an event promoter, has stated “New Zealand is now back in the game for ‘showstopper events’ ”, and the Dunedin mayor has said that this “ ‘really put[s] some flesh on the bones’ of Dunedin’s existing plans to attract events to the city.” Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Rebecca Ingram has said, “This level of investment puts us back in the game, supporting events of even greater scale and providing reasons for both domestic and international visitors to travel around New Zealand.”

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Ngā mihi o te Wiki o te Reo Māori e te Māngai o te Whare. What, if anything, in his reforms announced today will bring prices of essentials down now for Kiwi consumers?

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: The reforms announced today tackle some of the root causes of high prices by fixing outdated competition law. They stop dominant firms from quietly buying up rivals, crack down on predatory conduct, and protect information confidentially that is disclosed to the commission. Our goal is that Kiwis see more firms competing for their business when they go to buy groceries, fuel, building supplies, and other essentials. The Minister was pleased to provide a briefing to the member yesterday and trusts she supports these measures. As she well knows, not everything in life is a quick fix. But substantive reforms of this sort do make a difference.

What measures in his proposed bill prevent overcharging and excess profits at the expense of consumers and small businesses?

I’m not sure what measures the member is proposing, but if she’s got a policy announcement to make on behalf of Labour and it’s as good as Barbara Edmonds’ one—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

You need not make the point of order. That sort of answer is just out of order. The member can take an extra question.

Why is he willing to punish businesses that lower prices of groceries, airline tickets, building supplies, and other essentials while doing nothing about businesses raising prices month on month and year on year?

I utterly reject the substance of that question. The Government is doing no such thing.

Well, will any of the inclusions in the announcement today reduce food prices, which are up 5 percent this year and driving up inflation?

I hope that the member understands the fundamental nature of competition law, which is that if we wish to prevent the sorts of consolidation in sectors and industry that has occurred and allowed, for example, the significant dominance of two supermarkets in New Zealand’s grocery sector, then we need to ensure that our commerce law keeps up to date with both international and regulatory development. The changes the Government has proposed today will ensure that that sort of market consolidation can’t occur in future. As I said in the answer to my primary question, not everything in life is a quick fix but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the opportunities for substantive reform.

Is it National’s fundamental approach to competition that it will be illegal to slash the price of butter but perfectly OK for it to rise 32 percent year on year?

No.

Why is he willing to talk tough with market controls to stop businesses lowering prices but doing nothing about the price of broccoli, which is up 75 percent in a year; or cabbage, up 85 percent in a year?

Because, unlike that member, I don’t want to take a leaf out of Willie Jackson’s book and propose price fixing. It’s been tried in quite a few countries and it doesn’t work.

Why is this Government putting prices up, adding to the cost of living, from car registrations to increasing prescription costs, instead of taking action to reduce them?

If the member wishes to come and have a briefing about how prices are set by independent businesses, then I’m happy to provide such a briefing, because last time I checked, there is no law in New Zealand that sets the prices for retail products. But if the member has a member’s bill she wishes to discuss with me along those lines, I’d be fascinated indeed and I’ll file it with the suggestion on inflation that member Edmonds made last week.

to the Associate Minister of Agriculture

What recent reports has she seen on farmer confidence?

Nothing but great news for the primary sector. After the overwhelmingly positive survey from Federated Farmers a couple of months back, the latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey shows farmer confidence remains at near-record highs, with our farmers feeling really good about the next 12 months ahead. The results show a positive 46 percent confidence level, with four consecutive quarters’ elevated sentiment, which proves that when a Government backs its primary sector, great things can happen.

What did the survey show about farmer sentiment?

Now, after six long years under the Labour Government, farmers—

No, start again. That’s just not part of the question and answer regime that we have in here.

Farmers now have a positive outlook on the agri-economy, with higher commodity prices a major source of optimism, alongside improved access to overseas markets and economies. The survey shows dairy and red meat farmers are particularly optimistic, reflecting record mince and beef prices alongside historically high lamb returns. Confidence in these sectors is also translating into stronger investment intentions, which is great for our rural communities and towns across the country.

What actions has the Government taken to support the primary industry to increase farmer confidence?

The Government is committed to doubling the value of New Zealand’s exports in the coming 10 years. We’re going to do that by removing unnecessary regulation, winding back costly red tape, and overhauling the Resource Management Act. We intend to create a system that enables enterprise and recognises food and fibre as a strategic asset.

What are the benefits of increased farmer confidence to the New Zealand economy?

New Zealand’s success very much depends on our farmers’ success, and these confidence levels show the sector is in a strong position, and the Government is determined to keep building on that momentum. When farmers are confident, they invest, they employ more people, and they contribute to stronger regional economies. For anyone at home listening—including my mum—this Government will continue to back our food and fibre sector, giving them the tools and support they need to succeed not just today but well into the future.

I’m sure that Mrs Grigg appreciates the message.

to the Associate Minister of Education

What recent reports has he seen on education?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have seen a number of reports recently which add up to charter schools building momentum—the large number of applicants, both of new schools and those wishing to convert existing schools to charter status. Also, there have been a number of touching stories of students who have been totally alienated from education now feeling that they can indeed do it—very much the kind of story that we should all want for New Zealand children.

Is the demand for charter schools growing?

Yes, indeed, and in the words of Nathan Durie, “Māori people have always indicated a desire for their kids to have access to education that will enable them, and so we’ve put our hand up to say we want to be one of those options.” Meanwhile, this year, 52 different applicants have approached the Charter School Authorisation Board wishing to begin new charter schools. There have been eight formal applications from State schools to convert, with another two already converted and about a dozen actively considering it and in contact with the Charter School Authorisation Board in relation to conversion. What I’d say to those members opposite who are yap-yap-yapping over there is, if you’ve got a question, get up and ask it.

What feedback has he seen from students about their experience of moving to a charter school?

Much of it is quite touching: students that have said, “I wasn’t really a school person” saying that, actually, their experience has been life changing; students whose attendance was abysmal—in fact, sadly, they weren’t really attending—are now some of the best-attending students in the district. I’ve seen a trades-focused school—BUSY charter, in central Auckland—which is supporting students into vocational education through work placements and apprenticeships. These are the kinds of options that New Zealand children have been thirsting for, but, for too long, the providers and the suppliers of education have had their interests advanced before the interests of students by successive Government policies.

What other comments has he seen about charter schools?

I’ve seen quite a number—for example, a little-known broadcaster from a radio station called 1ZB has said that Northland College’s possible conversion is “driven by the realisation that what they currently do doesn’t work for their kids, [and] that’s the genesis of the charter school thinking … The basic premise [is] one size does not fit all, and a lot of kids may well benefit from different styles and approaches to learning. … What we have demonstrably doesn’t work for everyone”, and the unions’ “myopic view that there can only be one way [is] a very large part of the overall handbrake that has prevented real change and [achievement] in education.” It is a little idea that can, and whose idea has come, and is making an enormous difference for children’s success that all of us in this House should want to celebrate. Ka pai.

I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the reappointment of the Inspector of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

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

I move, That, under section 157 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the reappointment of Brendan John Horsley as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for a term expiring on 7 June 2028.

I move, That urgency be accorded—the introduction and passing through all stages of the Adoption Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of: the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill; the introduction, first reading, and referral to select committee of: the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Income Tax (FamilyBoost) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of: the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

The House is proposing to go into urgency this week for several bills. The Adoption Amendment Bill must be passed through all stages to prevent adoptions from proceeding where the safety of children could be at risk, and to ensure no new applications are lodged between the bill’s introduction and Royal assent, as applications would otherwise take a significant time to process once the legislation is enacted. I hope and trust that all members of the Parliament will agree with the need for urgency in relation to this bill, and I understand other parties have been briefed by the responsible Minister, as is appropriate.

There are three bills going to select committee: the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, the Auckland Transport governance bill, and the retail payment systems bill. The Government’s desire is to get those bills to a committee for further consideration as soon as possible.

We’re also passing through all stages of the Income Tax (FamilyBoost) Amendment Bill. It’s a short bill. It’s been flagged by the Government previously to put more money in the pockets of new families. It takes effect on 1 October, so it does need to be passed by that point. It’s a tax bill being dealt with through all stages.

The Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has to be passed by the end of September to allow the Customs Service to make necessary adjustments before the changes come into force.

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill needs to be passed as soon as practicable to allow Government departments to set up the systems needed for the new regime.

So urgency, I think, is more than justified on these occasions.

I understand that it’s the Government’s intention to introduce three bills.

Adoption Amendment Bill, introduction

Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill, introduction

Income Tax (FamilyBoost) Amendment Bill, introduction.

The Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill and the Income Tax (FamilyBoost) Amendment Bill are set down for first reading presently. The Adoption Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately.

I present a legislative statement on the Adoption 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 Adoption Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Every year, about a thousand children and young people are brought to New Zealand after being adopted overseas. Most of these children join loving families who care deeply for them and who provide for their needs, but, sadly, our international adoption laws don’t have enough protections in place. Because of this, some children and young people adopted from overseas end up facing neglect, abuse, or exploitation here in New Zealand. It is difficult to know the scale of this problem, but I am aware that serious harm has happened in some cases. We have heard reports of children and young people being sexually, physically, or psychologically abused. They’ve been exploited for labour, enslaved, or trafficked. This is simply unacceptable. Our existing international adoption settings should not be allowing this to happen. That is why we are introducing the Adoption Amendment Bill. This is the first step towards fixing our international adoption system to make sure it includes adequate safeguards for children and young people adopted overseas.

Right now, children adopted by New Zealand citizens or residents may be eligible for citizenship by descent, or they can apply to access immigration pathways. We have discovered that recognition of these adoptions does not always involve safety checks on the adoptive parents, and sometimes, the adoptive process itself may not involve thorough safety checks. I am not prepared to risk the safety and wellbeing of these children because we do not have the legislative arm to do suitable safety and background checks of adoptive parents of overseas children.

The amendments in the bill will immediately suspend New Zealand from recognising overseas adoptions for the purpose of citizenship or immigration, unless the adoption comes from countries we trust to have strong safeguards in place. The suspension is temporary and will prevent harm coming to more children while we work on an enduring solution to this problem. I plan to introduce lasting reforms before this parliamentary term ends.

The amendments in the bill will make two substantive changes. Firstly, as previously stated, the bill will temporarily suspend the recognition for the purpose of New Zealand citizenship and immigration adoptions made in overseas courts where the adoptive parents are New Zealand citizens and residents. This suspension has some exceptions. The bill includes a list of countries that are exempt from this suspension. This is where we have been able to establish that the arrangements for adoptions include adequate safeguards for the children and the young people involved.

I am satisfied that the countries on the exempt list have sufficient safeguards in place to protect children and young people who are being adopted—for example, most of these countries are parties to the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. These changes mean that while the suspension is in place, only the adoptions made in exempt countries will be recognised while we work on the longer-term solution to our legislative conundrum. Let me be clear: these are adoptions by New Zealand citizens, or residents, of children residing in other countries, adopted under those countries’ laws.

To allow for a timely change to the list of exempt countries, if needed, the bill provides that the list can be amended by the Governor-General through Order in Council upon recommendation from the Minister of Justice. While this is an unusual power, it is necessary so that we can swiftly move to revoke a country’s exempt status if risks arise in its adoption system. It also allows a country to be added if we become satisfied that their adoption systems include adequate safeguards.

The second substantive change in the bill is to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Family Court. Right now, the court can make adoption orders for applicants and children anywhere in the world. We’re going to limit that power so that the court, generally, only makes adoption orders where both the child and the adoptive parents live in New Zealand. There will still be exceptions such as international surrogacy cases or exceptional circumstances—for example, where a child overseas is an orphan and a New Zealand family member is best placed to care for them.

Finally, the bill will make consequential amendments to make sure that everything works smoothly. Because these rules are temporary, they are set to expire on 1 July 2027. However, the expiry date can be brought forward if an enduring solution is found earlier. This would be done by way of an Order in Council, which would need to be made by the Governor-General. This approach has been taken as the amendments present a significant departure from the current system for international adoption, and I want to ensure that the changes are in place for no longer than is absolutely necessary. However, I anticipate that enduring reform will be made before the expiry date.

We are progressing this bill under urgency because we cannot, in good conscience, stand by while children are at risk. We do need to act now. I acknowledge that this change won’t be easy news for some families and that they will be disappointed, but keeping children safe is our top priority.

It is not acceptable that our adoption laws have been used in ways that harm children adopted from overseas. We must close this legislative enabler. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. This is an important bill, and I will say straight away, at this stage, that we are supporting it. It is disappointing that the bill has been introduced and it is going to go through all stages and there hasn’t been any collaboration prior to the bill, essentially, being introduced—no real opportunity.

The other thing, I guess, is this: this bill does appear to be a relatively blunt tool. We know that adoption is misused and that as a consequence of that misuse, there are children and young people who have been exploited, and there are documented cases of that. But this bill will preclude legitimate adoptions from countries that aren’t exempt, and it must be said that amongst those are some of our Pacific neighbours. That will raise real concerns for people who have been embarking on an adoption process because it’s the right thing to do in that family’s situation, and they will, tomorrow, be barred from doing that.

I also note that this bill is, essentially, a band-aid—a temporary fix—whilst further work is done. This issue is not new; let’s face it. I’m not going to shy away from the fact that work was being done under previous Governments on this, and the fact that we’ve got this very short-term fix is perhaps a little disappointing. Had it been higher up in the Government’s priorities, perhaps more resources could have been put into a much more comprehensive and much more nuanced fix.

It is urgency. We are going to do this in all stages today, essentially, if we get that far. We will be asking some of those questions at the committee stage, and the Minister, I’m sure, will be happy to give fulsome explanations. But the list of exempted countries does not track the Hague convention countries. There are countries who have acceded to the Hague convention on cross-border adoption that are not on that list, and that seems odd. It seems to be saying that we don’t accept that those countries will adhere to their international obligations. There are also countries who have not acceded to the Hague convention who are on the exempt list, and that also seems odd, because it seems to be that there are countries which the Minister assumes will engage in appropriate adoption practices, but they haven’t acceded to the critical international convention which is the cornerstone of that. So there is a lot to be done here.

The other thing is this: this bill addresses the proposition that New Zealand recognises the legal acts of foreign States. There is an important international convention, if you like, that we will respect the orders legally and properly made in foreign States, whether that be marriage or adoption or civil decisions in courts or criminal convictions in courts. What this is doing is, essentially, stepping back from that and saying that for these purposes—for immigration and citizenship purposes—we do not recognise adoptions in, essentially, these listed foreign States.

It may be that for some, it’s fully justified, and if we think of Afghanistan and other countries with tenuous Governments, then you can accept that adoptions there may not meet basic civil rights and human rights standards. But in many of those other countries—and Georgia springs to mind, in the Caucasus, that is. It’s a country on the brink of EU membership, but it’s not on the exempted list. Why is that? That needs explanation.

This bill will have a real impact on many New Zealanders. I think that they will be alarmed to find out that plans that they have made about their family, and perhaps, almost in train, will be stopped today, and so there’s a lot of work to do.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the Adoption Amendment Bill. Now, noting that this bill is coming to this House under urgency for all stages, and this is also the first time that, as Opposition, we have had the chance to look at the bill, so there are a couple of things I want to pick up on.

Just from the general policy statement, I think it is understandable, as we are discussing this bill today through the stages, that we maintain that the safety and wellbeing of our tamariki is the focus of this bill when we are discussing it. Although we are seeing roughly about 1,000 overseas adoptions recognised in Aotearoa each year under section 17 of the Act, which is one of the things we are going to be addressing here, we do see safety concerns and exploitation that needs to be addressed.

I echo the previous speaker’s sentiment that there is a question whether this bill is something that is a blunt tool that is being used where other things could have been considered in the meantime.

A couple of things I want to address—and these are things that I want to signal to the Minister ahead of time that we are going to be asking as part of the committee of the whole House stage, because, again, we won’t have access to the officials, or even allow for public consultations in the meantime—are that this issue, in many ways, was originally recorded in May. The Government had signalled very early on in May that this was something that they were going to be taking seriously. Understanding that there is a process that needs to be done, I’m really keen to hear from the Minister later on as to why, then, is this bill now being introduced in October; and if the wait from May to October was sufficient, why not allow for even a shortened select committee process so that way we are able to have a chance to engage with the public and engage with officials on this, and at least hear from both officials as well as key stakeholders in this field? That’s one of the questions I think it is really important to get some clarity on.

Also, when we’re introducing this, I understand the need when we’re looking at sunset clauses—in this case, I appreciate the fact that this is an interim measure and there is something that, hopefully, will be coming in in 2027 or earlier, and it will be by Order in Council. But the question that remains is: what are some of the transitional processes in terms of the reassurance for the current things that are going through, as well as potential monitoring? Now, that is in Schedule 1 of this bill, just from a cursory reading. There are definitely more questions to be asked around the monitoring aspect, which I think is really, really important, because we can use this as a transitional measure to stop something from happening, but what about the existing ones that are currently going through the process? That’s, again, something that we would like to have some clarity on from the Minister.

Now, just finally, I’m just going to pick up on—again, from a very cursory reading—the departmental disclosure statement. Again, I appreciate and understand what the Minister is saying, that this is being brought under urgency because even though there’s been a delay since the cases were first reported, we don’t want to see the potentiality of tamariki being harmed. But it’s also systematic of the way that secret bills—because this is the first time we’re seeing it—and also urgent bills have been introduced in the House, and not having the full package that has been expected of a bill like this if we are to have informed decision and debate and discussion on this.

We are looking at, just simply, the department disclosure statement. I have not yet seen the regulatory impact statement; at least, it’s not available immediately. There is no evidence that there has been a child impact statement conducted as part of this as well. It would be really good to engage with the Minister on this. Also—and I pointed this out over and over again the last time we had a secret bill—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consistency report is still not available on the Ministry of Justice website, despite what it says over here, that it should be available on the website.

In my second reading, I’ll talk more about the bill, but I think that’s where we are at in terms of the first reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Immigration in support of this bill, which we intend to pass through all stages today. This bill addresses inadequate safeguards in New Zealand’s international adoption settings. These settings require immediate legislative change to address the risk of harm to children and to young people, and to maintain the integrity of our immigration system.

I want to draw the House’s attention to a recent case highlighted in the media that underscores the serious gaps in our international adoption regime that we are attempting to address: a 17-year-old girl was granted a Dependent Child Resident Visa to live with her adopted family in New Zealand. Officials at Immigration New Zealand had flagged the case as being high risk; they were aware that the adoptive parents had been previously investigated by the police for trafficking. Concerns had been raised about the number of children that they had adopted. Interviews then revealed that the girl would be expected to hand over her earnings to the adoptive family once she started working. Despite these serious concerns, Immigration New Zealand’s hands were tied, and the visa was approved.

Under current legislation, our officials simply have no power to decline. The current system offers no grounds to intervene when an application meets those requirements, even when clear red flags are present. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case; there have been many other cases of concern, where children and young people applying for a visa are at risk of exposure to an unsafe environment within the home of their adoptive parents.

Other examples include allowing children to come to New Zealand when the adoptive father has been convicted of a string of offences, including violent offences, or where the adoptive father is known to officials for family harm incidents against his partner. There are also further cases involving multiple adoptions of unrelated children and young people to adoptive parents with insufficient income or rooms to house the children that they have adopted. These children have since become subject to exploitation, servitude, and abuse. These children have been adopted into families, in several cases, which cannot, and have no intention to, support them and provide them with the life that they deserve.

Our current laws do not allow officials to intervene, and we cannot stand by and watch it happen. It is simply not acceptable, in 2025, to have a law that enables child trafficking and bringing children to New Zealand to be harmed or neglected. Our adoption legislation is dangerously outdated. The Adoption Act 1955—now 70 years old—was written in a time when international adoption, child trafficking, and modern safeguarding standards were not well understood. It does not reflect the contemporary risks or expectations. As soon as this Government was briefed on the scope and scale of the gaps in our current law, which were resulting in children being adopted into households where they were being harmed due to a lack of proper checks on adoptive parents, we set to work urgently.

Officials across agencies have worked at pace to stand up an interim solution, which this bill provides. We could not sit around and wait for further harm and further work to occur before we took action. With children coming into harm’s way, we need to act urgently. Amendments to the Act will enable safer and stronger safeguards for overseas adoptions, to prevent non-genuine or exploitative arrangements. This bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the safety of children and young people and to maintain our strong relationships with our Australian and Pacific partners. The decision to proceed under urgency reflects the time-sensitive nature of this issue. Delaying change would risk New Zealand citizens or residents attempting to expedite adoptions in overseas courts, or an influx of visa applications, to avoid the new rules, which could put children in harm’s way.

These amendments are intended to be temporary—with a sunset date—in order to allow officials to develop a solution for permanent legislative changes in the interim. While we acknowledge the importance of select committee scrutiny, in this case, we must act quickly. Acting under urgency now means that the focus can shift quickly to developing that permanent solution for a safe pathway for recognising overseas adoption. That next phase of work on long-term, enduring options will go through a select committee process. We acknowledge that these changes will stop recognition of overseas adoptions that were made with adequate safeguards and were in the best interest of children. We therefore propose to exempt specific countries.

This is a necessary and a timely piece of legislation, so, on behalf of the Minister of Immigration, I commend the bill to the House, and I invite all members to support its swift passage today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Adoption Amendment Bill in its first reading. This bill is about protecting the most vulnerable children. For far too long, gaps in our adoption laws have allowed overseas adoptions to be recognised here without the safeguards New Zealanders would expect. That has meant some children have been brought into situations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. This is unacceptable, and I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I also stand, on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, to make a short call in support of the aim of this bill. We understand that it has been prompted because there have been cases where people with convictions for violence or sexual abuse were able to adopt children overseas and bring them into Aotearoa New Zealand. They have been able to bring them into our country in recognition of the adoption, and in some of those cases, they’ve been able to use that position to offend the children’s mana and tapu. They have created serious abuse, neglect, and exploitation of these children, who are taonga. There are cases that are already approaching or in the courts, and therefore, we acknowledge the immediacy of the legal change that this bill with enact. Based on that alone, Te Pāti Māori will support this bill at first reading. To be honest, we are horrifically shocked that we didn’t have stringent laws in place already. Kia ora rā.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Most overseas adoptions into New Zealand are into loving families, but some children have been brought here by people with violent or abusive histories, and then neglected, abused, or exploited. This bill is intended on addressing that issue. I commend it to the House.

As has been mentioned already by our justice spokesperson, Duncan Webb, we will be supporting this bill, but we do have a lot of questions. Our primary concern with respect to this bill is, of course, the wellbeing and safety of the children; it is making sure that we do have the safeguards in place, that they are protected, that they are not adopted under circumstances where they enter into servitude or they come here and they are abused or they are exploited in some way or another. There have been far too many cases that we have all seen through the media where that has occurred. However, this has come to us in urgency, and we’re going to have a lot of questions that we will be putting to the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage to understand the rationale for some of the decision making behind what really is a temporary piece of legislation.

I—and there may be others in this House—have family members who have adopted from overseas. The instance that I’m calling on is where the country from which they were adopted was also a member or had signed up to the Hague convention; the child protection services were involved on that side as well as in this country; the oversight and safeguards were there. I’ve often wondered why countries have chosen not to sign up with the Hague convention—that is a matter for them, of course, but it has also led me to have concern for the kids that have been adopted from countries where we don’t have those protections and oversight in place. But I’ve also wondered why we couldn’t have those protections and oversights in place regardless of whether or not they come from a country that’s signed up to the Hague convention or not, and I guess that will be something that we can traverse, or at least have a discussion on, later on.

There will be some communities that are really concerned at the pace in which this is coming through. We’ve heard the rationale for that. But there will be some families who will be highly disappointed because they would have started down the pathway of adoption for family members—usually family members—overseas and are going to be hit with this suddenly and now, all of a sudden, will be unable to continue on that pathway. The Minister has said, in her opening remarks, that she is looking to have permanent fixes or legislation in place before the end of the term for this Government. I would hope that would be the case, because, as the months pass by, there will be children in other countries who are awaiting being united with people that are meant to be their new family, and parents, here, waiting for their children but unable to continue along that trajectory because of the urgency and changes that have been pushed through today.

I’m also wanting to know, at a later stage, from the Minister, what consultation has taken place through the ministry of foreign affairs. This is a huge decision to make and there will be clearly some viewpoints and, perhaps, some concern expressed by the countries that have not been exempted in this particular list that’s in the legislation we’ve been presented with.

Finally, we are very curious about the list of countries that will be allowed to continue adoption during this interim period. We assumed that they would be countries that were all aligned with the Hague convention, but that’s not the case; in fact, there are some countries on this list that haven’t signed up to the Hague convention. There are some countries left off this list who have signed up with the Hague convention. So we’re going to want a really good rationale from the Minister, to provide us with assurance that there are good reasons for why countries have been excluded from this list. I think the Minister knows that there will be communities that are wanting that particular answer and wanting assurance that they haven’t been treated unfairly or discriminated against in any way. So the substance of the answer she provides on that particular topic will be very important to the rest of this debate, particularly in the committee of the whole House stage.

As I said earlier, at this point, we do support this legislation. We’re a little bit disappointed at the way in which it was brought here. I know that the Minister did reach out to certain members of political parties, but that was fairly recently. I think this is one of those pieces of legislation that we could have worked in a more bipartisan way if she had reached out earlier; however, that time has passed—and so has the time for my speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Adoption Amendment Bill seeks to prevent harm to children and young people who are adopted overseas and brought to New Zealand to live. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As colleagues have said, we will be supporting the bill at this reading.

Colleagues across the House will know that I often push back when urgency is accorded to bills, particularly on all stages. I do think there are valid exceptions to that, and, for me, that is when we see children in a position of potential harm, which is, again, why we’re supporting the bill at this stage. But I would echo the comments made in terms of those conversations that haven’t happened, that could have at the time when this issue was in the media earlier this year, and also the comment that Dr Duncan Webb made, that it appears this could be a blunt tool in terms of addressing the issues in front of us. I acknowledge, as others have, that we have seen some very serious cases, including this year, that of a 13-year-old girl, in April, and a 12-year-old boy, as well, who were found in absolutely appalling situations. I think the reality of the fact is that once they are here, it can be very difficult, when they’re unmonitored, to be able to ensure they are kept safe.

Just going back to the point about the conversations across the House, I do acknowledge that this is, of course, in many ways, a temporary pause. I know, on this side of the House, we would absolutely welcome a longer conversation as those permanent solutions are developed. For the time being, we currently have a system that is split into two, where signatories to the Hague convention have one passage and then we have section 17 under the Citizenship Act, where there is a different passage in terms of adoptions being made. For the time being, that’s going to be split into three, which are those exempted categories, the non-exempted, and the non-exempted with exceptions. There are, indeed, a lot of children who will fall into those three categories: a thousand overseas adoptions recognised in New Zealand every year.

I would also say that it’s good to see the Government acknowledging the issue of children who are at risk in this space, and also good to see that there has been some movement in thinking on the definition of trafficking, which is a connected issue in this space. There is another, in terms of ensuring that we’re protecting children against harm, and that is the broader modern slavery framework that we have had conversations about across the House as well. My view is that, yes, we do have an obligation to children coming to New Zealand, but we also do have that obligation in terms of our supply chains coming into New Zealand, and that is another area that I hope the Government will be turning its mind to.

In terms of the Hague convention and the reason why I think many countries afford it this place of priority and, if you like, trust is that it is a fairly robust regime and it requires countries to put in place specific measures, which we’ve done through domestic legislation as well, that require an entity to oversee and coordinate—which, for us, is Oranga Tamariki—where a number of checks have to be made in terms of those adoptions happening. Interestingly, there are principles like the subsidiarity test, which is a test that says that when an adoption happens under the convention, you must first make sure there isn’t family in the home country that the child could be placed with. There have been some human rights critiques of the extent to which the Hague convention, as it stands now, reflects an adequate human rights position. That might be something for international discussions going forward, but I certainly acknowledge that the Hague convention provisions do provide a robust framework for analysis.

One of the provisions that I’m particularly drawn to is the one that requires accredited agencies to be used in terms of the adoption process and for a number of steps to happen for those agencies to get accreditation. The second is the follow-up for the young people. Unlike the section 17 pathway, under the Hague convention, the Government entity must go back and ensure that that young person is doing well.

I understand the directive. I do look forward to a robust conversation at the committee of the whole House stage, and, beyond that, a conversation once that time period has lapsed and we do need to revert to a longer-term system.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re in the first reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill, a bill which temporarily addresses a very dangerous and alarming void in our adoption process, and I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Adoption Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

All children have a right to be in safe, loving homes. Any case where that isn’t happening and children are being exploited is a tragedy. Sadly, the current New Zealand Adoption Act 1955 has not sufficiently kept up and protected children from the global tragedy that is child trafficking and sexual exploitation.

I’d like to personally thank, at this time, the International Child Protection Unit at Oranga Tamariki for stepping up and working incredibly hard on this serious issue with myself and other agencies. Your work in protecting the vulnerable is nothing short of heroic. As staff at Oranga Tamariki, an agency that is often scrutinised, you do not always get the credit that you deserve, and I would like to thank you on behalf of myself and also a grateful nation for the work that you do in the background on complex and challenging issues such as this.

Evidence has shown the absence of strong safeguarding measures has resulted in some adopted children being moved from their home countries into harmful home environments, both within New Zealand and other nations via New Zealand, where they’re open to being abused, neglected; slavery is an issue—and open for sexual assault and physical assault. This is just unacceptable. Our current legal protections currently fail to avert that tragedy and we just cannot allow this to continue.

This is why we find ourselves here, under urgency, urgently resolving the risk of harm to children and young people adopted overseas and sometimes brought to New Zealand and sometimes elsewhere. While most adopted children are thought to be safe and secure in their adoptive family environment, we cannot in good conscience allow any level of child exploitation to occur or allow any risk for that to occur.

I acknowledge that the temporary suspension of section 17, which recognises adoptions made overseas for the purposes of citizenship and immigration, may be disappointing for some families, but please be aware that we do not make this decision lightly. We make this decision only with the thoughts of the safety of young people in our minds.

There are people seeking to be great parents, but whose pathway to adoption may be lengthened by this. We will find an enduring solution as quickly as we possibly can, but preventing the risk of harm to children and young people is what matters most now. That is our responsibility, whether they are our child or not. As a nation, we need to work together to make sure that our children are safe. I put my hand up to enter Parliament on the sole purpose of caring for and protecting children and young people in New Zealand. Whether that harm through adoption is happening on our soil or overseas soil, we have a responsibility to make sure that they are protected from those heinous crimes.

I am grateful for the hard work across Government agencies to make sure that this has happened in a way where we can make sure that no one is rushing for adoptions right now and we can make sure that our young people are safe.

The other area I would just like to point out is I can truly never understand how hard it would have been for some of these officials with absolutely no pathway to interfere, even when they knew that what they were signing off meant that those children may not be safe. So this is also a shout out to those staff who every day have to sign off these adoptions—we are making sure that they can make sure that young people are safe when they’re signing those documents. So I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I want to, first of all, request that the Minister provide to the House the Attorney-General’s report. It appears to exist. The disclosure statement refers to it and says that advice has been prepared. There would appear to be no reason why this House shouldn’t be informed of that. I would absolutely request that that happen.

Having just had some opportunity to read the disclosure statement, which was tabled less than an hour ago, it does raise some concerns. I note that no regulatory impact statement whatsoever has been prepared, and I accept that, in cases where matters are pressing, sometimes the process is somewhat truncated, but this is not a bill that has been cobbled together in a couple of weeks. It’s a bill that has been months in the making. I’m very surprised that there’s no regulatory impact statement whatsoever. What we’ve got to go on in terms of official advice is this disclosure statement, which is pretty thin, and the Attorney-General’s report if and when we see it.

This is a very significant bill that is going to affect a number of quite discrete communities. If the problem is adoptions being used to exploit young people—and I think that’s the problem—then, in terms of what is the right solution, the only people who appear to have been consulted on this were the Family Court judiciary and the people in Government who will operationalise this bill, whatever that exactly means. It seems that it’s only been an extremely narrow consultation.

The fix, it appears, is not to address some of the root causes of that exploitation, and it’s not to carve out or have some kind of test as to whether or not we recognise an adoption by testing that adoption. It’s been this blanket ban.

I also took the opportunity to just look at our international obligations. Look, I’ll be quite clear: I’m no expert on international law or the law of adoption. It’s interesting that the disclosure statement says that we’ve worked closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the proposals on the bill, in particular those that relate to specific countries. What they don’t say, in response to the question “Is this consistent with our international obligations?” is that it is. I took the opportunity to just run out and print off the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is all about the rights of the child. It’s important to note that children have a right to adoption. You can understand that a child who, for whatever reason, doesn’t have one or two parents has a right to have the law recognise that relationship. In article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights to the Child, it says that the “States Parties”—and we’re one of them—“… [must] Recognise that intercountry adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child can’t be placed in … an adoptive family”. Intercountry adoption is part of the international law framework, and we’re peeling that back.

I’m saying this because I want the Minister and her officials, who I have no doubt will be watching, to be on notice that we intend to raise so that they can give us the most fulsome answers in the committee of the whole House stage. Whilst my study has been cursory, it does throw up some issues.

The other thing that’s noted is that this does significantly limit the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of adoptions. That’s quite unusual, right? Whilst the Family Court is a creature of statute, it’s a division of the District Court, and it gets its power from this House, it’s unusual to start curtailing the jurisdiction of the court. I note that there’s kind of a safety net when it says that the Family Court no longer has jurisdiction to make these orders—I think that’s the amendment to section 3—except, and I think it uses the phrase, “in exceptional circumstances”. Then it gives a couple of examples. I was almost concerned with the examples because they were so extreme. I mean, one was a child with one parent dead and the other terminally ill, with the only remaining relative being a person in New Zealand. That is truly extraordinary.

I do think, in this House, we need to probe what is meant by “exceptional circumstances”. In my view, the bar of exceptionality should be relatively low. We’ve sent a very strong signal to the courts about this, but you’ve got to remember that the court will be examining the particular case. They are not simply recognising an overseas order; they are making an order, and they can put the interests of the child first. I’m very cautious about saying to a Family Court judge, “We are taking away your exercise of judgment unless it reaches a threshold way up here.” This is why we consult on these things. Is that the right phrase? Perhaps, in that clause, the phrase should be “clearly in the best interests of the child”, because that’s actually the guiding light for most of our legislation in the family law sphere.

What we could get is a situation where it is clearly in the best interests of the child that the Family Court judge make the order, but it’s not exceptional, so we’ve got a judge whose hands are tied and must decline to act in the best interests of the child. That’s not a good outcome. It’s unfortunate that these comments are being made on the hoof because that’s what urgency does, but I hope the Minister and her officials will carefully consider anything that comes up in the committee stage. It is possible to come in and out of committee, and it is possible to not hear all of the stages consecutively in this period of urgency. It may be that some time for deliberation is needed.

I’ve listened to several of these speeches, and some people are saying that the reason is to have immediate protection of children from exploitation, but the Minister, in her speech, pointed out the reason for this urgency is to stop any adoptions that are currently under way so that no further adoptions will be recognised. It’s not about an immediate protection; it’s about making sure that we don’t have a rush to the courtroom for adoption orders—whether that be in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction—to all of a sudden sneak in before the door closes. That’s why we’re in urgency now.

I am deeply concerned that this bill is a low-quality bill because people with expertise haven’t been consulted. Lawyers, psychologists, social workers, communities affected, and people who have families overseas and who are leaders of the communities that might know about adoption practices in different countries and cultures haven’t been consulted. This is going to come as a sharp jolt to some of these communities who have been under the impression that we recognised the decisions of foreign courts and jurisdictions. There are some of my concerns, but I’m sure there will be more in the next hour or two. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to speak on the second reading of this bill. Now, following on from the first reading, I apologise that I didn’t indicate our position in the speech itself. We do support this bill, but we still have some serious concerns and questions around this bill.

I think, to start with, we did hear that there has been very limited consultation around this bill. I think it’s important to understand—with all of this, what I will be saying is pivoting and also signalling to the Minister the kind of questions that we’ll be asking the Minister during the committee stage—that what we’re not seeing is the engagement with the affected communities. Now, this bill does disproportionately impact some communities over others. I think it shouldn’t be out of the question, and it should within reason, for the Minister to be able to say which key stakeholders the Minister has engaged with during the formulation of this bill or, in fact, what communities the relevant agencies have communicated with as part of this bill.

I signalled in my first reading speech that I would be talking more about the bill itself. Let’s start with Part 1 and some of the questions I have around the new section 17. Now, I find that to be a peculiar aspect of this bill in the sense that different children, depending on their country’s exemption status, will have different visas and access to citizenship here in Aotearoa New Zealand—at least that’s based on my cursory reading of page 4 of this bill. What I really want to focus on here is the fact that, if the adoption occurs in a country that is not an exempt country, then the adoptive person—in this case, most likely the child—as a result of that adoption will be able to acquire citizenship by descent. Normally, they would they be granted a visa or entry permit under the Immigration Act 2009. If that is correct, then if you are adopting a child from a country that’s not in the exemption list in Schedule 1AAB, even though you have adopted them, that person cannot come to Aotearoa New Zealand unless there is another form of immigration visa or temporary visa status that they can apply for.

I really want to know the rationale around this—particularly in light of what the Minister said in their first and second readings—and whether this is to ensure that no, I guess, potential harm or exploitation would happen to the child here in Aotearoa. On the land, within the jurisdiction of Aotearoa, I guess that makes sense, but that seems to be a really extreme way of mitigating some of these issues, especially when it sounds like you are allowing the person to be adopted but they just can’t come here. I think that has serious implications for some of the families, and I will be keen to hear from the Minister about this.

The other thing, which is interesting, that is going on under the part of the bill—if you’re looking at Part 2—is around amendments to the Family Court Rules. I will be really interested to know—and I know that consultation has happened with the Family Court—what sort of public awareness, but also in terms of function within the Family Court itself, was provided as a result of the changes we’re seeing. In particular, we’re looking at providing evidence of the applications and the child’s ordinary place of residence or other evidence of the circumstances in which the application is made. If that is the case, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister if this is an existing provision or if this is a new provision that has been introduced. What would that, potentially, serve?

While I understand the main purpose of this bill is to place the safety and wellbeing of the child, or any child that is adopted, into consideration, there are definitely some unanswered questions where I don’t know if the bill is drafted in a way that meets the best interests of the child. Potentially it does, and the Minister has considered a lot of these, so we would be happy to engage with the Minister during the committee stage on that.

I also want to pick up on what the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, mentioned in terms of the Hague convention on overseas adoption and surrogacy arrangements, and in the broader context of what this bill would mean in terms of our relationship under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, obviously, in terms of our interactions and consultation within the international community. There are definitely a number of agencies that I would be interested to check in terms of the Minister’s or the officials’ engagement.

Previously, we mentioned some of the communities that are most affected as a result of this bill, particularly the Pacific community. What was the level of engagement with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? What was the level of engagement with Mana Mokopuna - Children’s Commissioner? What is the level of engagement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in particular, in terms of our international relations and standings?

I am incredibly grateful that, following on from my first reading speech, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) report is now available on the Ministry of Justice website. This is a luxury that we didn’t have the last time we had a bill, which was the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. The BORA report wasn’t available until the bill passed its third reading. Now, we do have the BORA report, and I do thank the Minister of Justice or the powers that be or, potentially, the Minister for nudging the Ministry of Justice to upload the BORA report. It is now available, and it is another tool that we are able to use during the committee stage and as part of the discussions that we will be having after the second reading. The BORA report is a really good resource because we don’t have any of the other resources like the regulatory impact statement or a supplementary analysis report or even a child impact statement.

We will be interested to hear, during the committee stage, whether the Minister would consider waiving some of the legal privileges around this piece. I find it fascinating that there are large sections of the BORA report that have been redacted. Now, most of the sections that have been redacted have been redacted under the Official Information Act section 6(a) and section 6(b). I think it’s important for us to consider what the reasons were for those redactions and how that fits in the broader context of international relations when we’re looking at this bill.

Under the Official Information Act section 6(a), “Conclusive reasons for withholding official information”, official information may be withheld if “that information would be likely—(a) to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or, (b)”—which is something else that has been used to redact certain sections of the BORA report—“to prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence by—(i) the Government of any other country or any other agency of such a Government;” I think, it is important for us to highlight what some of the information that has been provided in the BORA report would mean when we are discussing it during the committee stage and why those specific sections are being redacted. It will be really nice for the Minister to highlight that to us in the committee stage. With that, again, we do support the bill, but we have lots more questions.

There are more than 80 countries that will be exempt from the suspension, including the US and the UK, which means adoptions from those countries will be able to continue. So I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take the second call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Adoption Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Nicole McKee, the responsible Minister, for bringing this bill to the House. It’s a difficult process of work. It is a practical and immediate step to prevent further harm to children, who are vulnerable, and therefore New Zealand First continues to commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. We stand, again, for the second reading, in support of this bill. Now, as we listen and have had a bit more time to look at what the information is in front of us, there are some questions that we look forward to asking at the next stage—and that will be around how the Government is going to determine which overseas countries have the appropriate or sufficient safeguards and how that will be applied.

Again, the principle of what the bill is out to do is critical; we understand that. I guess one of the other things that we’d like to raise is how—and we see this bill, and it’s a bill that has hit a bit of a vein for Māori in the fact that our whāngaitanga—our tikanga—is often captured in this particular bill, so we would like to have seen changes that reflect us. We know that the timing is not right, given the immediacy that the Government says it is addressing, but I did bring to rise how these changes will affect those nations that have w’akapapa, that have strong alliances here in Aotearoa, in that context, and whether the reforms undertaken will be culturally appropriate and adjusted, as those connections are obviously different for some places here in Aotearoa than in other nations, other countries.

We did hear the Ministers earlier mihi to the officials and to Oranga Tamariki, but, you know, we have a situation now where we have tamariki that have been unmonitored, their wellbeing hasn’t been able to rise to any of the existing framework that we have. In fact, we understand there’s a heavy reliance on our NGOs. I think it’s really important to take the expertise of our NGOs in this space, and how and whether those agencies that are stepping up, whether it be Oranga Tamariki, Justice, the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation—whoever—are going to be resourced and able to monitor the wellbeing and the continued wellbeing of the tamariki and the families concerned

I think the issue that we’re trying to address and support here is that lack of child-protection framework in Aotearoa. We also acknowledge that this is more of a—I’m trying to think of the right word—you’re doing something and halting it on the understanding that we are going to be able to have all the necessary mechanisms set up. I guess, as we’re suspending things and acknowledging the tension and the anxiety from the good families, and how we are able to make sure that that isn’t put on hold. Adopting children—for us, as Māori, whāngai—has actually been a really important part of keeping our families and our tamariki protected and safe as well.

We acknowledge that there will be key mechanisms that the Minister will need to assure us have been worked through. In short, we do look forward to listening to the other questions that are coming out in the next phase and appreciate that the Minister has been open about what it is that this bill is intended to do. Nō reira, kia ora koutou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Children are our most precious taonga, and they must have stable, safe, and loving homes. We have an obligation as lawmakers to ensure that all children, no matter where in the world they are, have their rights and mana upheld.

There are questions around the implications this bill will have, and the onus is on the Minister to show that the harm prevented is balanced with the harm that this bill will cause. Both having and not having this bill will cause harm because there are littlies with genuine need who will no longer be coming to New Zealand for a safe, loving home. We need to ensure that this is the right solution.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, introduced today under urgency. The bill closes loopholes in our adoption laws that have allowed the exploitation and trafficking of young children to occur, and we’ve heard about some appalling cases. Though we will be supporting this legislation today, I also want to put on record our wider concerns and expectations for the long-term reform that must follow, and how the use of the select committee would have strengthened this legislation.

As the Minister and my colleagues in the House have outlined, this bill addresses two key problems in the Adoption Act 1955. Firstly, section 7, which allows New Zealanders to adopt children from non - Hague convention countries; and secondly, section 3, which allows anyone overseas to attempt to use the New Zealand adoption law to adopt a child regardless of their connection to Aotearoa, enabling people to bypass stricter laws in their own countries. This bill does not permanently resolve those issues, but instead creates an interim solution. It suspends all adoptions enabled under sections 3 and 17, where there are no adequate safeguards, until either a long-term reform is passed or until 1 July 2027 at the latest.

Urgency means this bill has not had the benefit of select committee scrutiny, because it was only released at 1 p.m. today, and will pass through all stages this afternoon. We know that the last time the Government put something through under urgency was the pay equity bill, so of course we are sceptical as to the actual harm prevention and whether this bill will actually do what it intends to do. Without that select committee, we are debating without community input, expert input, and, so far, no regulatory impact statement or child impact assessment—and a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that is heavily redacted and that I’m sure would have helped answer some of the questions that we have.

We have heard from our trusted stakeholders, like those at ECPAT (Child Alert Trust), that the way this bill is currently drafted does have issues like those. In the Ministry of Justice public consultation in 2022, Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan, and Kiribati communities told the Government that adoption in Aotearoa can be a pathway for children to remain connected to whānau, to access education, and to build a better life.

Further, it must be noted that there has been work already undertaken by Oranga Tamariki with Samoa to arrange bespoke safeguarding, and we must be sure that this bill doesn’t undermine that work; noting that there are significant numbers of adoptions from Samoa each year, and there will be children with genuine need for a safe, stable, and loving home in New Zealand who will be adversely affected by this bill. This is a point I will be raising with the Minister directly in the committee of the whole House stage, to seek to understand what impact this will have on the current work that is being undertaken. Those voices matter; young people’s voices matter, and reform must not erase them.

We remain concerned that, without comprehensive reform, temporary fixes risk delaying the real work. The Adoption Act is nearly 70 years old, and it reflects outdated ideas about children, family, and consent. It must be replaced, not patched over. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Adoption Amendment Bill proposes urgent interim amendments to the Adoption Act 1995 to tighten up New Zealand law on international adoptions and ensure the safety of the children who are adopted overseas to be brought into New Zealand to live. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made on the other side of the House. Really, they just lead me to having more questions for the Associate Minister of Justice, which we can traverse more fulsomely in the committee stage.

The member Carl Bates pointed out that there are more than 80 countries that are exempt, and he said that for that reason he supports the bill. The issue that we have is that we haven’t yet got the rationale for why some countries are included and why some countries are excluded. I’m our spokesperson for Pacific peoples, and I’m certainly not suggesting that this is targeted to Pacific peoples, because there are a number of countries that are not Pacific regional countries that have been excluded, as well. However, on the list of countries that are not exempt for adoption are Samoa, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Nauru, I believe—and those are the only the ones that I could count up at this point. Of course, there are countries that are not exempt, from other parts of the world, including, from what I can see, Japan, Venezuela, Ghana, Kenya, and a number of others. But us asking the question is quite a legitimate question to be putting to the House.

I do need to make the point that there will be questions asked about this from our Pacific community, and rightly so, because, as has been pointed out by other members of this House, culturally, adoption within family, regardless of whether we live in the motherland or not, is quite a normal, everyday thing for us to do. In fact, many of us grew up with uncles and aunties that we knew weren’t just our uncles and aunties; they were our mums and dads, and we weren’t just their nieces and nephews; we were their daughters and sons. The closeness of whānau in the cultural side to adoption is going to mean there will inevitably be questions raised from our Pacific community about the particular countries here from the Pacific that have been excluded, and so I think that it’s important—with my Pacific peoples spokesperson hat—that I am asking some of these questions.

I do need to put on record—particularly, given there’s a number of Ministers that are involved in the decision that is being made here—that earlier this year in May, on behalf of the Pacific caucus, our Pacific caucus chair, Jennifer Salesa, wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressing our concerns with what we were seeing with respect to the exploitation and abuse of children who were being adopted. Now, it’s important I put on record that the vast majority of adoptions—and I think the Minister has stated this earlier in the House—are safe adoptions. They are children being adopted by whānau who care for them and love them, and they are safe in those circumstances. But we’ve all seen the media stories.

Off the back of that, our Pacific caucus wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking a few different questions, and we will want to know during the committee stage whether or not some of these things were traversed. One of the questions was just whether or not the New Zealand Government and the Government of Samoa had had any conversations about Samoa signing up to the Hague convention, and whether or not the Government has any plans to review the systems New Zealand has in place to ensure compliance with our obligations under the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, specifically in regards to the vetting of individuals wishing to adopt—which touches on an issue raised earlier in the House by the Minister for Children.

We also put on record in that letter that we wanted to know from the Minister whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was working alongside Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Justice to support regional adoption safeguards, and we also asked in that letter if the Government of New Zealand is offering diplomatic, legal, or technical assistance in this instance to Samoa to consider the Hague convention and strengthen their own protection measures for children. Now, that is just one particular country, but they were questions we put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because of the concern that we have on this side of the House, and I know that’s a shared concern across the House.

The response that we got from the Minister of Foreign Affairs was that the Hague convention is a matter for the Samoan Government, although there is an acknowledgment that the New Zealand Government officials can talk to them about those things, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been working closely with Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the New Zealand Police to develop approaches to introducing safeguards for children who are the subject of those particular adoption processes, and that—because we were talking about one particular case from Samoa—officials in New Zealand and Samoa have been cooperating on improving safeguards for adopted children, from the point of the adoption in the Family Court through to their movement to reside permanently in New Zealand. With that in mind, we were given a lot of information in that particular letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs about work that was under way, that discussions were taking place between New Zealand and, in this particular instance, Samoa on safeguards for the protection of children who may be adopted in New Zealand by a New Zealand family. But we haven’t actually got any feedback about where those conversations have landed.

Samoa is just one example, but what do other countries want to see New Zealand do? What advice have we received from our officials and from Pacific regional counterparts with regards to how we could strengthen those safeguards? I think that’s where we feel like we’re missing a whole lot of information on this side of the House.

We’ve gone from zero to a hundred, effectively, with interim legislation being brought to the House in urgency saying that all adoptions will be paused, but we haven’t seen what may be coming on the other side of that pausing, that suspension of adoptions, and we haven’t got any feedback on those conversations that have been taking place to ensure the protection and safeguards are in place at a Pacific regional level for children. Now, this doesn’t just apply to the Pacific region because, obviously, adoptions happen with other countries as well. But, as I said earlier, I’m really here with my Pacific spokesperson hat, and so I do need to turn my mind specifically to the considerations for our Pacific region and those countries that have been excluded from the list of countries here, and to who will, basically, have like this full cut with regard to any ability to have adoptions from their countries to New Zealand whilst this is being considered and the new legislation is being drafted.

I also want to know from the Minister: what are exceptional circumstances going to extend to? I mentioned earlier there will be some families that are highly disappointed because they would have had the process under way already with respect to adopting a family member, now only to be cut off. There will be a high level of disappointment for the family from whence the child comes, but there will be a high level of disappointment here for those awaiting parents who were awaiting their children. Will that be included in the exceptional circumstances that the Minister is considering?

Also, there is another scenario I’ve thought of. Quite often, family will adopt siblings, but they can’t always bring them all over at once. They have a staged approach to bringing over the nephews and nieces that they are adopting from elsewhere, and so they may have brought over one or two of the siblings and there may be others where there was a clear intention that they would come. I’m wondering—from the Minister—whether that will be considered in the exceptional circumstances category whilst this interim legislation is in place.

Finally, my question—which the Minister can’t necessarily answer in the second reading. However, I’m giving clear notice of what the questions will be during the committee stage. It is about the precedent. What do other countries do? Has New Zealand had far more flexible adoption rules than comparable countries like, say, the UK, Canada, Australia, or the US? Is it the case that, actually, those countries that we’re excluding here have not been able to adopt their children to family members in those countries because they had a much tighter system with respect to adoption? Or are we going to be in a regime which is a lot stricter than other countries whom we would consider to be comparable countries when it comes to international adoption, and, in particular, with reference to these countries that have been excluded?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re in the second reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill. Just a friendly reminder to the person that just sat: this is a temporary situation and there are exceptional circumstances to mitigate some of the factors that she was suggesting. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll just point out to the member who resumed her seat, Rima Nakhle, that we can all read; we know that this is both the second reading and that this is temporary. Yet it is a piece of legislation that has significant ramifications. It is an important piece of legislation. This is a rushed process; we are hearing all stages of this bill through urgency. Usually, during a second reading speech we would be referencing what we’ve heard during the select committee process, but we are not able to do that today because of urgency. Yet we do have some significant questions on this side of the House.

I mean, just going back to the point that I made about this being rushed: the fact that the bill was introduced just before we had the first reading of this bill, the fact that we’ve just got the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to be able to look through that, I think my colleagues on this side of the House have made the point—and I agree—that given the Minister knew that this was an issue quite some time back, we would have preferred that the entirety of the bill, that the long-term solution to this issue, was actually worked on in the time that we’ve had, and that we were here today discussing that bill. That being said, the Minister has outlined that there is serious harm to many children who are adopted into New Zealand as a result of our legislative settings. We have read stories of that harm that has been laid out in the media as well. That’s why we are supporting, at this stage, the legislation.

I do have a couple of questions that I also will signal in advance of the committee stage of this bill. My colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has pointed to the list in Schedule 1AAB. My question is around who’s in and who’s out when it comes to the countries that are captured in this bill. It does seem rather arbitrary, and it’s particularly confusing, I guess, because within the explanatory note, within the general policy statement, it does state that the bill does not apply to overseas adoptions within the scope of the Hague convention on protection of children and cooperation in respect of intercountry adoptions.

Yet the list seems to kind of be neither here nor there, given that it includes most of the countries that are signatories to the Hague convention, but not all. It includes Tonga, which is exempt under the list but not a signatory to the Hague convention. I would have understood that if all of the countries that are signatory to the Hague convention were automatically exempted, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here either. So I’m keen to get a little bit of clarification from the Minister during the committee stage on that.

That being said, some of the changes that this bill makes, on a temporary basis, will reduce the risk of people—so the changes appear to be a temporary suspension of both section 3 and section 17 of the Adoption Act to restrict, essentially, the Family Court jurisdiction to domestic adoptions for the time being, and to restrict the recognition of some overseas adoptions under the Act.

The other question that I had was around clause 8 inserting new section 27E of the bill that empowers the justice Minister—in consultation with a number of other Ministers—to recommend the changes to Schedule 1AAB, which is, of course, the list of exemption countries. It allows the Governor-General to add or remove countries from the list, and I would want to know, further down in this process, what the criteria for that would be as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Look, the Adoption Amendment Bill is about tightening up our international adoption laws so we protect our children; we protect our most vulnerable from abuse, from sex trafficking, and from exploitation. This is a critical piece of legislation so I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I might start where I started in my first reading contribution, which was just a very quick reflection on the use of urgency. The reason for that is there’s been a little bit of banter across the House on that. I think what we’ve recognised is there can be good reason for the use of urgency. However, when it’s used, it would be best practice for there to be some dialogue between the parties as far ahead of time as is possible to ensure that we have really sound legislation that can hold, even if it’s temporary. Colleagues have pointed to some of the temporary impacts that this might have on children—I’ll speak to some later.

I look across at my bench and I wonder whether this is representative of good lawmaking. That’s the sole reason why we raise that issue. We want to be across all the documents, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports, and my urge to Government members would be, not only for the continued process with this work, but for future bills that if the Government does choose to introduce urgency, that there are those cross-party conversations and that the documents are with us so we can all do our best for the people of New Zealand.

I wanted to start with a bit of reflection on the process that adoption laws go through in our country, because there is reference in the disclosure statement to work that the Ministry of Justice has done in this space over a number of years. I recall that Tāmati Coffey actually had a member’s bill, mostly focused on surrogacy provisions, but that member’s bill was paused when the Law Commission embarked on a broader piece of work. The bill is now with, I think, the Health Committee and it’s gone through a few iterations. The point I’m making is that I think there’s a difference between identifying a problem or an issue that I think we should be briefed on and aware of and issues escalating to the point where we need to take urgent action. So, again, just a general observation about the fact that where issues concern children especially, I do think that there’s an especially important role for us to work across the House and ensure we get it right at the point of those first red flags.

I just wanted to make a comment about what comes next, because there is a question about how much we can do in relation to those countries that are not signatory to the Hague convention or that are not approved in other ways. I looked at section 17 of the Citizenship Act, which has a clear gap in terms of a lack of protection or a lack of reflection of the need for the best interests of the child to be considered or a lack of the need for the adequacy of potential adopter parents to be considered, which is why we’ve ended up with people with serious convictions in that space. The other interesting gap is the issue of identifying a genetic connection between the proposed adoptee and the proposed adopter. What has happened in the past is that people have claimed a familial relationship, but there is no requirement in the Act at present in terms of testing for that relationship. So there are certainly things that we can do within the scope of our legislative framework and our protective framework, outside the Hague convention, which I’m sure will come next as well.

In terms of the identification of exempt countries, I just have been looking up countries that have been deemed to be non-compliant with the Hague convention. I’ve come up with a report in 2020 on Japan, Austria, Mexico, Turkey, all of whom are on that list, I believe, so there are absolutely questions that I think we need to talk through in terms of understanding the assessment that’s been made in determining that list and whether considerations like independent reports on those countries’ compliance has been taken into consideration or not.

Dr Duncan Webb made some excellent points about questions in terms of compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Again, I was listening as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni made points about some children being adopted earlier, others potentially being left behind for another year. There are quite nuanced circumstances which might also need to be considered. But here’s the interesting point: they should not be considered as a matter of exemption, but a matter of international human rights, which is something else. So if the child holds those rights, then it shouldn’t be necessarily a case of exemption that we’re looking to.

The other, I guess, issue that I will have some questions around is the decision to create what looks to me to be a Henry VIII power in terms of the Order in Council that allows a change to the list of countries or a revocation of the countries who are currently on the regulatory impact statement. I would question whether that is an appropriate function to be made given the huge implications for children but also given my glance at the section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, which I don’t want to say, “hums and ha’s”, but it kind of hums and ha’s about whether certain rights are engaged, including the right to be free from discrimination. When you put that alongside a rather extraordinary power, it does conflate that sense that we are creating this rather bold extraordinary power that could breach a right to be free from being discriminated against as well. So I’ll certainly have some questions there.

My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raised some questions about the recognition of an adoption and separating that from a right to a visa or to citizenship, which I thought was fascinating. I wondered about the impact for young people who may be inheriting property for example, and who may have the passing away of a loved one in New Zealand, and how that would impact what a year would look like. Perhaps unusual circumstances, but in the context of the rights of the child, we must consider all these factors as well.

Now, the Minister perhaps has done this in terms of the discretion that’s there, so allowing the exception for surrogacy circumstances, but also Family Court Associates or Family Courts to make an exception. Again, colleagues have pointed to the fact that there’s not a lot of guidance in terms of what those exceptions should be, and perhaps concerningly, there’s a rather high bar threshold set by the two examples that have been included in the legislation. Now, we’re looking at a one-year period in which Family Court Associates, even—who were created in the last Parliament, in terms of their role—will be expected to provide this quite different sort of decision making in my view, in terms of assessing this function with a child who’s based overseas. So the question is: is the guidance sufficient? Is the bar too high? As a practical measure, what steps will be taken to support Family Court Associates to be making this very important decision in terms of young people?

Now, the other thing I did want to raise was in terms of transition measures. It looks to me on my first read that if someone has made an application, that that application will still be considered, but a decision in terms of the second deadline in terms of their rights on citizenship versus a visa would be separate. I haven’t quite gotten my head around how that would impact people for the second deadline, so when this initial period is removed, what that would mean for the right to have a visa, whether that would be reinstated for someone who had a live application or whether that would not be.

Finally, just a general point about children’s rights. I’ve practised for a number of years in this area and one thing that the former Children’s Commissioner used to argue for was something akin to what’s called the Welsh measure, where when legislation was passing through the House, it was an obligation of parliamentarians to actively consider the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was rather world-leading when it was first done, but it’s proved to be rather successful. My view is that, of course, we should turn a robust mind and analysis to all of our international human rights frameworks. However, if we were to highlight one, I do think that children’s rights is deserving of something like the Welsh measure, and as we go forward through this process, I would just urge the Minister and Government colleagues to sit down and have a robust assessment on whether the future changes, as well as these temporary measures, are compliant with those rights.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tautoko te pire ki te Whare.

[I commend the bill to the House.]

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Adoption Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Adoption Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1, the debate on clauses 3 to 14—“Amendments to Adoption Act 1955”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the members of the committee who are joining me for the committee of the whole House stage of the Adoption Amendment Bill. Members, it is unacceptable that there are children and young people who have been adopted overseas, brought into New Zealand, and then found to be subjected to physical, sexual, and psychological abuse; there is neglect and exploitation. It is enabled by our current international adoption settings. We will reform these settings and immediately protect more kids through two phases of work.

Today, we begin phase one, a time-limited temporary suspension, followed by phase two, a permanent solution that ensures the protection, safety, and wellbeing of those adopted children. Today, in phase one, we will temporarily suspend recognition of unsafe overseas adoptions where section 17 of the Adoption Act has been used, which, in turn, provides access to immigration and citizenship pathways for the child.

An exemption list of countries who have sufficient safeguards in their adoption system has been established. Those countries demonstrate their ability to protect children and young people from harm without reports of concerns from others. What is also essential is that we temporarily limit the power of the Family Court to make adoption orders where adoptive parents or children do not live in New Zealand. The reason why we need to make this change is because the Family Court has an extraordinary broad power to grant adoption orders for prospective adoptive parents or children anywhere in the world. It could be used to circumvent the temporary suspension of section 17 that we are making. It’s a potential back door, and I want to make sure that it’s shut—at least until a permanent fix is established.

It is important that the Family Court retains the ability to grant some adoptions where at least one party does not ordinarily live in New Zealand. A scenario here would be international surrogacy, where the formalisation of parent-child relationships is needed or where there are exceptional circumstances which justify an adoption order being made.

I’m confident that today’s amendments will prevent harm coming to children and young people adopted overseas into New Zealand, and I look forward to hearing the views and answering the questions of my colleagues across the Chamber as we move through this stage.

Kia ora, Mr Chair, and kia ora to the Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee. Thanks for expressing willingness to engage in some exchange on this. It is an apparently simple bill but it’s actually quite tricky to read, so my first question is around the statement in the explanatory note: “The Bill does not apply to overseas adoptions within the scope of the Hague Convention”. That’s what the explanatory note says, but then, if you go to clause 4, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”, it defines a Hague convention adoption as “an adoption to which the Hague convention applies … that took place in a contracting State … in respect of which the adopted child was habitually resident overseas; and in respect of which the adopted parent is, or both adopted parents are, habitually resident in New Zealand”.

In terms of the recognition of overseas adoption, I’m just a little confused. Basically, does it mean that we do or don’t recognise adoptions where all of the parties at the time of the adoption were resident overseas? I mean, I’m sure I could work through it eventually, but I haven’t had that opportunity, right? That really is my question: whether, when we’re talking about overseas adoptions, what we really mean—or another way to express it—is “New Zealanders going overseas to adopt”. If that’s what we mean, it’s a different thing to what most people, in ordinary language, would say an overseas adoption is, where it’s an adoption that happens overseas where all the parties are overseas parties. That kind of changes it if New Zealand citizens are overseas and enter into an adoption. Here’s a case: if two New Zealand citizens are overseas and adopt a child but they are habitually resident overseas, is that child, then, a citizen or not? It’s simply not clear to me at the moment whether that would be the case or not. We’ve got the Hague convention, and we could have used that, but we haven’t used it; we’ve actually used this Schedule 1AAB as the critical tool here.

I guess I’ll just leave that there, and the Minister might want to respond, or another member might want to take a call.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I’m just going to focus on Part 1. I’m looking at clause 4(1), “Section 2 amended”, and some of the definitions. I want to focus on a couple of things around the exempt countries. I know that others may have more questions around this, but just checking that while we are talking about exempt countries—and the Minister mentioned numerous times the Hague convention, and the Hague convention adoption is a core feature of determining what countries are exempt and what countries are not exempt—I’m also interested to know for some of the countries that I keep seeing here, that there are some countries that are part of the Hague convention but are not listed in the list over here. I just wanted to check whether a specific process was used to determine some of these countries and whether there is a rationale of why some of the countries that are part of the Hague convention were missed or even why some of the countries who are part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child were also missed out of the new Schedule 1AAB as a result.

Now, I guess, on a similar line to what the previous speaker, Hon Dr Duncan Webb, was saying, my second question is around the idea of habitually resident—so when an adopted child was habitually residing overseas. Now, it’s a very specific distinction because what we are looking at is residing-based as opposed to nationality-based. So the reading of that line which is on the Hague convention adoption (b) with how we’re looking in terms of overseas adoption (a) “was in accordance with the law of that place and is legally valid;”. I guess the question is: let’s say we have a child whose nationality is from Angola, but the child habitually resides in Portugal. Does the Minister have any information, or through the officials, on what, then, happens in terms of adoption process of that place? Because, technically, under this legislation, the child residing in Portugal would meet the requirement, but if the child’s nationality is Angolan or is not Portuguese, then would that, then, matter to the law of that particular place when you are looking at adoption? Would the law of that country—i.e., in this example, Portugal—allow for the adoption by an overseas parent of a child in Portugal but who is not Portuguese? Would that be something that is allowed?

I guess some of the examples that I will be using as part of the committee stage are just to mainly understand some of the processes around the decisions that have been made and making sure that we have, in Hansard, some of the Minister’s intentions. I know that the Minister in the chair is one of the most thorough Ministers when it comes to responding to questions, so I would really appreciate the Minister’s response to that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the members for your questions. I’m going to try and attempt to answer your questions and maybe give a bit more, because some other members had asked questions through the second reading, and the first reading as well.

When I was asked about overseas adoptions and the process undertaken for the exemption list and queries, I’ll answer now about how we got to that list, and why some are off and some are on. The officials had gone through the list of those that had signed up to the Hague convention, and so they automatically go on. But then, we have to have a look at whether or not certain countries had had concerns raised about their adoption processes; and there are a number of them—not a lot, but there are a number of them—where other countries have said, “We have concerns about how they are doing their adoptions.”, so we’ve left them off the list.

There are also a number of countries signed up to the Hague convention who have a self-imposed moratorium on adoptions, and that could be for reasons such as war or some other reason where they don’t want to see their children adopted overseas. So they too have been left off the list of exemptions.

A comment was made that there were countries who had not signed up to the Hague convention who were on the list. There is one country on the exemption list that is not signed up to the Hague convention, and that is Tonga. The reason why we have signed them up is because they have a Supreme Court process in place and information-sharing agreements with Oranga Tamariki and New Zealand Police to make sure or ensure that the potential adoptive parents are fit to adopt these children and don’t have some of the heinous crimes behind them that we have been made aware of. So that’s how we got to that list that you currently have of 86 countries.

I will also note—in case you ask—why, when you look at India, it refers to a certain piece of legislation that we would exempt. That is because India has two pathways for adoption. One is recognised as being robust, and that’s the one that we will exempt adoptions from. But the other one has had concerns raised about it. So instead of saying we don’t want to exempt India, we are saying that we will exempt them if the pathway used is one that we can verify; but we cannot accept the pathway where it’s not. I can answer more questions, if I have not fully addressed that for you.

The member Duncan Webb also asked about the new definitions, and it is confusing—it is confusing. I’ve spent a little bit of time myself trying to get it into my head about how this will operate, but, effectively, the suspension is going to apply to New Zealand citizens living and habitually resident overseas. Now, there’s a thing here about the wording. I originally had wanted to use those that were “ordinarily resident” but actually got told I can’t use that word—or I shouldn’t use that word—because “habitually resident” works better and there is a definition for that in other legislation, so we have used habitually resident.

We’ve also looked to put in a definition of what overseas adoption means, to clarify this for those that will get confused, so the overseas adoption means an adoption, in any place outside of New Zealand, that—(a) [is made] in accordance with the law of that place”—so not here in New Zealand but in that country, overseas. It gives the adoptive parents a greater right than the birth parents to day-to-day care of the child, or would have if the adopted person was a child; and is made either by the order of a court or judicial or public authority in a country specified in the bill or prescribed in regulations or gives the adoptive parents rights to the adopted person’s property equal to or greater than the rights of the birth parents, if the adopted person dies without a will. So we’re trying to make a definition on what overseas adoption means, in an effort to make it clearer. I think I’ve answered it.

My questions follow on from the first and second reading, and some of them, I think, I traversed in some way. I’m specifically wanting to know from the Associate Minister of Justice—because this is a serious decision to preclude countries from adoption, even if it is just for an interim period of time—whether or not the New Zealand Government has had discussions particularly with the Pacific countries that are impacted by this legislation and what the nature of those conversations were.

I also want to return to the question that I asked in the second reading, which was around exceptions. For those families that clearly have had adoptions under way in advance to this bill coming to the House—will they be considered for exception, despite the fact that they are not coming from the exempted list of countries?

Alongside that, I’m wanting to know whether or not the Minister will be including in her exception list those that may have siblings where the intention was clear that they would also be adopted by a family member here in New Zealand.

My third question is just around the precedent. Because this has come to the House so quickly, and we haven’t had a chance to do our own research on this, I’m wanting to know what the precedent is in comparable countries. For the countries that we have specifically excluded in this operation—whether or not there are strict measures in place where they can’t actually adopt in between countries, so I’m talking about the US, Canada, and Australia; or whether or not this will be much more stringent than what we see in other places. I’m wanting to understand what the international landscape here is for adoption in light of the legislation that we have had brought to us in urgency.

I thank the member for her questions. In answer to the first one, about discussions with Pacific countries, there has been ongoing discussions with Samoa. We have ensured that we have been able to work with them to try and find a solution. It has not been fast, and the reason why is we’ve had Samoa have a change of Government and try and get their feet under the table. We have been there, trying to support them and offer them assistance so that we can help them get on to the exempt list.

I had mentioned Tonga had a Supreme Court ability and information sharing that is really robust. Officials are trying to work with Samoa to work through the issues that they have so that we can open up a pathway, again, for Samoa to come through. We have not gone out and done extensive consultation with all Pacific countries for a couple of reasons. One is that there are over 1,000 children that are adopted into New Zealand using the international adoptions pathway every year. We had concerns that those with heinous thoughts or intent would then find out what we’re doing and start applications for adoption.

In answer to the member’s second question, about those that are already under way and in process that are not from exempted countries, they will not be affected. If they have already started their process, their process will continue. There is no intent for this to be retrospective. It’s about moving forward. I understand concerns about the other countries, but this is our country and our problem with section 17. We’re actually enabling New Zealanders, with residency or citizenship, with criminal intent and criminal backgrounds to adopt these children. I’m stopping and fixing, hopefully, section 17 to immediately address that and stop that from occurring.

Part of the reason why we wanted to ensure that we make some of these subtle changes to the Family Court process, which is section 3, is so that the Family Court also did not get flooded with applications. Once those applications are under way, they will continue, which is part of the reason for going under urgency.

When looking for precedents in comparable countries, I was actually more focused on what we as a country were enabling and how we fix that. When it comes to a long-term solution and what we land on there, I don’t know what that long-term solution is yet, but my expectation is that we will go through a select committee process; we will have those robust discussions; and we should make sure that we have clarity, because, with our Pacific brethren, we share our whānau backwards and forwards. We want to make sure that we can continue to do that but that the children are safe.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Associate Minister of Justice for your answers thus far. I am looking at clause 4, so I’m still on the definitions, just trying to understand the scope of “overseas adoption”, for a start. Under the definition of “overseas adoption”, we have, in (b), in the last sentence, I’m just trying to understand the intent behind why the use of words “or would have afforded such a right if the adopted person were a young child;”, and whether that is to include 16- to 18-year-olds who might have different rights in respect of their natural parent in a home country, and attached to that, just a question about what impact the Minister understands that a pause for a year might have on that older cohort of potential adoptees on the basis of data that we have for previous years—so whether that’s likely to impact a particularly sizable group or not. I must admit I don’t know the rules around cut-offs here, so I haven’t checked against the primary legislation to see if there are already restrictions in terms of who counts.

The second question was in regards to the whole part of (c)(ii), under the definition of “overseas adoption”. I’m just trying to understand in which scenario you wouldn’t have an order of the court judicial authority in one of those countries, including a prescribed overseas country, and you would need to rely on that second option, which is whether the adoptive parent immediately gets this “legal right over the adopted person’s property equal to or greater than the right to the property of [the] natural parent or the person,” in certain circumstances. I would have thought that (c)(i) would cover precisely what we needed to cover.

The last question is not the same question as Lawrence Xu-Nan asked, but it’s attached, and it’s about the understanding of what we mean by “ordinarily resident”, which is used in different places in the bill—so just whether the intention is that there will be one common understanding of what that means for children overseas but also what that means for New Zealand residents. One example of that is in clause 6, but if the Minister could speak to that as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member: I’ll get some advice on the later part of those questions that you asked. But for the first one, I’m advised it is because they might be an adult at the time that they seek to have the adoption recognised in New Zealand. I’ve also just been made aware, to member Carmel Sepuloni, of other countries—the comparative. I’ve just been told that Australia do not automatically allow children adopted overseas by Australians to enter into Australia. Also, in relation to habitually resident, I’ve been told I need to correct myself. We are using “habitually resident” only in relation to Hague convention adoptions, and those Hague convention adoptions that Oranga Tamariki supports will continue. “Ordinarily resident” is used in the context of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of things: in the Attorney-General’s report—I know Lawrence Xu-Nan mentioned this—there are a number of redactions, and one of their redactions is the evidence underpinning the bill. It’s redacted under section 6(a) of the Official Information Act, which is defence and security, which seems a little odd because child adoptions—there are other redactions which I can understand, which are to protect confidentiality with foreign States. I’m just wondering, in terms of the evidence—and presumably, it’s evidence about overseas countries—whether the Minister can give further information. I also see the Cabinet papers referred to in that document, and, of course, we haven’t seen the Cabinet paper—another document we haven’t seen—and it would have been good to see that.

The other point I’d like—actually, I’ll go straight to the transitional provisions, which are new section 2A, which then refer to page 12—in my notes—which is going to be in the Schedule. You know, another great Parliamentary Counsel Office innovation: to have to run between different parts of the legislation! You’ve referred to situations where people in New Zealand have an application and said, “That’s OK. They’ve got their foot in the door; they can proceed with that.” But my note here is: what about where an application for adoption overseas has been made? Will we be treating overseas adoptions—because, as I read the transitional provisions, if you’ve made an application for adoption in New Zealand, you can see it through and get the rights of citizenship as if the law hadn’t been changed, but if you have made an application for adoption overseas, that’s only going to be effective if the order is made before this Act comes into force. So you’ve got a mismatch between an adoption within this jurisdiction and an adoption in another jurisdiction. I guess I just want to ask: is that what you’re doing, and, if so, is that justifiable? That’s my first question, and I will go to my next one.

You might have seen that there’re a couple of Amendment Papers on the table, and I guess I’m concerned that—and I say this with respect—you have taken an offender-focused approach here and said, “Let’s crack down on these bad people who are exploiting children”—and I understand that—rather than taking a child-centric approach. That’s why, in terms of in clause 6—the extraordinary circumstances test—I put in an Amendment Paper that says, “Let’s not say there are exceptional circumstances that justify the make of the order; let’s just say it’s clearly in the interests of the child to make the order.”

Now, had this been in select committee, you know, we would have nutted this out around the table, and we would have talked about the words and whether “clearly” is the right word or just “in the interests of the child”, or whether that just doesn’t work at all and some other formulation is needed or, in fact, whether “exceptional circumstances” is best. But the problem with “exceptional circumstances” is that it doesn’t recognise the centrality of the child. I do think that if there’s an adoption order being made, the real question should be: is this child safe here? Is this situation appropriate and legitimate and, in fact, better than the situation they’re currently in? If we can meet that test and say it’s clearly in the interests of the child, then we’ve kind of met the kaupapa of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So that’s my suggestion.

It may be that the Minister, or her officials, accept the principle that the child’s interests should be paramount, which is straight out of the Care of Children Act, but they think they should be expressed differently. It may be that you want to cross reference other legislation, but I do think that the threshold of “exceptional circumstances” is both unclear and kind of expressly putting the bar not just high, but very high. That’s the whole thing about exceptional; it’s very high. I’m not sure that that’s what we want to do. Now, this will create work for judges, and I know the Minister for Courts wouldn’t want that to happen, but it’s an important point, and I would invite the Minister to consider that.

I’d like to thank the member for his thoughts on this and, also, for presenting Amendment Papers for what he feels will be in the best interest of the child, and doing it under urgency. I do appreciate that, and I thank you for that. However, we won’t be supporting it, and I’ll outline the reasons why.

When we’re looking at exceptional circumstances, it’s really important that they are able to be determined on a case by case basis and by the judiciary. If we start putting too much around what is exceptional, we then take away the ability for the judiciary to be able to make those decisions themselves. An exceptional circumstance has to be determined on that case by case basis. The bill itself provides examples of what would indicate exceptional circumstances in this situation—for example, where both parents of a child have passed away and the only family member that’s alive is here.

So we’re wanting to make sure that it’s a deliberately high threshold so that the Family Court can make the adoption orders when the parents are anywhere in the world or the child is anywhere in the world for those legitimate types of adoptions. It’d be unusual for the court to make orders that apply to children who don’t live in New Zealand. As New Zealanders, we wouldn’t take it quite lightly if overseas jurisdictions were trying to tell us what to do, either. I consider it’s entirely appropriate to limit the Family Court’s jurisdiction but also give them the ability to be able to see or determine themselves what those exceptional circumstances might be. So that’s why we are going to not—well, I don’t intend to support what you have in there, and that is the reason why.

Also, you asked about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act content being redacted. The changes that we’re making do have an impact on foreign affairs, and we’ve been very mindful of these impacts—how they are and who they affect—as we start to develop the bill. So it’s really important that I don’t comment on what’s been redacted; it’s been redacted for a reason, and, therefore, I’m just unable to speak to what it is that you can’t see.

I asked earlier whether or not children who were on the verge of being adopted, if that was on track, would be considered in exceptional circumstances. I’m wanting clarity from the Minister. There will be some families who are, perhaps, going through the process of it being considered by the Family Court but for whom it hasn’t yet crossed the line. As soon as this passes, if it hasn’t crossed the line, does that mean that their case is shut and that they will not have an opportunity to relitigate their adoption case until new legislation is put in place? That’s my first question.

My second one is in relation to something that the Minister for Children said earlier which is quite concerning. Again, it would have been something that we could have fleshed out in more detail in the select committee process, but we haven’t had an opportunity to do this. She mentioned that even when Oranga Tamariki were aware that the adoptive parents were a risk—perhaps they had a criminal record or a record of child abuse, in some instances—they could not influence the adoption. I want to know if that was indeed the case, because that’s something for us to all be concerned about. But I also want to know from that Minister: did that also mean that if the adoption went ahead, Oranga Tamariki were not able to provide some oversight or protection or care for those children?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Carmel Sepuloni for her questions. In answer to your first question, if there is a process already under way and if the adoption process has been filed in the court, it will not stop. It’s going to continue. All of those that are under way or are in process will continue, and none of those will be stopped. This is about new applications for the immigration and residency pathway using international overseas adoptions.

The member also asked about Oranga Tamariki (OT) and their inability to influence. The reality is that when the adoptions are taking place in these overseas countries that are not signed up to Hague convention or information-sharing arrangements, OT have no idea that it’s even happened. If these children are being adopted in the overseas countries, OT are not aware of it until the children are applying for citizenship through Immigration New Zealand, and that’s the first time they’re being told that this individual has adopted these children. So the adoption has already taken place.

That’s why we have these exempted countries—the 86 on the list—because they do have approved pathways to ensure that the children are safe when they are adopted. But also some of them will have those information-sharing agreements, like with Tonga and New Zealand, where we can ensure that the right people are adopting these kids.

I’m just going to note before I start that you gave a good explanation of Tonga. But I do note that both Japan and Singapore are not exempt, and it might be useful—both of which are highly developed nations with a good rule-of-law framework, and I’d be interested in an explanation as to why those countries are not exempt.

The other thing I’ll say here is that since you’re not going to support the amendment and you’re going to stick with the exceptional circumstances test, I think it’s really important that Parliament makes clear what is meant by that. I mean, I would have thought that a court approaching that question would absolutely say that, well, we should be addressing that in a way that’s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also consistent with the international human rights of the child. It’s all very nice to have a couple of—and the Parliamentary Counsel Office always do this—blindingly obvious examples, right? What we need are hard cases, where it’s a tricky decision.

I mean, I can imagine a situation where a child is orphaned in an overseas country—perhaps a Pacific nation—and they’ve got a good number of family members in the UK and some family members in California, but also a knot of them here in New Zealand, perhaps in Auckland, where there’s a strong Pacific community. You might say that it’s not exceptional, but it’s pretty clear that the options before this child are best served by that child being in a place where that child can grow up closest to the community into which it was born. Now, is that exceptional? I think that’s a genuinely good question, because it’s not that there are no other family members, but it is clearly the best option.

What if there are family members in the home country, but there is evidence that there is abuse going on in that setting? Are those exceptional circumstances? Because if it’s not, we’re doing a bizarre thing in, essentially, not rescuing a child from an abusive setting when we could. Or what about a child that is, sadly, orphaned in a dangerous country, a country where there’s conflict—and we know of far too many of those. Now, there may be other family members even in that country who could look after the child, but you’re leaving them in a terrible and tenuous situation.

These are hard cases, and all of those, I think, are cases that could be framed as exceptional. So I would really invite the Minister to address those particular examples I’ve given you, but to also be quite expansive on what is intended in this bill by exceptional circumstances.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to address the member’s first question, which is specifically about Japan and Singapore. What we have done is made sure that those that have signed up to the Hague convention that don’t have issues are on the exempt list; neither Japan nor Singapore are signed up to the Hague convention, so that is why they’re not on the list, but I think I’ve traversed that. I’ll make it really clear: we can pick countries left, right, and centre but the exempt list is a list of 86 countries who have shown that they put the wellbeing of their children first.

When it comes to—and I understand, as well, the member’s frustration about me not standing up here and giving you examples of exceptional circumstance. It is not for me to pre-empt what a judge may hear and then determine. If I start making comments on what I think exceptional circumstance could be, I may end up leading a judge to make a decision, and that’s not for me. I want them to be able to have the freeway to be able to determine, themselves, what will be exceptional.

I’m just going invite the Associate Minister of Justice then, if she won’t respond to “What about these examples?”—and I get it—will she give a non-exhaustive list of considerations that she thinks might be relevant to be weighed in the balance, either pro or con in terms of exceptional circumstances? I do think that we’re doing a disservice if we don’t give all of the guidance we can to the courts, who will be tasked with this job.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just been reminded about thoughts we need to have about countries in conflict. Often, countries where there is conflict, they don’t want their children to be adopted, and they may be on the Hague convention list. During conflict, there can also be additional risks, that adoptions are unsafe. There could also be the ability where something or someone needs to be moved quickly. So it’s really imperative that we allow our justice system and our judiciary to make the ascertainments and decisions of what will ultimately be in the best interests of the child, because that’s really what we all want to see.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m at around about the same place as my colleague—so on paragraph (1A). But my first question was about clause 6, section 3 amended, paragraph (1A)(a), which references international surrogacy arrangements as one of the carve-outs. The question is really in the context of something I mentioned earlier, which was the broader adoption review—so the bill that’s currently with the Health Committee. I had a very quick flick through the Law Society’s submission, which was looking at the definition of surrogacy and whether agreements needed to be signed off in terms of new artificial technology that’s been used before a surrogacy agreement was entered into. So my question is really around whether the Minister is satisfied that the current definitions are suitable or whether we’re taking this interim step and we’re really having to manage with the existing definitions that we have until those changes are made in the more substantive, longer-term adoption bill.

The second one—just touching on something that Dr Duncan Webb raised in terms of exceptional circumstances—I wonder whether the Minister considers that regardless of not specifying particular things to take into account, the principles of the Hague convention none the less apply. The reason I ask is because the legislation seems to be using the Hague convention as a benchmark of accountability. One of the principles within the convention is that principle of subsidiarity, which I mentioned earlier. That is the idea that, of course, a child’s country of origin must be given due consideration. So whether there would be an expectation that judges and Family Court Associates were turning their minds to that set of principles that the Hague convention is built on.

The final question is around the decision maker themselves. So it’s clear it’s a drafting decision and its principal decision in terms of including Family Court Associates as those decision makers or not. I wonder whether the Minister had considered the current powers of the Family Court Associates and whether, as an extraordinary power, this, kind of, sits outside the scope of what we would be asking them to do ordinarily, and, given the temporary nature of these changes, whether that should have been restricted to a judge’s power or whether there are time demands, or capacity demands, that would make sense to include Family Court Associates as well. Thank you.

Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the member Vanushi Walters for her questions. I’ll reiterate that surrogacy will not be affected through this temporary change that we’re making. This bill refers to the existing definition of surrogacy that we have. It’s used to exclude the international surrogacy from this suspension. So by using what we currently have, it means that we can exclude those overseas ones so that they can continue on their pathway without being affected. I’m satisfied that we do that there.

The member mentioned the Hague convention and the principles of the Hague convention, because we refer to the Hague convention. We’re referring to the Hague convention to enable us to get a list of exempted countries; otherwise, it would have been a blanket “no” to the world. We recognise that most adoptions that occur in New Zealand are adoptions where children are going to safe and loving homes, so we don’t want to put a big stop on everybody when we can use the convention to tell us and show us that countries are already abiding by what will be in the best interests of a child. So the Hague convention is being used for that aspect while we do work on that longer term. I hope my answer satisfies the surrogacy question.

I have just had a look at the disclosure statement, and I just had a query around Part 1, clause 4, amending section 2. I know that we have been talking about the Hague convention, but I just have a short call just asking the Associate Minister of Justice to clarify. We know that the reason that this bill is coming in, which, as the Minister has said, is to close the dangerous loophole that allows adoption by New Zealanders who may have criminal convictions, particularly around sexual abuse and child endangerment. In the departmental disclosure statement on page 3, under “Part One: General Policy Statement”, in paragraph two, it says, “In practice, adoptive parents with criminal convictions and histories of abusing and exploiting children and young people have been able to adopt children and young people overseas and bring them to live in New Zealand.” So does that mean that Hague countries don’t do that? Because, obviously, if this is happening in New Zealand, then, potentially, it is happening in Hague countries as well. So I’m really interested to understand that so that we are making sure that we’re using a benchmark that actually is fit for purpose when we’re looking at these Hague countries.

So, yeah, if the Minister could just explain: do Hague countries already do this? Because, looking at the reasoning, it seems that New Zealand has not been able to do this. So, yeah, that would be great. Thank you.

I thank the member for her question, because it is quite a confusing topic. The Hague convention is probably what I would call our protector, and so it’s not that countries with the Hague convention are doing this. If we’re signed up to the Hague convention and the UK are signed up to the Hague convention, and if we were to do adoptions between our two countries, we have all these checks and balances in place because we’ve both signed up. But there are some countries that are not signed up, and because they’re not signed up and we can’t tell them how to do their adoptions, that’s where we have the issue. So the Hague convention has been used for the benefit of these 86 countries because that tells us that they are working appropriately and they do have the best interests of the child at heart when they consider the adoptions and then grant them.

I mentioned earlier that there are a couple of countries who are signed up to the Hague convention, but other countries have suggested that there might be an issue with their adoption process, and so we’ve left them off the list because other countries have identified that there could be potential issues. It’s part of the reason why we want that ability, and, actually, this was mentioned by, I think, Carmel Sepuloni earlier, about taking countries on and taking countries off and should we be doing that—what message does that send to those countries?

The intent is not to play whack-a-mole with any country; the intent is if another Hague convention country raises issues about someone else, we’d want to be able to take them off the list. If there is something that occurs that needs an immediate fix, or perhaps we get to a position relatively quickly with Samoa, we’d want to be able to put them on to the list so that we can reinitiate the adoption pathway for some of these children. The Hague convention is helping us to understand who’s got it right so that we can focus on those that we think we need to.

Kia ora. A very quick question: I’m noting that in the bill, the Minister has set out that there are around a thousand overseas adoptions that are recognised in New Zealand each year under section 17 of the Adoption Act. I’m wanting to still understand who’s mostly affected here. Of those thousand in most recent years, or even the most recent years, where did they come from? I’m wanting to understand the proportion of those adoptions that came from Pacific countries—Samoa—as granularly as the Minister can get so that we can understand the relationship and where these children have been coming from.

Thank you. I’ll answer that one—just because I was meant to answer the member Vanushi Walters’ question—about the subsidiary. When considering adoption applications, the Family Court will consider it in accordance with the law in our Adoption Act. The judiciary, in practice, often considers Hague principles when the cases do have an international element.

To the member Carmel Sepuloni, yes, there are over a thousand international adoptions that come through New Zealand every year. The majority of them come from our Pacific nations, and just over 700 of them come from Samoa. The rest are scattered around the Pacific, and that’s not the only area, though. They are from other countries around the world. I don’t want to spend time focusing on those countries. I think it’s more important that we fix the legislative enabler that we currently have so that we don’t allow those that are not signed up to the Hague convention to continue until we find, at least, that permanent fix so that we can still continue to adopt our extended whānau from the Pacific into New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a very specific question for the Minister, and that is in regard to one of the countries listed in Schedule 1AAB, and that’s India. The Minister confirmed—as I’m aware as well—that India is a signatory to the Hague convention, but that the specified piece of legislation under the exemptions list is the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. I just wanted to clarify: this says that “India, if the adoption is not made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act”.

So the exemption is relating to that piece of legislation or is it to the other one, which is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which is India’s other piece of legislation that governs adoptions, which is, I understand, a secular piece of legislation compared to the Hindu Adoption Act, which only relates to the adoptive parent being Hindu and the adopted child being Hindu? So can the Minister clarify whether this exemption is only for adoptions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the rationale or the difference between the two? I think the Minister mentioned that one is more robust than the other.

I thank the member for seeking clarification on those two pieces of legislation for India and which one’s exempt and which is not. You quite rightly mentioned that India has two adoption systems, and I’m satisfied that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which is India’s Hague convention implementation framework, provides the adequate safeguards that we’re looking for, for the care and protection of children.

Unfortunately, I don’t feel that the other system, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, has the same safeguards to adequately protect the children and young people from harm. So that’s why, instead of just saying no to India, we’re going, “Actually, this pathway looks pretty good. We can see that care and protection there, so we’ll accept those.” But I cannot, hand on heart, accept the other without knowing that the care and protection is in place.

Kia ora and ngā mihi Te Wiki o te Reo Māori—happy Māori Language Week, everyone. Thank you so much, Mr Chair, for the call on this, which is a really important bill. Can I first begin by thanking the Minister for all the work that she has put into this issue, because it is actually a big issue that should be addressed: the fact that the Adoption Amendment Bill is being used by too many people to traffic children. In some cases, as has been described in the media, children are treated like slaves in some of these homes and that is not a good thing for Aotearoa New Zealand.

My question, Minister, is with regards to clause 8, new section 27E(3), where it states that “Before making a recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister of Justice must—(a) consult” with a number of Ministers: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Children, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the Minister of Immigration. Then, it goes on under paragraph (b) to say that you also have to have regard to the following matters: to a country’s regulatory regime to ensure that safeguards to prevent harm to adopted persons, and then, it lists various other points. My question, though, Minister, is: would this new system that’s being proposed under this new bill provide multiple loopholes or multiple categories that may create more confusion in the future? That’s my first question.

My second question—and you have traversed this and answered this for many other members of Parliament, but I’d like to ask, because there are not that many times that you hear your country of birth, Tonga, being talked about in an overseas Parliament in such positive terms. So if I can just go back to clause 4(1), which actually lists Tonga as one of the exempt countries in new Schedule 1AAB. You’ve explained that it is because of their Supreme Court system actually has a good way of ensuring that you feel that they actually have the safeguards that are appropriate for New Zealand adoptions. You also gave the numbers—that of the thousand or so adoptions per year, about 700 of those adoptees are from Samoa.

But if I can refer back to something that our deputy leader covered when she, I think, gave either her first speech or her second reading speech, where she discussed the fact that a few months ago, our Pacific caucus—actually, we have a few MPs, and I chair it for Labour, and one of these cases came through. I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, basically, asked, “What is it that we can do as a country to ensure that we address issues?” I thank you, because you actually came in and had a couple of conversations with me to assure me that this work is actually happening behind the scenes. You, of course, didn’t tell me what the actual work was, but you just said that it is, in part, to address one of the questions that we asked, which was, if I can just reiterate: does the New Zealand Government have any plans to review our systems to ensure compliance with our own obligations under the Hague convention on adoption?

Because here’s the thing: the bill that we’re discussing right now is under urgency. We actually haven’t had the time to really get through and read the details and see exactly how it affects not just now but in the future. I can see that you’re wanting to ensure that you’re futureproofing, that adoptions in the future place our children in a much safer environment, but my question is: of the thousand or so children that have already been adopted, that have already come into Aotearoa New Zealand—I don’t know how many thousands that is over the many, many years—what about them? How are we as a country going to ensure that we don’t see these cases coming through the media? Because these children are already here. So I really commend you for the work you’re doing to futureproof the future, but my question is more about: how do we ensure that the children that are already here, that we don’t see so many more of them come through the system?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Hon Jenny Salesa for her constant work and for bringing this to the attention of Government as well. I know that it was brought to the attention of that member’s Government and successive Governments before. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here and say we’re finally going to be doing something. It’s overdue, and we’re determined to try and make sure that the care and protection of those kids is ultimate. It’s fantastic what Tonga have done with New Zealand to enable these international adoptions to occur between Tonga and New Zealand, and I commend both the New Zealand and Tongan Governments for getting to a situation where, under urgency, when we have a bill like this going through, we can exempt Tonga because of the exceptional work that’s been done there. I commend them for that.

The member asked me about clause 8. When the Governor-General is given advice to either put a country on or amend the exemption list, there are a lot of different Ministers that will be spoken to when deciding whether or not that country should be exempted or taken off the exemption list. I don’t believe that that’s going to create any loopholes at all. What’s become quite apparent to me is that different agencies over many years have heard different scenarios or different understandings about what’s happening, and it’s been very hard to pull everybody together to get a whole, holistic view of what is occurring. This has occurred now. It’s occurred, and so in order to make sure we don’t exempt someone or take somebody off when another agency may have information that we’re not aware of, that’s why we’re going to make sure that they are all involved when we make decisions on who is on the exempt list. So I don’t think it will create loopholes. I think it’s a really good safety measure.

I think that I have answered everything that the member asked. Please ask me again if I have not.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The heavy lifting here is done by new Schedule 1AAB, with the list of countries, and whilst this bill, it appears, will be in force only for, really, a couple of years, I think it’s good that we can have a much better approach to it. It’s still going to be possible to add to that list or, presumably, to remove, and that’s one question: can we remove countries from that list? If Parliament has put it there, can the Governor-General, by Order in Council, remove it from the list?

I see in new section 27E, in clause 8, that you’ve got the basis upon which the considerations are made, including an open-ended “any other matter the Minister considers relevant.”, and then there’s a list of people with whom the Minister must consult. I’ve got an amendment on this because I think we should add, there, the Children’s Commissioner, and I say that because Ministers are wise and all that sort of thing, but they’re not independent. Sometimes, they need to be told things they don’t want to hear, and Ministers tend to agree with each other a little bit too much, sometimes.

I would be interested as well to know whether the Children’s Commissioner was consulted about this bill, because she and her predecessors have been great advocates and great voices for children. I would have hoped that the Children’s Commissioner would have been consulted as to this proposed solution, and I certainly hope as we go forward that her office is closely involved.

But in terms of adding another country to the list, I would have thought that including the Children’s Commissioner, with her knowledge of the rights of children and the international framework, would have been a good addition to that list. The idea of having someone outside the executive, or a watchdog, if you will, being at least consulted—it doesn’t have any decision-making rights—would be a very useful addition. I’d be interested to hear if the Minister would consider that amendment.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the member’s question about the Governor-General being able to remove a country from the list or put a country on to the list: yes, the Governor-General will be able to do that by way of Order in Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Minister of Justice. This is why we have all of those other agencies or the Ministers involved, to make sure that if we do add or subtract from that list that we’re doing so with the fullest information that we have and not just one agency’s information.

The member has placed a tabled amendment on the Table about the Children’s Commissioner. I’m not supportive of having the Children’s Commissioner on that list. In some of these situations, the decisions may need to be made very quickly. If there is time, we expect to consult with others, if it’s appropriate, but where there may be a need for speed, we are not involving the Children’s Commissioner. I can also confirm that the Children’s Commissioner was not consulted on what we’re doing here; however, this has been happening for, actually, quite a number of years, and there has been extensive consultation papers that were developed in 2021 and 2022 that didn’t go anywhere. So there is consultation that has been developed in the past.

We are moving at speed here to stop any more children from being exploited, abused, or trafficked. We’re doing it as a temporary solution, not as a permanent one, but we have to say: this has got to stop now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to say thank you to the Minister for your engagement, and I really appreciate your explanations around this. It has reassured, I think, a lot of us in terms of, particularly, the Hague convention. It’s been a great learning experience for me, from the Minister—thank you—as well as the Chair!

I have just two questions around overseas adoption. One of them is around the drafting and the other one is around a particular wording, before I move on to clause 7. So this is still clause 4, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”. I guess the drafting thing is around: under (1)(c)(i) there is a list of countries or public authorities, including “(A) a Commonwealth country;”, “(B) Austria;”, “(C) Denmark;”, etc. Noting that they are not the entirety of the countries, there is (I), which is “a prescribed overseas country;”. Can I check with the Minister on why those particular countries were explicitly named, as opposed to just having a blanket “please refer to Schedule 1AAB”, because all of the countries are there? It’s more of a drafting question. Or are there any specific reasons why it’s listed in that particular way?

The second question is around clause 4(1)(ii)(B), which is in terms of adoptive parents and also in terms of the adopted person’s property, “or greater than the right to the property of any natural parent of the person—”. In (B), it didn’t use the term that we have been referring to in terms of “habitually resident” or “of a particular country”, but is specified as “a national of the country”. I want to check with the Minister on whether the choice of “national” in that case—and, again, I might be answering my own question, so please just tell me if I’m answering my own question—is to do with the property right, and hence that’s why “national” is used as opposed to “habitually resident”. So those are my two questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the question “Why do we have different rules for Commonwealth countries and some European countries?” The Adoption Act provides a similar process for recognising adoptions for some specified countries, such as Commonwealth countries and the United States of America. So it carries over existing law, but it has not been modernised. Due to the urgent nature of this work, these are continued within the bill. When we look to do that long-term solution or further work, we may look at whether or not these distinctions are still going to be needed. But at this stage, that is why we are distinguishing. I will sit down and find the answer to the second question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is really on new section 27E. It’s a different suggestion than my colleague Dr Duncan Webb had, which in my view was actually a good suggestion, given the knowledge of the Children’s Commissioner.

I had wondered, firstly, whether the Minister had considered including a required consultation of the Attorney-General, just in light of the section 7 report that we’ve seen and the issues that do touch on discrimination or non-discrimination, that that is a useful check to have before there are changes that are made to the list.

The second question is in regards to new section 27E(3)(b), inserted by clause 8, where there are a number of considerations that are to be taken into account before there are any changes to the list. Under (b)(ii), it specifies “international adoption agreements, and the country’s record of compliance with those agreements”. In my view, given the subject matter that we’re looking at, it would be prudent to specifically include a reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it would just include a separate sentence at the end of that section on that.

I’m hoping to get you some amendments on both of those two proposals, Minister, if you would consider them. I think it will make what is quite an extraordinary power just one that is subject to reasonable yet robust checks in terms of the decision maker, in that case, turning their minds to the relevant things, but also the relevant risks in terms of the Attorney-General checks.

The final question I had was whether the Minister had considered limiting the powers. So regulatory-making powers are, of course, not unusual—they’re extremely common; fairly common in terms of adding new criteria, new things to be considered; and fairly unusual in terms of repealing or replacing things that were agreed through primary legislation. So I ask whether, at any stage, there was consideration of the Governor-General being able to do this by Order in Council, but only in terms of additions and not removals or any variation of that, or any further checks in terms of agreeing those Orders in Council.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been given a flurry of notes, so, hopefully, I will be answering all of these questions that have been placed to me. I’ve just been advised that the Children’s Commissioner has issued a press release, where she welcomes the changes and said that it is crucial that further work takes a child’s rights approach. Of course, that’s why we’re doing this in the first place: because of the children’s rights.

Again, we are using “habitually resident” only in relation to Hague convention adoptions, and those Hague convention adoptions that Oranga Tamariki supports will continue. “Ordinarily resident” is used in the context of the jurisdiction of the Family Court, so that’s why we’ve gone to “habitually resident”; there is actually a definition of habitually resident, which is also a reason why we’re using it.

The Attorney-General has considered justified limitations and does not consider it necessary to specifically consult. I do note, though, that the Attorney-General does put an eye over all legislation. Although the question was about the Attorney-General being part of the group of Ministers, I don’t feel that that’s necessary at that stage, because that’s actually bringing together all the agencies to determine whether or not a country is up to standard or not up to standard.

The Attorney-General will look at any proposals that we make in law and legislation; hence, the BORA vet that came out. My apologies for that being late, but the Attorney-General was overseas and was not able to look at it, so that’s why it’s come up on to the website at late notice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I also just want to acknowledge the fact that I really appreciate the Minister for your statement before, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights (BORA) report and the BORA report being late. Even though it was late, I still very much appreciate the fact that we got it right after first reading. Again, I was referring to a previous bill, where we didn’t get it until after the third reading, despite having gone through committee stage. So it’s incredibly welcome, and I think it really helped us to have that kind of clarity and transparency, so I want to thank the Minister for that.

I also want to pick up on one thing. I understand the Minister in terms of the definition between “habitually resident” and “ordinarily resident”. I guess my question was, then, in clause 4, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”, in the definition of “overseas adoption”, the term was neither; it was “a national of the country”. So I was more wondering why “national” was used in that particular instance.

Moving on to clause 7, so “Section 17 replaced (Effect of overseas adoption)”, which is something I have signalled in my second reading that I want to ask the Minister around in terms of the changes to both the citizenship by descent but also in terms of some of the visas. I guess the first question around that is: this, I guess, applies where it is not a Hague convention adoption—I’m assuming this applies to a list of countries that are not in Schedule 1AAB. So, in those cases, then, someone from Aotearoa New Zealand can still adopt, but they just can’t come in or receive a visa to come in. I guess I just want to get that really basic clarification from the Minister that it doesn’t prevent adoption, just prevents arrival?

In those sorts of situations, what is the Minister’s intention around still allowing for that adoption but not for arrival? Is it still looking at it in terms of the protection of the child? I guess, by not physically being here, it makes sense, because then they’re not being subject to potential exploitation and etc., but where does that leave their adoption process and where does that leave that child in the country that they are habitually residing in? I just want to kind of get an idea from the Minister in terms of that thinking.

My next question, and it’s still around this—I want to refer to Schedule 1: that’s the transitional, savings, and related provisions. When we are looking at clause 4, subclauses (2) to (4) of that—and that’s to do with when we are in this in-between stage—subclauses (2) to (4) make a lot of sense. But there’s one part I want to check with the Minister. When we are looking at subclause (3) of that, which is when you have an application for a visa that’s been made before the first commencement date—so the child, then, for example, in that transitional phase, will receive a visa to come here, which means that the new section 17(3)(b) doesn’t apply, but because of what we see in subclause 1AA(4)(2) of Schedule 1AA, they are not eligible for citizenship by descent.

So I just want to check with the Minister: in those situations, you have a child being able to come in on a visa, but they have no citizenship pathway, or—potentially—the only limitation to that child is citizenship by descent, but that child may still have access to, for example, citizenship by grant. Would that be a correct assumption? Those are my three questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take this opportunity to say that what also should be up on the Ministry of Justice website now are a couple of flowcharts [holds up flowcharts], because it is quite complicated, and I found that these really help to understand where you may be within the adoption process and what it means for you. I encourage the members to download these from the Ministry of Justice website, because it may just help to understand some of the complication. Because we have several different avenues for recognising the adoption: it can be done through citizenship, it can be done through immigration, and it can be done through the adoption process itself. We have so many sections within the adoption law that it makes it quite difficult to be able to answer to specific scenarios when they could incorporate different avenues.

People will still be able to go overseas and adopt children overseas in those overseas countries, but if they are not on the exempt list, they will not be able to bring those children back here to New Zealand with them. It’s the other countries’ courts that make the decisions on the adoption, and we often have no idea that it’s even occurring, so that’s why we’re temporarily stopping section 17 of the Adoption Act, which would allow these children to be brought into New Zealand. It would be worse to bring a child to New Zealand and into an unsafe family than to leave them where they are, in our humble opinion. Also, when it comes to the amended section 2 definition of the “overseas adoption”, the Adoption Act 1955 has that wording and we carried that over. We’re not going in to make changes in the Adoption Act; we’re just trying to do this very quick, urgent, temporary fix and utilise what’s already there in the legislation.

Thank you for those clarifications, Minister. Thank you for that—I’ll go and have a look at the Ministry of Justice website, and maybe, once I’ve checked the flow chart, I may have a question coming back, in terms of the question I have around section 7. But just checking—sorry, I stand corrected; I think the Minister actually answered all of my questions. Thank you.

I’ve just been advised that those flowcharts are not going to be up on the Ministry of Justice website until tomorrow. I’ve just asked officials if they could get some copies down and hand some to yourself and also to the Labour Party.

Just a short question. There’s been a lot of discussion about “habitual residents”, and then, in clause 11 of the bill, section 3 of the Act is amended, and it gives us the word “domiciled”, which is kind of an old-fashioned way of being habitually resident. I’m just wondering whether that’s intentional because it’s part of another framework or whether, in fact, it would be better to say, in that setting, “the child is habitually resident”, for consistency across the legislation. “Domiciled” is sort of a 1950s terms and has a fair bit of law around it, including being a little bit more than just resident; it’s about, kind of, your centre of gravity. It’s actually quite a hard question to answer. It’s where your family are, where your property interests are, where you pay tax, as well as where you live. It’s actually, I think, quite important in matters of things like cross-border taxation. So I’d be interested for the Minister to explain why we’ve got “habitually resident” in some parts of the bill and “domiciled” in other parts of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for his question. This is reverting to the original 1955 wording. So we’re using “habitually resident” in the areas we are utilising or changing tonight, but then, when the suspension ends, it will go back to the original wording, which is “domiciled”.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6(1), new subsection (1A)(b), to replace subparagraph (ii) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 27E(3)(a), to insert subparagraph (v) be agreed to.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

The House is resumed. Members, when we rose for the dinner break, we had finished debating Part 1; we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 15 to 32—“Consequential amendments and revocation”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement. The question is the clause 1 stand part.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Adoption Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

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

At its core, this bill is about preventing the risk of significant harm to children and young people. While most children and young people adopted overseas and brought to New Zealand are adopted by loving families, some are subjected to neglect, abuse, or exploitation by those who should be caring for them. That our adoption legislation can be used in this way is unacceptable, and I cannot allow it to continue.

As I’ve noted, the bill amends the Adoption Act to immediately suspend recognition of unsafe overseas adoptions for citizenship and immigration purposes. This will prevent further harm while we develop a permanent solution to the problem. I’m pleased to inform the House that officials are already working on a permanent legislative solution. This temporary suspension will provide the time they need to ensure that this solution is thoroughly considered and that there is time for consultation and scrutiny.

I want to thank my ministerial colleagues for their support and engagement on this issue, with particular thanks to the Ministers of Immigration, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and for Children, all of whom have been generous with their input. I also want to thank members for their time and focus during the early stages of this bill and for the keen debate during the committee of the whole House. I know urgency isn’t always welcome, but in this case it is entirely necessary. I thank members from all parties for working together to prevent the risk of future harm to children and young people. I particularly want to thank MPs from around the House who have spoken in support of this bill.

Before I close, I want to thank officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Department of Internal Affairs, Oranga Tamariki, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their collaborative approach to this work. I also want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the bill.

All children and young people deserve to grow up in a safe and loving family environment. This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the safety of children and young people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana and kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā.

We do support this bill, but I do want to just record a few reservations. First of all, in terms of process, I can understand why this bill’s been done under urgency. It’s one of those rare occasions where if you were to take a normal process with a select committee, there would be a rush for the court and the very evil that you were trying to avoid would be compounded. Having said that, having looked at the bill and understood as best I can in a short time the work that has been done to consult on it, I think more could have been done. It doesn’t appear the Children’s Commissioner was consulted. It doesn’t appear that communities were engaged, even without the detail of the bill being discussed, but in terms of how adoption works.

I do think that this is a blunt tool, and I know the Minister is working on a more permanent fix and this is a temporary fix, but I just want to recognise really that this will cause worse outcomes. It will protect a number of children and young people from genuine harm—I accept that, and I commend the Minister for that—but it will also lead to worse outcomes for other families who have been using this adoption process for entirely legitimate reasons and they’re now going to be shut out. So as a Government, you’ve chosen that path, and I’m not sure we support the overall intention. I’m not sure we’d have done it that way. I want to recognise that.

I do think that the workability of this bill, at least in terms of New Zealand adoptions, sits on the fulcrum of exceptional circumstances. It is my view that when the courts come to ask themselves whether there are exceptional circumstances, they should do that against the background of New Zealand law and our international obligations. New Zealand law and international child and human rights make it clear that the centrepiece is the interests of the child. I can understand why, in committee stage, the Minister didn’t rise to my bait, so to speak, of whether this case or that case was exceptional, but I think that the courts need to recognise that a case in which a child is worse off by an adoption order in New Zealand not being made is an exceptional thing. That if we can save a child from harm in another country or if we can put them in a family setting where their culture is recognised and they can be best nurtured, that is a good thing. To not make an adoption order in those circumstances should only be done where it must, and so I think we need to look very carefully at that.

The list in Schedule 1AAB is the other part of this legislation that really does the work. The Minister has to be careful with her words because this has international impact. There are countries which are not on that list, which we would perhaps expect to be on that list. Now, Tonga’s on that list, and we’re assured by the Minister that she is satisfied that the adoption procedures in Tonga are such that they can be relied upon. Yet there are other countries, other countries with very good rule of law, very good legal system—Singapore’s a good example, which has an Anglo-American style legal system; Japan has a civil legal system, but again, very robust, but not on that list. Now, it may be that there are international relations reasons for that and the Minister didn’t feel able to disclose those.

Certainly, in the Attorney-General’s report there are redactions there which were on grounds that you don’t see that often, which are based on protecting relationships with foreign countries and New Zealand defence and security. So I can accept that, but I do think we need to be very careful and that we should be absolutely open, Minister, if I may say, to adding to that list where we can reach a conclusion that those countries do have robust adoption systems which would be consistent with looking after children and putting them in the best family setting that we possibly can.

We do look at this bill and it is a little bit regrettable that we saw this bill in its final form because the kind of things that were raised in good faith at committee stage—but look, I’ll admit my amendments were cobbled together this afternoon because that’s when I saw the bill. Had we had, you know, either me as justice spokesperson or another of our members as an appropriate spokesperson, perhaps for children, engaged on it, that testing of ideas that happens here in this House and in select committee might at least have been mimicked in some kind of exchange. I accept that it requires a degree of trust, but I must say, I think that we can engage in those kinds of conversations. It’s perhaps a little disappointing that we didn’t.

This bill, you know—I don’t want to criticise drafting too much but—this bill is complex. It’s actually quite hard to follow the interplay between the Schedule 1AAB, the Hague convention countries. Thank you to the Minister for providing the flow chart, but I’m always a little—with respect to your officials who’ve been clearly working very hard—suspicious of materials provided by officials, which is kind of a shortcut to the legislation itself, because it’s not always actually accurate, and I’ve seen that myself. So we do need to be cautious and not take the flow chart as the final word. I do have some suspicion that once we throw this to the lawyers, and lawyers will be involved in this no doubt, that they will be looking at it and finding some inconsistencies, because even for myself, I still can’t quite reconcile all of the provisions of the bill and the interplay between overseas adoptions, Hague convention adoptions, and the provisions here in the way they’re amended. So it is yet to be seen exactly if this bill falls as it is intended.

In closing, I do want to say this: the adoptions that have led to this legislation are heinous. The suggestion that we should in any way tolerate adoptions which are intentionally exploitative of children and young people is to be abhorred. We absolutely oppose those, so I commend the Minister for taking action on it. We need to take every step in New Zealand, including in some senses reaching overseas where we can, and this is what this bill does in terms of reaching to non-recognition of overseas adoptions to stop those exploitative practices is entirely appropriate. I do think that when we come to this, and when we come to look at the further legislation that the Minister has prefaced, we must put children at the centre of the discussion. The only question is: what is in the best interests of the child? From that starting point we can answer the question of how we weed out adoptions which are illegitimate, in bad faith, and exploitative.

At the same time, we need to promote relationships and adoptions that enhance the welfare of children and that’s what this doesn’t do. It stops exploitative adoptions, but it doesn’t actually promote and allow those adoptions that do promote the interest of the child. So there is work to be done. I know the Minister said that the Children’s Commissioner was supportive of this legislation and I’m glad about that. That’s a good thing. But I’m sure the Children’s Commissioner will have much to say about how we can address this in a way that is both culturally sensitive and child-centric. So I look forward to this legislation being replaced with something that’s even better.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party support this bill in its third reading. I really appreciate the Minister for her engagement throughout the committee stage in clarifying a lot of the questions we had posed to the Minister during the first and second readings.

I think it is important to sum up some of the clarifications that have been provided as a part of that process, understanding that this bill came to the House under urgency in order to address a loophole in our current system that has seen harm and suffering of our tamariki as a result of the system that we have created. That is an important loophole for us to address.

But just going to some of the clarifications around the committee stage: in terms of the question that has been posed as a part of a lot of our contributions in the second reading which was around the countries that were included as a part of this, particularly around what is considered countries that have signed up to the Hague convention and countries where some of the Hague convention adoption works, and some of our collaborations and agreements within that convention. I think the Minister has explained, in terms of the reasons, why some of the countries were excluded, that may be a part of the Hague convention, due to conversations and reports of potentially problematic adoptions or concerns that have been addressed about those specific countries, so they have been left out. At the same time, there are countries—I think Tonga was the example that was given by the Minister of a country that isn’t part of the convention—that has been included as a part of this.

The big question that we’ve had during the second reading, and I think is something that was discussed at length in the committee stage, was around some of the other countries, Samoa being a really good example of that, where the Minister has assured us of the ongoing conversations and work that has been done with those jurisdictions to ensure that the adoption process is robust on both ends, to be included as a part of the list in the future. Because, again, in terms of the exemptions and the countries that are exempted under Schedule 1AAB, those countries can be added on, or hopefully not removed—but countries can definitely be added on by Order in Council.

The other key area I want to sort of draw attention to is something that we did discuss a fair bit around the definition of the terminology. I think particularly when we’re looking at the definition specifically around “habitually resident” and “ordinarily resident” as well as “national”. We are quite comfortable with the Minister’s rationale and explanation for a lot of these terminologies. I think particularly, when we’re looking at the definition of overseas adoption, I really appreciate the honesty of the Minister when it comes to that these are the terminologies that are being drawn from the existing legislation. There is bigger work—there’s more work to be done in this area, but for the interim measures, those terminologies and definitions are taken from existing legislation. So, again, really grateful for that engagement with the Minister.

The next thing that I think is worth mentioning, in terms of the conversations, is around clause 7, “Section 17 replaced”, particularly around some of the changes to the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Immigration Act 2009. I think those kinds of things, in tangent with, I believe, Schedule 1AA, do provide some clarification in terms of between the first commencement date and second commencement date. If the application is done before then, the application is done during this period and if the application is being processed after the second commencement date, i.e., as part of that bigger work that’s going to be done. Schedule 1AA does lay it out really nicely; however, I guess the encouragement now is—I understand there’s the flow chart that the Minister has helpfully provided for us, but how would that be communicated to the various communities in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way, to ensure that those communities actually understand some of those differences, in terms of the settings, between what is in the first commencement date and what is going to be in the second commencement date?

I think particularly that period in between those two commencement dates, where the ability for a child to have citizenship by dissent is being removed regardless of the commencement date. But the child having access to a particular type of visa and what potentially immigration pathways there are, going forward, that is something that we just have to wait and see how that’s developed. I think that is something—definitely if we’re going to be looking at a bigger piece of work—to consider and flesh out.

Now, there are definitely, in terms of the process, things that I would like to address and potentially recommendations as well. Noting that this bill has been presented to us in urgency, I mentioned in the committee stage that even though the consistency report with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) was presented after the first reading, we, nevertheless, had a copy of it by the time we went to second reading, which, again, was something that we didn’t get to see when we were looking at the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill—that was a secret bill a few months ago. For that, I am impressed by the fact that we’re able to have something that’s available for this House and for the public reasonably quickly, considering the bill was only introduced at 3 p.m. this afternoon.

One of the things that is interesting within that—and I understand in terms of the magnitude and potentially legal implication—are the sections that were redacted as a part of that BORA report. Also, I think, you know, if we’re looking at—I mentioned it’s a great idea for us to be able to have access to the BORA report upfront and particularly during the committee stage. What we haven’t seen, particularly in the magnitude of a bill that is introduced under urgency that we’re seeing for the first time, are the other reports and assessments that have been done as well. In the future, if we do see a situation like this, that is an urgent bill and is unavoidable, I would really like to see a regulatory impact statement that comes along with this, and I would also like to see, when a bill affects the rights of the child, a child impact statement as well. I think that would just give the House more scope and better ability to be able to understand the full extent and the ramifications of this bill, if we have access to those documents.

I guess the other thing is that I would also like to commend the Minister on the transparency that has been provided as a part of this bill. I think the fact that we saw in the committee stage that the Minister was really open and honest about her contribution and responded to our questions diligently. Again, I want to thank the Minister for that and also for being able to proactively provide us this information, such as the flow chart, that will be available on the website tomorrow. I do appreciate the openness and transparency of the process.

The last couple of things, in terms of recommendations, in terms of the process, are—I did mention that this is something that has been alerted and the Government has commented on it back in May. If something like this does happen, where we are expecting to see something coming to the House under urgency, it would be really good to know that more consultations have been done with the relevant stakeholders—Mana Mokopuna being one of the examples that has been provided by the previous speaker, but also affected communities and ministries that are potentially being affected by this. I know there are a number of Ministers that have been named in the bill as ones that will be consulted as part of the broader project. It would be really nice to see them being consulted earlier on.

Finally, while we are putting this system in place—an interim thing in place—that will, hopefully, stop any future or further abusive or exploitative cases happening, we must always remember how we’re monitoring existing cases as well. I’m really looking forward to what’s going to happen on that front in the next step. With that, we do support the bill, and I do thank the House for their contributions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the House for the pace at which it has worked this evening in order to get this piece of legislation through. I thank the Minister and the officials in advance for the work that’s going to happen in the next stage of this process. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this third and final reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill. I think that we have summed up the perfect words earlier in the contribution, which is what is in the best interests of the child. I commend the Minister for doing exactly what was needed in the best interests of the child in the now, in the immediate. Rather than commentating and navigating the perfect solution, we have taken immediate action, and that was what needed to be done. We have been given clear assurance that not only work will be done, but work is being done to make that final position of where we need to be. It is critical at this stage that we put the child first; it is exactly what has happened. We need to put a stop to this and we’ve taken decisive action. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak at the third reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill. Let me be clear: the protection of children to be free from exploitation and harm is paramount. This bill takes urgent action to close loopholes that have, in the past, allowed exploitation, trafficking, and harm to occur. The Green Party continues to support this bill and raise concerns throughout the committee of the whole House stage. In good faith, we will continue to support this bill. I commend the Minister, for her mahi to halt these heinous crimes against children, and everybody who participated fulsomely in the committee stage.

Cases before the courts have shown that children can be brought to New Zealand through overseas and intercountry adoptions where proper safeguards are missing. We know of instances where adopted parents with prior convictions for violence or abuse were able to adopt children into New Zealand. This bill immediately suspends those intercountry adoptions.

However, urgency as a means to pass this legislation has its downfalls. This bill has moved through all stages in a single day without a select committee, public input, or an independent child impact statement. This would have given us a greater depth of knowledge and understanding into this bill. Questions do remain about whether all relevant consultations have taken place. Have Pacific Governments been properly consulted? Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade been engaged regarding international and diplomatic implications? Have child protection experts and other agencies been able to advise on whether this is the most effective way to protect children?

While the intent is absolutely correct, the method must be assessed carefully to ensure it does not unintentionally harm children or families acting in good faith, making sure that kids that need a safe home in New Zealand are not left in crisis. Oranga Tamariki is already actively working with the Samoan officials through a cross-agency group to ensure that adoptions are in the children’s best interest. The Minister did answer those questions earnestly about how to work with Samoa to make sure that they can get on to this list and make sure that these kids do have pathways to these safe whānau here in Aotearoa. This includes developing an information-sharing system so that New Zealand courts can access relevant details on prospective adoptive parents, such as criminal histories.

We still remain concerned that the way this bill is being implemented may undermine the constructive work or the potential for safe, culturally grounded adoptions to continue where appropriate. We must also recognise the cultural significance of intercountry adoptions for Pacific whānau. Many Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan, and Kiribati communities have legitimate adoption practices that strengthen whānau, provide children with education and opportunity, and honour whakapapa, as the Ministry of Justice heard in 2022 during those public consultations. Stopping unsafe practices is critical, but we must be careful not to penalise families or children where safe and culturally aligned pathways exist.

This bill is an interim measure. It buys time to implement comprehensive rights-based reform of the Adoption Act 1955. The Green Party calls for, and will continue to call for, full replacement of outdated adoption laws centring children’s rights, safety, and wellbeing; strong, transparent safeguards against trafficking and exploitation, which I know the Minister is working on with her team; partnerships with Pacific nations, including robust consultation with Governments and community leaders; and recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori practices, including whāngai.

The Green Party supports this bill at its third reading while continuing to push for a system that keeps children safe, honours culture, and ensures their rights and wellbeing are centred.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to contribute to the third reading in the Adoption Amendment Bill. Indeed, there’s a lot of parents that have adopted children that are the most beautiful parents one can hope for. But for those that are not, we need bills like this—anything and everything to protect children. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a final call at the third reading of this bill, a bill which we are supporting. I might just go back to where I started at the first reading in terms of why this bill is here and addressing the very serious issues in front of us. A number of us in the House spoke to cases that had presented in the media of, essentially, adolescent young people who were in the most horrific of circumstances. I think, for me, what comes to mind is that while through the diligent work of the police and others those were cases that were identified, there may well be ones that haven’t been. For me, that is really what this bill is addressing. It is putting a pause on things so that we are able to get the settings right, because we recognise that once those young people are in the country, it is very, very difficult to identify who is at risk.

I spent almost a decade as a lawyer and then manager at YouthLaw Aotearoa, and our job was to provide legal advice to children and young people under 25. One thing that was very clear through that time was that some of the most vulnerable young people, who were subject to the most abuse, were the least likely to contact us. Even if they did, even if they were interviewed, they were the least likely to present their cases and raise issues with us. So if it’s possible to take a preventative approach, which is what the Minister is doing in this case, then I absolutely support that.

Colleagues have raised, as have I, issues of process and urgency, and I think those have all been raised in entirely good faith, because we do recognise that this is an important area for us to address. Like colleagues, I’d like to thank the Minister for her diligent answering of questions in the chair earlier this evening, which was comprehensive. No doubt there will be conversations to come. I appreciated her sharing that the Children’s Commissioner has released a press release in favour of the proposed change, but also her indication that officials are already under way drafting legislation. So we look forward to seeing what those changes are.

Just prior to the dinner break, the Minister also referenced this flowchart [holds up flowchart], which is two pages long. I think what many of us on the side of the House were trying to get our heads around were the particular circumstances for people and whether they would be included or excluded. This flow chart is excellent, this is very good, and I understand it will be on the Ministry of Justice website tomorrow. One thing I did notice, just reading through it, is—quite rightly so—at the end of many boxes it says “seek expert legal advice”. I did just want to acknowledge the many families out there who are wonderful potential adoptive parents who are diligently going through the process, who will be faced with this tomorrow and just getting their heads around what their position is. Hopefully, this will be somewhat of a support.

I indicated, in terms of the potential legislation that’s being drafted, some of the gaps that I saw in section 17 of the Citizenship Act. Dr Duncan Webb has referenced some of this as well. This is the best interests of the child test. I hope that there’s opportunity to include that in further legislation, along with an examination of the suitability of the parents and potential DNA testing where there is an assertion that the child is a blood relative of the potential adoptive family.

Through committee stage, I also asked whether the principles of the Hague convention—one in particular—would be involved when a Family Court judge or an associate makes a decision in terms of the exemptions. I would just suggest that there are other provisions that the New Zealand Central Authority is subject to under the Hague convention, that could also be useful, either to weave directly into legislation or into policy and practice. Just looking at a few in particular, there’s one around the exchange of reports from both sides where there isn’t a central agency present or perhaps one that’s not quite well set up yet. There is the specific decision by the child’s country to entrust a child to specific adoptive parents—so, obviously, quite a detailed agreement. There are assurances from both sides about permanent residence. There is something I mentioned earlier, which is the obligation to continually keep countries informed about post-placement wellbeing. The reason I mention that one is that I think there’s also an opportunity to bring some of these other countries who may not yet be signatories to the Hague convention into best practice procedure. This may be a way of doing that.

The last one is when the child is placed with prospective adoptive parents in New Zealand before it’s finalised, but it appears to Oranga Tamariki (OT) that the continued placement of the child with those parents is not in the child’s best interest. There’s an obligation, then, on OT to take measures as well. Having those sorts of agreements separately within legislation that none the less echo the methodology of the Hague convention seems to me to be a best-practice way to approach things, and, potentially, also just grow that best practice with countries that haven’t yet been in that space.

Over the dinner break, I did take a second look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) a bit, and I really appreciated looking at it a second time because it actually really did reassure me, I think, in terms of identifying whether discrimination exists or not. The conclusion, although it could go either way, seems to be that it doesn’t touch the grounds of race or nationality and that it doesn’t touch the ground of familial connection. I can understand the argument as to why. Part of the benefit of reading at post-committee stage was I reflected on comments by Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked specific questions about the location of the child and to what extent that was important in decision making, and said that it didn’t appear to him to be a question of nationality. I did think that was important.

There’s an interesting point in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for those who are interested, about whether the Act actually applies to a child who’s outside of New Zealand. This is probably a broader question, but certainly some commentary has stretched into this space to say it does in certain circumstances, for example when our military are operating overseas. In my view, this would be a legitimate circumstance as well, because we would be recognising an overseas adoption of a child to New Zealand - based parents. So, potentially, there is some jurisdiction there, but I do think that those were fair conclusions for the BORA vet to draw. Probably the one comment I would have in terms of the vet is on page 7, where they look at the Order in Council provisions and suggest that is part of that reasonable limitation, essentially—that you’re asking for additional people to be consulted as part of that decision to alter the list and for certain things to be considered.

I had hoped that my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s amendments would have made it through at committee stage, because I do think it would be useful to have the Children’s Commissioner there, the Attorney-General there, as a consultative as well as an explicit reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, I do see that there are provisions there, and, within the second point, where regard must be had to international agreements that the children’s convention can of course sit within that, it will be a matter of policy and procedure, really, to ensure it does.

My last point, because I think we spent a lot of time on it at committee stage, is on deciding when an exemption would be granted and the broad framing around that. I would just hope—and this possibly isn’t for the Minister but as a general comment—I do think it’s an impossibly hard task to be in the role of making decisions where there is a lot of discretion, and so I just hope that those judges, but particularly the Family Court Associates, will be given some training and support in terms of establishing what the parameters are and also whether it’s a high-bar threshold or whether there is more flexibility than the two examples that are provided. But thank you again, to the Minister, for your hard work on this. I commend the bill to the House.

I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora e te Pika. Ngā mihi Te Wiki o te Reo Māori.

Tēnā koe.

I’m really honoured to be debating this third reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill—a really important bill—and, as members know, it is not often that we have such agreement in the House, especially under urgency, like this. I think one of the reasons why we are mainly in agreement is because of the issue that is being debated and because at the heart of this bill are some of our most vulnerable in our society: our tamariki—our children.

I’d like to begin, similarly to when I spoke earlier on, by commending and thanking the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee for her work in ensuring that this bill is actually put before us in the House of Parliament. As you’ve rightly pointed out, Minister, this is an issue that all kinds of Governments of all colours over the past—because the Adoption Act is really old. The Adoption Act is from the 1950s, and so there have been many chances in the past to address this issue.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because I know behind the scenes that he and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have actually worked really hard on this issue. I know this because we, as a Pacific caucus, wrote to him that this is an issue that gets covered in the media when adoptions are not quite the ideal that we see. As we know, adoptions are something that are used by many families, and most of the time those adoptions are really good. We adopt our nieces or our nephews, and they come over from overseas and have a better life and better access to education. But, as we know from some of the cases that are covered in the media, this is not always the case, which is why this legislation, the Adoption Amendment Bill, is so important to debate in the House.

As you know, Minister, we do have some reservations, which our justice spokesperson, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has already covered. One of those reservations is the fact that it is coming through the House under urgency. One of the things that you said earlier on, Minister, is that a more comprehensive adoption bill is currently being worked on, so we look forward to when that comes through.

The reason why we’re having this debate, and the reason why I believe that we must have this debate, is because behind every clause of this bill lies a child that deserves our protection, a child that deserves our advocacy as members of Parliament, and a child that deserves our unwavering commitment, regardless of whatever political colours we wear, because all of these children need to be safe, and their wellbeing is actually at risk when adoption laws are not as ideal as they should be. We support this bill because, unfortunately, children are being trafficked, children are being exploited, and children are being abused through the loopholes in our current adoption system.

One of the things that I also wanted to cover is the fact that in Labour, one of the things we’ve valued over many decades is the fact that people matter more to us than property, and children matter most. I’m not going to give the examples of how this has been central, but I do want to cover some of the cases that, unfortunately, have come through, and I’m not going to say the names, because there have been many cases in the media.

One of those adoptions that stands out for me is a case where a person with previous convictions for violence was actually able to adopt three boys from overseas and bring them to New Zealand. What followed was a year of horror: a 12-year-old boy was withdrawn from school and held as a domestic servant, children were forced to work in fields without proper medical care, and there were children who were so desperate that they scaled tall fences at night to escape.

The question that we should answer as members of Parliament is: how did our New Zealand adoption system even allow this to happen in the first place? That is why the answer, in its devastating simplicity, is that the current Adoption Act of 1955—which is older than many of us in this House—absolutely has to be amended. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tautoko i te pire ki te Whare—I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and take some time to reflect on what this piece of legislation is about, talk about how we got here, and talk about the implications and the impacts that it will have in terms of our society as we move forward.

Of course, legislation and society are always moving and changing, and when you look at legislation from 1955, obviously, the world was different back then. The way people even got around the Pacific, let alone around the world, was different back then in terms of boats and planes and that type of thing, and the connectivity and the connection that the world has now is very different to what it was back in 1955, when the law that’s being amended tonight was put into place.

I was listening to some of the debate this evening and I participated in some of the committee stage, and so, as has been said, thank you to the Hon Nicole McKee for engaging. In Opposition, it’s one of those spaces where you actually get to eyeball a Minister and really critique and challenge but also help shape and ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. It was appreciated from our side that you have participated all the way through.

As I was listening and understanding the arguments and looking at what this legislation stands for, it reminded me of the early 1990s, and for those who remember, the Berlin Wall fell and the Iron Curtain was lifted with regard to communism, and a whole lot happened at that time. I remember very, very vividly in the news, every other night it seemed, that there were stories about Romanian babies—stories about people travelling overseas to adopt children. Whether it was to New Zealand or all around the world, people were ending up in these spaces, and with as much love as a whānau and a family have to give—as has been said by many speakers tonight—we’ve always got to centre ourselves on the child. Back in the early 1990s, there were provisions put in place, and there were challenges to make sure that the children back then were protected. Again, tonight, as we move through all stages of this legislation, it becomes very clear that we need to have the child at the centre of the decision making and we need to protect them.

Now, I’m sure most people know that Gandhi spoke very clearly about how a society will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, and a small baby or a small child represents that most vulnerable. Yes, there are questions and, yes, there are things that we’ve critiqued and, yes, we’ve pushed back on why we need to go through so quickly, but, if it comes back again to how we treat our most vulnerable—that small child—then we, on this side of the House, have to step up and stand up and say that, yes, we will support this legislation. As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, our justice spokesperson, has said, there are things we want to continue to discuss and to talk about. On the front page of the amendment bill, it says that these are temporary amendments, and so we look forward to seeing how we move forward with them.

Again, 1955 was a long time ago, and the world was different, as I’ve already said. But also, families and whānau were very different back then, as well, and the make-up of a family today can look quite different to what it was back in the 1950s. Therefore, it is important for us to move and to come to a space where adoption is just part of everyday life. In Aotearoa, often, children are whāngai-ed to whānau and there’s foster care, and there are all types of family make-ups in what they look like. In many ways, this is no different, because it is looking at what it means for someone to adopt a child and bring them into their home but also bring them into New Zealand, and there is how we make sure that they are protected. It’s not just that momentary moment of signing a piece of paper and allowing them access, but it actually is around how, once a child is adopted and is in Aotearoa, we make sure that they are protected and looked after.

Now, I take my hat off to families who put themselves out there to adopt. It’s not easy. Within the New Zealand context, it’s not easy, but then if you bring in different cultures and different parts the Pacific, definitely, it can be a challenge. Therefore, as we support this legislation and as it passes through all stages this afternoon and this evening, we want to make sure that the Minister is focused on making sure that that this isn’t the end; this is just the next step. I guess it’s a stop-gap measure right now to ensure that the legislation can continue to be shaped and moulded so that it has longevity and it keeps everyone safe.

Having a look at the legislation, there are things that happen and things that go on in the everyday world and you don’t realise, and so it’s fascinating to see that there are around a thousand overseas adoptions that are recognised in New Zealand each year under section 17 of the Adoption Act. It’s always fascinating to see what goes on, especially the fact that there are all these people engaged in making sure that they build family and they build connection.

Now, as has been said and as is in the explanatory note at the start of this bill, the aim of this is to prevent the harm to children and young people who are adopted overseas and are brought back to New Zealand to live. Because I’m a visual person, I like to have a look and spend some time going through the flow charts that have been put together around this legislation that go through the New Zealand Family Court. It’s really helpful just to look at the ways and means to make sure, again, that we not only protect the children but we also protect those who are making choices on behalf of them, and we see that there are different ways and different methods that need to be taken and flow charts that need to be followed to make sure that it is done right.

The Adoption Amendment Bill will pass tonight. There are times when politics do need to be put aside, and, as I said at the start, we need to make sure that our children are at the front and centre of that. It is good to listen to the speeches, listen to the intent, and understand why it is we’re doing what we’re doing tonight. For us, we want to make sure that children are front and centre. We want to make sure that the New Zealand law has checks and balances in place that will protect people.

As always with any legislation, we often do things in this place not to celebrate our most able and wonderful people, but often we have to put laws and legislation in place for those who make choices that aren’t right, and so this legislation is to make sure that there are protections. This legislation is put in place to make sure that for those who do often want to rort or play the system, for those who do want to abuse the system or others, there is a stop-gap measure and there is something to protect our young people. We support this bill, and we commend it to the House.

Tuatahi e mihi ana ki te reo taketake, ki te reo o te Whare, ki te reo o te whenua, ki te reo o te rangi. Ia wā ka rere te reo, ki a au, ka piki te ora, ka ara ake te wairua.

Tuarua, ko au te kaikōrero whakamutunga o tēnei pire e pā ana ki te āwhina mō ngā tamariki whāngai. Nō reira nōku te maringa nui kia tuku i a ia ki te Whare.

[First, I would like to acknowledge the indigenous language, the language of the House, the language of the land, the language of the sky. Every time that the language is used, to me, health is improved and the spirit rises.

Second, I am the final speaker on this bill regarding support for adopted children. And so it is my great fortune to commend it to the House.]

Members, we were up to call eight; that is the Labour Party call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the first time that I’ve spoken on the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. It’s an interesting piece of legislation, and one that cuts across a number of core principles across Parliament, across the Defence Force, and, of course, around the right to strike.

Some may see this as a sensible thing, logical to those who might be involved in the Defence Force, but we’re talking about civilian staff who are critical to the operation of the Defence Force. We talk about this in education and in healthcare. In fact, part of the problem at the moment, through Government and its governance of this country, is that they have dismissed the value and the views of those support staff in both health and education—and, in fact, many of them have been laid off, and we’re starting to see the impacts of that, particularly across health. In this area of defence, there is an acknowledgment that civilian staff are critical—as we would know. In fact, if it wasn’t for them, then the defence of the bases that the military staff are in would be at risk, and many other support systems that, I’m sure, the other side of the House would know better than me.

What this does is, effectively, create a private army, because the Minister of Defence herself—or it might be himself; at the moment, it’s herself—would be able to authorise, in the event of strike action, the military personnel to step in. I think we’ve seen, across the globe, the dangers of the military stepping into what we would consider civilian operations, civilian responsibilities, and in fact the everyday operations of a normal community. When that occurs, it’s often in tumultuous times and times of internal conflict, which is pretty ugly.

What we’re talking about here is that when we have civilian staff—and I would say most of those working in the defence area, in the Defence Force, would be very, very responsible people, but if they get offered a zero percent pay increase and when the military personnel might have had probably a well-deserved increase, then what option do they have? In fact, at the end of 2024, last year, they had to take strike action to get the Government’s attention.

There is a process whereby the military could step in, where there is health and safety involved, to take over those roles and continue them, but the process is vetted by Parliament. I’d put to you, Madam Speaker, that that vetting system is appropriate for a country like ours that enjoys a very healthy democracy. In fact, we should fight very hard to ensure that those protections remain in place. This piece of legislation and the passage of it hands all that power over to the Minister of Defence.

I’ll read from the regulatory impact statement here that the Minister Judith Collins has reluctantly divulged—the Official Information Act, I’m sure, with some of it blacked out here. Can I quote: “The preferred option”—because, in fact, the Ministry of Defence recommended a tighter constraint on the Minister’s powers or the changes that were to be made to the existing legislation that does allow this to happen, but with additional checks; the Ministry of Defence was more cautious, but what we had was the Minister and Cabinet overriding it. “The preferred option”—this is Cabinet’s option—“would reduce the bargaining power of NZDF civilian staff taking industrial action, when compared to the status quo.”

This is just about union bashing. On the West Coast, when we would have people step in over the union, when a strike occurred, they’re called scabs. I would never want to call any of our military personnel scabs. But this is what would occur here at the Minister’s behest. I think if we were to ever create such terrible conflict, Parliament should authorise this; not the power of the Minister herself. This bill goes about two steps too far and, in my view and the view of the Labour Party, it is unnecessary.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m happy to take a call on this. I just want to pick up on some of the scaremongering we just heard there. This bill doesn’t propose to allow the Minister of Defence to bring in military personnel to cover any striking action. Anyone who was listening to the last speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, might think that was what was happening. But I just want to be clear: this is in cases where the New Zealand Defence Force’s civil staff are taking industrial action. Now, there is already power to do this in existing legislation. This is expanding that to allow for situations not just of health and safety, as it is currently, but for national security and to ensure core defence outputs can continue to be maintained through periods of industrial activity by their civil staff. That is what we’re looking to achieve here. It fixes an anomaly, where Parliament may not be sitting, and I think it is a practical change, so we support this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare i tēnei, te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Ngā mihi hoki ki te Whare e tū nei. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, during this week, Māori Language Week. Many greetings also to the House that stands here. Greetings to you all.]

It is absolutely shameful that we are wasting our time by debating this totally unnecessary bill that takes rights away from New Zealand workers. Once again, a bill that limits the rights of New Zealand workers has been introduced by this Government to the House, and in very interesting circumstances, I have to say, because we were questioning the Minister of Defence under her other hat, the Minister for the Public Service, and we asked her: is she considering changing the right to strike for New Zealand workers? And she was very circumspect about that. She didn’t confirm or deny the fact that she may be doing that. But then when we come back to Parliament, we see this bill, the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, limiting the effectiveness of New Zealand workers’ right to strike. These are not defence personnel. We are not talking about people in our military or people who have roles in our armed services taking strike action. No, this is when civilians take strike action.

This is what’s happening in the House today. Civilians taking strike action are being limited in the effectiveness of their work by this Government, and for what end? This, as we just heard the previous speaker say, is a law that already exists. In fact, it’s one that we traversed at length in December last year when the Defence Force offered civilian workers a zero percent pay increase. Unsurprisingly, they decided to take industrial action because a zero percent pay increase is not very satisfactory when you’re going through a collective bargaining round.

What happened then? The Minister came to this House, and she put this to the House, and we debated it. Obviously, that was a big imposition on her time, because this Minister has decided that spending that time justifying the use of defence personnel, who could be doing other work that’s important in the Pacific or around the world, into civilian jobs was not a good use of her time. Instead of just allowing that to take place, we had this bill.

What does this bill, essentially, do? It extends the period of time that the Minister doesn’t have to come to this House from 14 days to 30 days. What a petty little bill—a ridiculous thing to be spending time on that takes rights away from people, makes strike action less effective, means that any Minister of any party in the future can essentially send defence personnel into civilian work. My colleague on the other side said, “Oh, it’s not any work, it has to be for these very strict criteria.” Those criteria are so broad it could basically cover anything. If the operations of the Defence Force are under threat, then the Minister can deploy other workers into that position.

It is no surprise that we are seeing this type of action by the Minister. We know the Minister is considering limiting the ability of workers in other areas to take strike action. She will not deny it. Until she denies it, I have zero faith that this is not something that is under consideration. The fact that this bill is in this House tonight actually leads me to believe that this is something that the Government is considering doing in other areas as well.

So it’s no surprise. It’s no surprise when we see a Government that has actually made it harder for people to take partial strikes, meaning it’s more likely for them to take full strikes, meaning it’s more likely for this piece of legislation to actually come into effect. The Government is taking rights away from workers. At every turn, every sitting block, and every time we turn up to this House, another right is being eroded. This time it’s for the good people who work in our civilian defence force.

This is not something we can support, and I want to really want the Government to think about why they’re here when their priorities seem to be bringing tiny pieces of legislation that extend a power for two weeks to the House, wasting our time and taking rights away from the very, very good people who work in our Defence Force who have been acknowledged in this House a number of times.

I want to use my last few seconds to acknowledge the important work of the New Zealand Defence Force. They do a great job. They shouldn’t be sent in to do the work of striking workers by this Government.

Oh, well, wasn’t that a good go! Now, this bill gives the Chief of Defence Force the authority to act swiftly while still respecting workers’ rights. It’s about readiness, resilience, and putting people first. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I move, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by four months and one day after the bill receives its first reading.

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present the legislative statement on the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) 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 Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is the most significant reform to transport governance in Auckland since Auckland Council was formed back in 2010—

The only decent thing you did in transport.

Oh, well, we remember “Auckland Light Fail” from the other side, don’t we? How did that go? How did that go? Well, we’re actually getting some stuff done on this side of the House. “Auckland Light Fail”, Mr Shanan Halbert. I know he was also the campaign director for that by-election, remember that? Another fail.

Back to the bill.

Anyway, this bill, of course, signals the Government’s commitment to improving transport in Auckland, working closely with Auckland Council, and ensuring stronger accountability to Aucklanders for decisions made on transport. The transport network in Auckland is struggling to efficiently and effectively move people and goods across the city. This undermines economic performance in our biggest and most important city. Some of my colleagues might disagree with that last line there, but it is the truth.

Many of the transport functions ordinarily performed by local authorities are currently the responsibility of Auckland Transport, a council-controlled organisation, governed by an unelected board. While a board can bring expertise to particular functions, locally elected members in Auckland are removed from transport decision-making. This is despite the fact that rates-funded transport expenditure is the largest component of the council budget.

Public accountability is also a key element in transport decision-making, providing strong incentives to undertake projects in a way that does not waste public funds and responds to public sentiment. Public trust and confidence in transport decision making in Auckland is low, with a survey showing just 32 percent of those surveyed believe Auckland Transport listens and responds to Aucklanders’ needs. So ensuring democratic accountability for decision making for transport in Auckland is a key element of these reforms.

The other key element is to establish a system whereby the Government and Auckland Council can work together in a long-term direction for transport in Auckland and align priorities. A key impediment to progress currently is the fragmentation of Auckland’s transport system. Governance, funding, and delivery are spread across Auckland Council, the Government, Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and KiwiRail. There are duplicative planning processes without a coherent direction.

Auckland’s importance to our national economic goals in governance, and significant investment in transport, makes it essential to work with the council on a shared, longer-term direction. We need to work together to optimise our joint funding, maximise economic growth opportunities, and develop a shared view on different funding and financing—

You cut their funding, Simeon. You cut their funding, in the millions.

This is a guy who wants to interject, saying we’ve cut funding in Auckland when we’ve released the biggest national land transport programme in history, and we’re actually delivering things, unlike “Auckland Light Fail”. Of course, we remember, just before the last election, they were scrapping around going, “What do we do in Auckland? Let’s dream up a harbour bridge.” Well, we’ve been talking about and needing to get that done. Actually, they forgot they needed to do the geotech under the harbour, which is what this Government’s actually doing. Anyway, Madam Speaker, back to the bill.

Back to the bill is a good idea.

Back to the bill. I just enjoy the member’s interjections from the other side of the House, possibly a little bit too much.

Tell them about your cuts.

The whips are telling him to be quiet, and I know, Madam Speaker, you’re telling me to stay focused on the bill.

This bill is about making sure that we do work with the council. That has happened in the past. But, effectively, what this bill does is it formalises what the last National Government did, which was put in place the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, which was to bring the Government and council together for long-term planning, to make sure we have one single plan and a direction moving forward. That’s exactly what this piece of legislation does. It does it through establishing the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC). The new committee, called the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, will comprise of both ministerial appointments and Auckland Council appointments, will have independent chair, and will be charged with aligning Government and Auckland Council priorities and providing longer-term direction for transport in Auckland.

The committee will develop a 30-year transport plan for Auckland for approval by the Minister of Transport and Auckland Council. The plan will focus on promoting productivity and economic growth, efficient asset management, and maximising the value of public transport. The ARTC will also develop the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan for approval by Auckland Council.

The bill also transfers most transport functions from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council. This includes shifting policy and planning functions, such as approval of the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and the Regional Public Transport Plan to Auckland Council. For too long Auckland Council has not been able to have the say it needs, as the one of the major funders, over the policy and planning decisions made by Auckland Transport. Auckland Council will also be responsible for delivering the transport capital programme and for renewals and maintenance of transport infrastructure.

Furthermore, Auckland Council become the road controlling authority for Auckland. Some people say: why are we doing this piece of legislation for Auckland? Well, we’re actually just aligning for Auckland what every other council up and down this country has—every other council up and down the country is the road controlling authority. We are aligning that for Auckland. Furthermore, we are going to be delegating to local boards some specific transport powers by this piece of legislation. Of course, when local boards were set up, under the last National Government, the entire intention was for those decisions to be devolved down to local communities so, again, local people could hold their elected members to account for those decisions.

Local boards will soon be able to make transport decisions on local and collector roads, including setting speed limits, closing roads for events, managing parking, and creating cycleways. And, of course, we’ve seen the infestation of speed bumps across Auckland—hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on speed bumps. Of course, the only way we’ve been able to stop them is we get people like Sean O’Loughlin, in my electorate, who have to judicially review Auckland Transport to show that, actually, they haven’t been following the law.

Well, actually, we are going to be putting these decisions in the hands of elected members, and if you don’t like the decisions they’re making, you can vote them out. A philosophical approach to democracy, which has been around for hundreds of years, we are now applying back to these types of decisions.

Decision making on arterial roads and all roads in the city centre will be the responsibility of the governing body of Auckland Council. The governing body will also make all remaining decisions not allocated to local boards. A greater role in transport decision-making by local boards will strengthen democratic accountability and ensure that decisions are made closer to the community where local voices and expertise can be heard.

The bill transitions Auckland Transport into a smaller transport council-controlled organisation (CCO) focused on public transport services, which is critically important to moving people efficiently around our city. Streamlining the transport CCO will result in an organisation dedicated to providing high-quality public transport—the novel idea of making sure the buses turn up on time, making sure the train network maximises the investment that this Government and Auckland Council has put into the City Rail Link (CRL), making sure our ferries are operating to schedule. It is critically important that that is a singular focus of this new organisation, to deliver the reduced congestion that is critically important in our biggest city.

The bill contains transitional provisions that will guide the shift to the new arrangements while preserving the day-to-day flow of network operations and delivery of capital investment. The bill sets out that a six-month transitional period will apply, signalling the need for a timely transition while outlining the actions that must be taken for a successful transition. During transition, the transport CCO will continue with the existing operational functions of Auckland Transport until directed to stop by Auckland Council, enabling the current management of Auckland Transport to focus on delivering existing work until new arrangements are in place.

Auckland Council will also appoint a Transition Director, responsible for preparing and executing a transition plan. The transition plan will set out the transition approach and timeline, deal with employment matters, and outline how assets, liabilities, and contracts will be shifted to Auckland Council.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill was the fundamental reset that the transport system in Auckland needs, that the people of Auckland have been asking for for many years, and will lay the foundations for a higher-performing system. Higher-performing transport is critical to our economic growth, critical to Auckland’s economic growth, and to the productivity of our biggest city.

I’m proud to be commending this bill to the House. I look forward to the submission process and the submissions from the public—from Aucklanders—around how it can be improved. But ultimately, this is the reset that this Government has promised. Now, we’re delivering, and I commend the bill to the House.

Such short memories. Some of us were here in 2009, when the super-city legislation went through. Some of us were fighting against the many changes that that Government had put up, including the anti-democratic corporatisation of Auckland Transport that that side of the House had supported at that time. We were here when Rodney Hide brought his Auckland super-city agenda to the House, and that side of the House, at the time, were very supportive and voted us down on every single one of our amendments—I think there may have been a record number of amendments that were put up during the committee stage at that time. We were opposed to the anti-democratic establishment of the Auckland Transport council-controlled organisation that was set up under their watch. It’s only taken them 16 years to come to this House and say that they were wrong.

We do need to give a bouquet to the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, who has really led the charge on these changes. Fortunately—fortunately—in this particular instance, and there aren’t many of them, the Government has chosen to listen. They have chosen to listen to someone that’s not in their caucus or not making donations to them, perhaps.

We did not support the way that Auckland Transport was set up back in 2009, and now what you’ll find is that we will be supporting this legislation in the House. Every progressive, every Labour councillor in Auckland, is also supportive of this move.

We’ve been watching this closely. It’s good to see that Mayor Wayne Brown has had such an influence on this Government. We give all the accolades to him, not to Minister Simeon Brown. We support it because it reflects a clear request from Auckland Council for greater control over local transport decisions. This is about restoring democratic accountability and ensuring Aucklanders have a stronger say in how the transport system is run. The Minister himself said it in his speech: no other council in the country runs like this; every other council in the country has control over what happens in this regard, but Auckland Council had that taken away from them in 2009, under a National-led Government, when they pushed through the super-city legislation.

There are some concerns that the current model has not delivered the outcomes Aucklanders deserve, and this bill really is a step towards fixing the mistake that was made back in 2009.

Genuinely, on this side of the House, Labour supports localism where councils are empowered to lead, not sidelined by central government. We will engage constructively at select committee to ensure the final legislation is fit for purpose and delivers better transport outcomes for Aucklanders, because that is what this is about. Over the course of the last 16 years, we have not seen that achieved as a result of a decision that was made by a National Government back in 2009.

I find it really interesting that Minister Simeon Brown forgot or chose to omit any of the history on how we got to this point and the fact that he’s having to make changes to National Government legislation. Very convenient.

There’s not much else to say. We look forward to the select committee process. We look forward to being constructive in that process. We give our accolades to Mayor Wayne Brown and all of the progressive and Labour councillors on Auckland City Council.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who was previously speaking to the history of Auckland Transport and how it was a product of a National-ACT Government with a very ill-advised restructure of Auckland that did reduce democratic accountability. At the time, I would have said that reducing elected representatives is not actually a way to make local government more accountable to the people; it just makes more large bureaucratic structures that are harder to engage with for the average person. When you go overseas to countries that have really great infrastructure that’s working really well, usually there’s more democratic oversight, although often the narrative here in New Zealand is that, somehow, politicians are the problem. Actually, when you have really active engagement with more representatives, the representatives are the ones who are directly accountable to the people and who have the most incentive to go out and directly engage with people.

What was ironic with Auckland Transport is they had this set up to be guided by expert opinion and to move ahead with things, but they almost never did. Even though they didn’t have as much democratic oversight, they seemed less responsive in terms of delivering transport outcomes that might have faced some opposition initially but eventually are actually the things that worked better, like removing car parks on arterial lanes so that you can have a more productive flow of people and goods, as opposed to storing someone’s private vehicles at an underpriced cost, usually.

We will support this bill to at least the select committee. I don’t think it’s perfect by a long shot, but, well, look who is in Government—obviously, we’re not going to agree with a lot of what they’re doing. Ironically, we’d probably agree more with Wayne Brown on transport than with anyone on the Government benches. Wayne Brown was certainly a big supporter of the surface light rail that the Greens have always advocated for and could have seen delivered if it hadn’t been sidetracked into a mega-project. But, of course, this Government isn’t doing any long-term planning for public transport in Auckland, which is our largest city and the one that is probably going to continue to grow quickly.

I was in Sydney not too long ago, and I was really blown away by how much progress they’ve made with their public transport system. They’re probably the only Australasian city that has a higher density of people than Auckland, but they have significantly higher public transport patronage and incredibly frequent, joined-up services going right across the region—I mean, all the way to the Blue Mountains, you can get an electric train. Of course, that is a result of substantial investment in infrastructure that gives people real choices about how to move around. When you do that and you have really, really frequent, affordable public transport, many more people will use it, and then you end up with somewhat less congestion, although they’re still spending a truckload of money on some highways which will inevitably not pay for themselves.

Auckland needs to have that vision. Back when I first moved to Auckland, there was the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, who had shown a lot of leadership and long-term planning. That’s why we got Britomart, we had the renaissance of Auckland rail, and we had the campaign for electrification, which the Greens and local mayors championed—and, of course, Mike Lee at the time, who is the chair of the Auckland Regional Council. Of course, that electrification delivered, despite Steven Joyce and the National Government delaying it by several years. Simeon Brown did something similar with delaying the trains that they’ve just purchased for the lower North Island. We would have had those a couple years earlier if he hadn’t tried to distract and vice signal by forcing people to look for fossil fuel options, even though they’re going to cost more.

Look, one of my biggest concerns about this, actually, is: why are we establishing an Auckland Regional Transport Committee where voting membership comprises ministerial appointees? Where else do we have that in the country? Nowhere. Already, central government has far too much control over local transport decisions.

If we want good transport decision-making and we don’t want flip-flopping between Governments, the solution to that is actually to give more power and more money and more autonomy to the regional level or the local level for communities to make those decisions, and stop having central government reach in and try and dictate what happens, like Simeon Brown did when he was the absolute micromanaging, cars-only transport Minister. Thank God he’s no longer in that role. We have a much, much more sensible transport Minister now, but not as good as when the Greens were in Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that’s about reforming governance and planning frameworks for our biggest city. It’s going to be creating long-term plans between central and local government—who are, after all, the funders of our roads.

Democratic oversight is something that has been put forward in speeches and contributions to this House, and that is an important, core part of this bill. It’s a practical step towards a 30-year transition plan jointly agreed to by democratically elected Governments and councils. Auckland Council will become the road controlling authority. It means voters will be able to judge for themselves whether their elected leaders are not just good at speeches and slogans but also delivering roads which are smooth, buses and routes that make new Aucklanders and visitors to that great city get where they need to go on time, and make sure money is spent well.

ACT has been saying for years that councils need to stick to the basics: roads, rubbish, pipes. Ratepayers deserve a voice. Every dollar should count, not be wasted on slow zones, on raised crossings, on cycleway vanity projects. They need to be focused on fixing what matters, and that’s what we’re doing here tonight.

I have been asked by our whip to take a short call so I’m going to do that. That’s been—[Interruption] Ha, ha! It’s by our whip.

Look, there’s been long frustration with Auckland Transport as an organisation, one which I think the residents of Auckland feel does not listen to them and does not respond to their concerns. This is this Government doing exactly that: responding to their concerns. Transport is intensely political, and people want the decision makers to be accountable to them. Auckland Transport certainly did not feel like that.

As a Wellingtonian, I can say that we are certainly looking forward to our council being accountable to us in a few weeks’ time. This is a collaborative model between the Government, its agencies, our biggest council, and also its local board. So it is localism done very intensely. To the Hon Julie Anne Genter talking about no long-term planning, this model which has been proposed specifically sets up the requirement to deliver a 30-year plan for transport. I think that is a very good thing.

This has been a long-held desire, as we’ve heard, of Mayor Wayne Brown, so I’m sure he’s going to be delighted by this. My New Zealand First colleague Jenny Marcroft had a bill in the House to do very similar last August, so we strongly support this as well. We strongly believe in responsible local democracy and the local board empowerment, as I said, shows this localism. I look forward to submissions and to the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a great day for restoring local democracy and accountability at Auckland Transport. With that, I look forward to welcoming people in submissions as part of the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are benefits to this particular bill. It’s been longstanding—the issues that we have had around Auckland Transport. It is interesting—fascinating, in fact—in the House tonight that Government members do have a short memory. This structure and establishment of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) was introduced by the then National Government and the ACT Party at that time.

What’s important is, if I go back to 14 May, I wrote to Minister Simeon Brown because at that time, the mayor was outraged at some of the issues of changing parking fines, which he wasn’t able to do as our mayor. I put that to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—Andy Foster was the chair—and all Government members voted down the opportunity to have an inquiry on the future of Auckland Transport and to give Aucklanders their say. So tonight—[Interruption]—and just to acknowledge the shouting from the other side of the House—here we are, 18 months later, introducing a bill.

I want to acknowledge Wayne Brown, because this piece of work wouldn’t be in front of us in the House without him. He’s had to push so hard with this Government to get any action and outcomes from the Minister for Auckland and from this Government. Instead, what this Government has done is cut funding by the millions from public transport in our largest city. So they do need to take some ownership around that as well.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process on this—again, we’ve got more shouting from across the room when they’re held accountable to their failures of the past. What is concerning in this bill, and what I’ll be taking particular interest in, is that the Minister has the power to approve which functions the new CCO gets to delegate. Additionally, why has the Minister been given approval powers for classifications of roads? If the goal of this bill is to return decision-making power to Auckland Council, then it doesn’t make sense for the Minister to be given this level of authority. But it is typical of this Government that they give with one hand and take with the other. I mean, we had another example around fuel excise that the Prime Minister will have to return to the House and explain himself, no doubt, tomorrow on.

But the reality is that this bill is needed. It creates change from a structure that hasn’t achieved everything that it’s needed to and that’s copped a lot of flak. With that, can I acknowledge Dean Kimpton and the team of staff at Auckland Transport that over many years have done incredible work, really—thankless work—across the city of Auckland. But it is realistic to say that there are challenges in front of Auckland Transport that need to be improved.

So this particular bill does achieve some of that. Labour is supporting it to go to select committee. It is important that Aucklanders have their say and, yes, it is important that there is more localism around our future transport network. It also does come with some caution, though, that as politicians we make decisions that get us elected. The caution there is not everything in transport is popular. So I’m really interested in how that will be managed when those decisions about investment, about projects, about infrastructure aren’t naturally popular with the public. Those are going to be difficult decisions for local boards to make and for councillors to make. So there’s some consideration there, and no doubt that will be teased out in the select committee.

So, without further ado, Mr Speaker, we do support this local government bill. It is important. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe, ki a koutou hoki.

[I’d like to acknowledge you, and everyone else as well.]

Credit to our Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, and Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, for bringing this bill to the House. For people in Mt Roskill, this means having a real voice in shaping a transport system that works for us—one that is reliable, efficient, and future-focused. I commend this bill to the House.

After a mere 16 years, this bill, thanks to the advocacy of Mayor Wayne Brown, has another go at establishing a workable structure for Auckland Transport. Rodney Hide, back in 2009, backed by the Key Government of the day, insisted on what we characterised at the time as a highly undemocratic and corporatised structure for the new amalgamated Auckland City. We spent days and days, actually, debating the super-city legislation in this Chamber, including the legislation that established Auckland Transport as a stand-alone entity. It wasn’t just Auckland Transport; the great majority of Auckland’s assets and its operations were corporatised in so-called council-controlled organisations—ironically named CCOs, because they were not controlled and, in fact, were barely accountable.

As Julie Anne Genter pointed out in her contribution, there was considerable progress on transport in Auckland before the establishment of the super-city. The electrification of the Western Line, the building of Britomart, and a number of other projects showed that Auckland, when it needed to, was capable of lining up the ducks and making the investments to modernise the city’s transport system.

However, the creation of Auckland Transport in 2009 was a double-edged sword, I think. For the first time, there was a transport entity in Auckland with the scale, the professionalism, and the specialist staff, which meant that it could actually sit around the table with central government as equals. That was really important. I think one of the really great achievements that Auckland Transport made was the modernisation and integration of the public transport network, which was long overdue. It modernised the public transport system, and it reduced a lot of inefficiency and duplication. I don’t think we would have seen that in the old days when you had multiple overlapping local government entities.

The sad thing is that, under the model that Rodney Hide and the National Government set up, Auckland Transport developed a culture of arrogance. It was unaccountable to the people of Auckland as its ratepayers and as citizens of that city, and also completely unaccountable to the elected representatives at Auckland Council, its parent body. It’s fair to say that, for a large section of the population, central government is very unpopular. Well, councils, by and large, are much less popular even than central government, and Auckland Transport, I would say, is even less popular than most councils, including Auckland Council. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a lot of people in the communities that I represent hate Auckland Transport—hate it—because it is so arrogant, so unaccountable, and so high-handed. A huge level of antipathy has built up over the years.

It is a credit to Mayor Wayne Brown, who responded to that as good politicians should, and he’s the person who has championed what this bill does, which is restore some democratic accountability and oversight for Aucklanders through their elected reps at Auckland Council. The key provisions in this will bring the planning, funding, governance, and policy functions of Auckland Transport back into Auckland Council under the purview of the elected councillors, and that’s a good thing.

I will finish with this: Auckland is so important to the economy of this country, and its transport is so critically important to the success of the city and its economy. For it to be a success, it needs a strong transport agency but also a genuine partnership with central government. I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Isn’t it very interesting for the Labour Party to say how much Auckland Transport were hated, how arrogant they became, how heavy-handed they became. They had six years and, I would argue, an absolute majority to work with their best friend Phil Goff, as Mayor of Auckland, and deliver this legislation that the National Party, the ACT Party, and New Zealand First are doing today.

We are reforming Auckland Transport. We are giving power back to the people. Those members had their chance and they squandered it. We’re fixing up the mess. I commend the bill.

The question is, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) 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 Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 17 January 2026.

The Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill introduces a prohibition on payment surcharges. In the short term, the focus is on addressing surcharges in retail store settings. Therefore, the bill imposes an initial ban on surcharges for all in-store EFTPOS, Visa, and MasterCard payments. This will mean no surprises at the till for people, who currently feel like they are being charged to use their own hard-earned money. It also means consumers will be able to make a purchase knowing exactly what they’ll pay and how they’ll pay it, regardless of whether they choose to swipe or tap.

Surcharges are used by some retailers to recover the cost of merchant service fees from consumers. However, there can be harm to consumers if surcharges do not reflect the true cost to the retailer, and we know that this is extremely common in New Zealand. In fact, New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges annually, including excessive surcharges that are ripping off Kiwi consumers by up to $65 million every single year. That’s nonsense. It demonstrates how confusing the surcharging system is, not just for customers but for businesses too. In some cases, a retailer doesn’t make it clear to consumers what the surcharge percentage is. It may be that they do not even know what they should be charging for different types of payment—it’s just that confusing to work out. And even when the surcharge percentage is made clear, consumers find it frustrating that the price on the shelf is not the price they end up paying. This makes it almost impossible for consumers to accurately compare retail prices and weakens competition between retailers.

What’s been done about this to date, you may ask, Mr Speaker. Back in 2022, the Retail Payment System Act gave the Commerce Commission powers to regulate New Zealand’s retail payment system. The Act empowers the commission to directly regulate surcharges, but its mandate is focused on cost reflectivity and preventing excessive surcharges. The commission is yet to utilise its powers to limit surcharges, and overseas evidence has shown that it would face difficulties if it tried to do so. This is because accurately calculating a cost-reflective surcharge is highly merchant-specific and requires clear, up-to-date information about their acceptance costs.

Setting, monitoring, and enforcing regulated caps have proven to be difficult at scale. Jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Australia, who initially sought to rein in excessive surcharges through regulated caps, have since shifted gears. Surcharges on debt and credit cards are now banned outright in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Malaysia, with a few very limited exceptions. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is also proposing to allow the operators of the EFTPOS, Visa, and MasterCard networks to impose no-surcharge rules from 1 July 2026. The RBA would then monitor the industry response and consider whether legislative intervention is necessary to ensure consumers receive the full benefit of a surcharge-free retail payment system.

It is time New Zealand followed overseas precedent. A ban on payment surcharges will remove hidden fees, improve retail price transparency, and enhance consumer shopping experience. The bill imposes an initial targeted ban on in-store EFTPOS, Visa, and MasterCard debit and credit payments. It applies to all cards equally, be they personal or commercial, domestic or foreign, physical or digital. We have expanded the ban’s coverage because we listened to feedback that businesses and consumers needed certainty. The ban is designed to be easy for retailers and consumers to understand, and it could be extended by regulations in the future to cover online payments and other payment networks if we see that is appropriate. The bill extends the commission’s existing enforcement powers to cover the ban. It also explicitly states that consumers are entitled to a refund from the retailer for any breach of the ban.

The ban will come into force shortly, after the commission’s latest interchange fee reductions, which take effect from 1 December 2025. Businesses are expected to save up to $90 million a year in payment costs as a result of these cuts, and the surcharge ban is the best way to ensure these savings are passed on to Kiwi consumers. The new regime is simple, effective, and flexible. It also supports the Government’s broader payments agenda. Open banking regulations are expected to be in force later this year and will help fintechs enter the payment market to compete with Visa and MasterCard. In particular, open banking is expected to encourage the growth of new payment methods like QR codes—quick response codes. Together, these reforms will revamp New Zealand’s retail payment system for the benefit of Kiwi consumers.

I have also heard clearly that the current system is not working well for retailers, who often receive complex or opaque billing information from their payments provider that does not clearly identify the fees associated with different card types. Retailers should be able to easily understand their payment costs. I expect the commission to work on improving this so that retailers can shop around for better deals and further lower their costs.

In conclusion, retail payments are central to the economy, but, for too long, Kiwi consumers have been subject to non-transparent pricing and retailer over-recovery. We know that up to $65 million of Kiwis’ hard-earned money should have been sitting in their back pockets but instead have been lost to extra fees that do not reflect retailer costs. This bill will make life easier for New Zealand consumers, who have told us clearly that they want the pesky sticker at the till to be gone. It also sets up a flexible, responsive regulatory framework that learns from overseas experience. This bill is a step in the right direction towards a modern, convenient, and internationally comparable retail payment system. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

This is a bill that Labour will be supporting to select committee because there are a range of things in here that are really important to New Zealand consumers. The Minister’s right. It is frustrating for New Zealand consumers when they go to the till only to be faced with a sticker that tells them that there will be a surcharge for their preferred method of payment that adds on costs that they weren’t expecting to pay on the sticker price. The principle behind this is that when the price is advertised as something and then you go to pay and it’s something else, it isn’t fair to the ordinary person in a shop, and it certainly doesn’t produce the kind of economy that we want for New Zealanders.

The New Zealand economy is in the grip of an affordability crisis where some industries are dominated by a few firms that are making excessive profits, and the Commerce Commission has been great at pointing out of the last few years just how much this is costing New Zealanders. And here they’ve done it again. They’ve said that consumers pay up to $150 million in payment surcharges each year, of which an estimated $45 million to $65 million is in excess of merchants’ reasonable costs. In other words, we have a problem here going on of rent-seeking by payments merchants—so the credit card companies’ banks that are charging far more than their reasonable costs and far more than the cost that it takes to administer these types of payments, and they are making that in profit at the expense of not only consumers but of small businesses.

This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where we have serious concerns about how this has been done, because the Labour Party did deal with this in 2022 when we reformed the payment systems legislation and gave the Commerce Commission extra powers to be able to set what would be reasonable surcharges. In fact, when the Commerce Commission did come up with its reasonable surcharges, they were lower than what this Government has in fact opted for in the end. In other words, this Government has been approached, it seems, in its consultation in the second round of regulatory impact statements, by Visa and MasterCard. They have, essentially, bought the argument that they need to leave some money in the system so that card merchants and banks can make a share of the profit that they are still making that is excess profit—and I will tell you about how that’s been levied against small business in a second—so that they can continue making that profit at the expense of small businesses and the consumers who buy from them, so that we can continue to have the system. But it won’t be transparent any more.

You and I, when we go to the till, if we’re paying with EFTPOS, we won’t know that some of those charges have been spread around the goods that we are buying. And if we’re paying with cash—perhaps we’re an older person who doesn’t use things like credit cards and EFTPOS but prefers to use cash—we will still be paying for the cost of those merchant fees that those businesses have to soak up. These are still costs on consumers. This is still not an answer to the rising cost of living that National promised at the election to prioritise, and that they keep telling us they are dealing with, whilst making legislative change which in fact makes it worse.

Now why, then, does the Labour Party think that this is something that should go to the committee? Well, as the commerce spokesperson for the Labour Party, I want to hear from small businesses exactly what this will cost them. I was speaking to a small-business owner today and she told me that over the last few months she has really been up against it. She charges a surcharge at the till. She hasn’t actually before; it’s only in the last six months. But it’s important to charge that surcharge because she’s paying up to $500 a month, and that’s taking out of the profit that she makes—about half of that in merchant fees. So she not only discourages people at the till from using that payment method—which is not, I think, something that was a policy intent of this bill but will, in fact, happen as more retailers see just how much this is costing them—but she’s also having to charge that and is now being told by the Government that she’s the problem; not Visa, not MasterCard, not the bank who is charging her for her small business for the privilege of eking out a living that she is trying to do in her community that is making a real difference there. For a pretty minor profit she has to pay $500 a month for the privilege.

We will hear, as a select committee, from a range of small businesses about just how much they are paying and how much it is taking out of their bottom line. I really hope that the Government is open to hearing that feedback, because the Commerce Commission has already suggested better fees and a better regime that can sit behind this, which will make it fairer. It was that Cabinet that rejected a fair regime for small business, and I hope that small businesses turn up and remind the National MPs on the committee that they are their voters, and they can do better.

Mr Speaker?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you.

Now, the reason you need to seek the call is so the people in the gallery, in the booth, can know who is going to get the call.

Ah, yeah. Sometimes there’s a little bit of a delay. I apologise, Mr Speaker.

The Greens are opposed to this bill. Now, there’s a reason for that. When this was first announced, part of me was like, “Oh, actually, you know what? That’s not too bad”—you know, people are not going to be paying for surcharges on payWave. And I thought, “Oh, maybe the Minister is doing something right.” And here’s the clincher: then the Minister of Finance came out to say, “You know what? Business should just pass that cost on to consumers.” And then I felt like “You know what? You ruined it.” You could have had something good there, but, instead, you are making the cost of living crisis worse by making businesses pass it on to the customers and the consumers.

Here’s the thing. At this stage, if you are in front of a till, if you are in front of an EFTPOS machine, and there is a surcharge, you have a choice: you can choose not to use contactless payment or you can choose to put your card in there and then do it the old-fashioned way and you don’t get surcharged. But, then, with this new system, we are not going to be seeing any transparency in terms of where some of the surcharges will go. Instead, businesses will be made—and particularly small businesses like your cafes, like your retails, like your dairies—to increase the overall cost on to the customers. We have heard small businesses opposed to this particular move. So it is a shame that we are seeing this bill addressing the issue but in an incorrect way.

So, yeah, the bill amends the Retail Payment System Act 2022 to prohibit payment surcharges on certain in store transactions, and that does include your contactless, it includes your EFTPOS, your MasterCard, your Visa payment network in store. And it allows for the Commerce Commission to enforce the ban. Yes, this does come on the back of the fact the Commerce Commission estimates that consumers pay up to $150 million in payment surcharges each year. But if we do remove that, how then would the Commerce Commission know what additional surcharges businesses are charging as a result of these fees, as a result of the surcharge fees?

One of the things I think that we needed to address—and it’s an unfortunate missed opportunity here that we’re not addressing it—is where these surcharge fees came from originally. What accountability measures do we have for the acquirer when they are negotiating in terms of payment and charges to businesses and, in most cases, to small businesses, around these surcharges that make small businesses have no choice—in order to meet rising costs and the rising cost of living—but to pass it on to consumers?

If the Government was really interested in tackling this issue and addressing this, I guess, nuisance for consumers, addressing this problem that has arisen for small businesses, the better way of doing this is to go after the acquirers and ban merchant service fees. That would have been the reasonable thing to do, and that would have been the more effective way of addressing the cost overall.

What we are seeing here is rather than actually just attacking and addressing the bigger issues, where we are holding large companies and banks accountable for something like this—because, let’s face it, banks are probably not making their money off merchant service fees. So we could have done something in the process of banning merchant services fees from acquirer. But, instead, the Government has decided to use a technical solution that bypasses the core issue altogether and does a patch fix that, essentially, makes it more expensive for consumers.

So the Greens will not support this bill, because we do not believe it addresses the real issue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about transparency in price, because usually what happens is that customers will see a price on the tag of the item that they are wanting to purchase, and when they go to the counter they realise there is a surcharge if they decide to make that payment using their card or digital wallet. We know that nowadays people are very commonly using these modes of payment. I was talking to a business association in the weekend and I heard that it’s only 10 to 15 percent of people who were using cash, and the rest of the payments are coming from an approved card. So it’s an issue that needs addressing. I’m really looking forward to hearing what submitters have to say in the select committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill. When you go to purchase something—you see something on the shelf, you take that to the checkout—that’s what you should pay, and it’s as simple as that. We’re talking $150 million worth of savings here for consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

National is also delighted to be supporting the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker said: consumers, at present, pay around $150 million annually in surcharges. Banning merchant surcharges is another great cost of living initiative by this Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The good news is that I won’t be short-changing anybody on the time allotted for my contribution in the debate tonight. [Interruption] I can see that that’s lifted the spirits from the other side of the House immediately, which is great to hear because, right now, New Zealanders are faced with a cost of living crisis and this Government backs big banks, not small businesses that are doing it tough.

What this bill claims to do—and what we’ve heard in some of the very, very short, and very, very truncated, contributions from across the House—is that this bill amends the Retail Payment System Act 2022 to ban payment surcharges on certain in-store transactions, and the Commerce Commission estimates that consumers pay up to $150 million—$150 million—in payment surcharges every year. This bill proposes an initial targeted ban to address the consumer harm that surcharges cause in retail settings.

That’s from the general policy statement, but what does it actually do? What it actually does is it makes sure that everybody pays. It spreads that $150 million across the price of everything for everyone because banks will still charge the small businesses those fees, and those small businesses will need to recoup those costs so they will pass those costs on to consumers.

I’d like to use a term that my friends across the House are very familiar with—it’s the “up to” term. For example, tonight a pound of butter at New World costs $10.99. But if this surcharge is added at the shelf instead of at the till, that pound of butter will cost $11.49, and a kilo of mince will rise from $24 a kilo—

Fake news! Straight out of the Duncan Webb school of fake news!

—to up to $25.20 a kilo for mince. Even Minister Doocey looks unimpressed at that prospect.

Now, I’d like to offer another example, because what we’re talking about here is taking surcharges and tucking them away so that people don’t see them. This Government has very, very good stead in this term, in that space, through the application of administered inflation. We’ve seen car regos rise $25 and a further $25 next year. It now costs $50 more to file an appeal at court. These are the kinds of surcharges that this Government has inflicted on New Zealanders during a cost of living crisis. It does nothing for everyday Kiwis struggling to pay their bills.

Perhaps the most shameful of all, to single out in te Wiki o te Reo Māori—Māori Language Week—is that New Zealanders will now pay $30 more for a passport that this Government have wasted time and money to deprioritise “Aotearoa” and to place “New Zealand” ahead of “Aotearoa” on the front of that passport, and to charge New Zealanders, during a cost of living crisis, a further $30 for the privilege. I find that one fairly hard to explain.

What you will be pleasantly surprised to hear is that I do support this bill proceeding to select committee, but only so that it can get the proper examination that it deserves. Because a select committee will provide that level of scrutiny and the input from the small businesses that have had the buck passed to them. Because on this side of the House, we believe in fair competition, we believe in lower costs, and we believe in stronger small businesses.

Most of all, what we also believe in is that there is a cost of living crisis and that it’s the job of Government to address that for New Zealanders and that this Government is falling short in doing that. All this bill risks doing is removing the sticker off the EFTPOS terminal rather than doing anything meaningful for the cost of living crisis.

I’m so pleased that those interchange fees are coming down and we’re going to tidy up PayWave and surcharge bills across the country. It’s a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.

This could be a good idea but what a dog’s breakfast this Government’s made of it. Let’s have a look at it. We could actually support this bill to the select committee but, by crikey, if this is what you do with a good idea, goodness gracious—it’s how to make a good idea into an absolute mess.

I loved it when the Minister stood up on the other side of the House and said that this is great idea, in question time, to Nancy Lu, and said they’ve had overwhelmingly positive feedback. Did you hear about that? So I said, “Show me the feedback.” He had 33 emails. One was from Suze Redmayne saying, “Good job.”—actually, that was a text message. One was from his chief of staff, talking about social media feedback. One was positive, and 30 were overwhelmingly negative.

This is serious, though, because in fact this is going to be tough on small business. The Minister for Small Business thinks that his job is to make business smaller, and that’s what’s going on here. If you think about it, these small businesses—and I was in a small business on the weekend, it might have been a pub, and he griped no end about this Government and the fact that he has to absorb the cost of this or he has to put his prices up, and, of course, if you put prices up, customers fall off. Walk down Lambton Quay or any main street in any town and see what’s happening with small businesses. They are struggling, and this Government has just said to small business, “We’re stopping you passing on this cost. You should just suck it up.” Look at the number of liquidations that are out there.

This feedback is actually important because the select committee needs to think about things like this. One of 30 overwhelmingly negative pieces of feedback the Minister got said, “What a disgrace. You’re choosing to ban credit card surcharging rather than rein in those excessively abusing surcharges.” It is interesting that this is about retail, not about Ticketek, not about the—I don’t know, how much do they add to a Taylor Swift ticket? I don’t know. Seven or eight bucks? It’s not about Air New Zealand when you pay by credit card on Air New Zealand. Those transactions look like they’re going to go untouched. That’s big business. The other thing to note here is this: who asked for this change to be made? The credit card companies. A little red light should be flashing then. If the credit card companies want this, who’s going to make the money on it? The fact of the matter is that if it costs the same to pay by PayWave or by EFTPOS, you’ll choose the easiest, and let’s face it, PayWave is easier. Contactless is easier. But it’s more costly. What you’re actually doing is driving people to the most costly money handling system.

Matt Doocey talked about open banking and the idea that we might get some innovative payment systems coming through the open banking system. That might be good but we’re not there yet, but we can look at this. Another piece of feedback that went straight to Scott Simpson that he thought was overwhelmingly positive, “Many of us are sick of this rubbish from your Government. Honestly, I doubt we will continue to invest in the economic future of this country for much longer.” My question, further feedback, “How do we recover this amount of money without it coming out of our pockets and not putting prices up to cover this large sum of money?” They are genuine concerns.

Then, some retired people had some comments, and some of those retired people are a little bit parsimonious—those superannuitants. “I’ve never used PayWave.”, said one. “I don’t think I have to pay an extra fee when I can pay using my PIN. This is an option for everyone, but because people choose not to use it, we’re all going to have to pay.” These are the concerns we need to address. The fact of the matter is that the surcharges, the interbank charges, on these PayWave fees are excessive. When we were in Government we worked on this. This Government is continuing in that work, and that’s good. I commend you for cracking down on that and the Commerce Commission is at the forefront of that. But we need to address these concerns, and the Minister was not accurate when he said the feedback was overwhelmingly positive.

E te Māngai o te Whare. I support the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill to select committee.

The question is, That the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move, That the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 17 January 2026.

I present a legislative statement on the Income Tax (FamilyBoost) 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 Income Tax (FamilyBoost) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The bottom line: those who vote against this bill are voting against up to 92,000 families with young children getting more cash into their bank accounts. I dare members of this House to explain to me why families who have young children in early childhood education (ECE), and who are feeling the pressure of juggling their childcare responsibilities and their work and their cost of living, should be denied the relief that this bill promises.

What this bill does is expand on the existing generosity of the Government’s current FamilyBoost scheme. In short, it means that families with children in early childhood education, on a household income—that is a combined income between two parents—of $230,000 or less will be eligible for up to 40 percent of their childcare costs to be refunded each quarter. What does that add up to? That means families can get up to $120 a week back in cash.

Let me talk you through how this works. This short bill is making amendments to the FamilyBoost provisions which already exist in the Income Tax Act 2007. FamilyBoost, of course, started on 1 July last year and helps parents and caregivers meet the costs of early childhood education. It runs on a quarterly basis; parents and caregivers submit invoices for the previous three months, then these are paid by Inland Revenue (IRD) in a lump sum. The great news is that, across the country, early childhood services have come to the party and are making it as easy as possible for the families that use their centres by printing three-monthly invoices so that this can be done very simply.

Currently, of course, households can get back 25 percent of the ECE fees they pay, but that’s after the 20 hours ECE and the Ministry of Social Development childcare subsidy, which, of course, we have kept in place. Those are taken into account, and then parents get this refund on top of that—up to a maximum of $975 a quarter.

Let me make it clear to members that, to get that maximum payment, a household would have to have had ECE costs of at least $3,900 in the previous quarter. Most eligible households won’t have had costs that high, so they won’t get $975 back a quarter. That’s because, actually, most families don’t spend $300 a week on early childhood education costs for a range of reasons, whether it’s because both parents aren’t working and so they only use childcare a certain number of hours a week, or whether it’s that they attend cheaper early childhood education for parts of the week. For a number of reasons, it is not the case that most families are paying that much in fees.

However, they will get exactly what they are eligible for under FamilyBoost, which is 25 percent of the fees they have paid. In other words, they get their full entitlement. FamilyBoost also, appropriately, has a household income cap—currently it is a maximum of $975 and gradually reduces for households with an annualised income of more than $140,000 and cuts out altogether when a household receives $180,000. That’s how FamilyBoost currently works. It’s been very popular. To date, for this financial year, around 67,000 families have received payments—that is tens of thousands of New Zealand families who have received direct cash into their bank accounts. The idea that there are members in this House who say they should not have received that cash—which is what they would be doing if they voted against this bill.

The feedback that Ministers and MPs have had directly from parents, and through Inland Revenue, is that, actually, FamilyBoost is pretty easy to apply for once you’ve got that clear invoice from your ECE service. It’s all done online, and it has helped families at a time when the cost of living is front of mind. It also, of course, allows and encourages greater participation in the workforce, taking away one of the hurdles that can prevent people returning to work after a period of caregiving. This is good for economic growth.

What is the bill about? This bill adjusts a couple of key FamilyBoost settings, and it will increase the number of households getting payment, and it will increase the payment amounts that households get. When this scheme was being developed, IRD modelled what they thought would be the likely take-up and cost of the original scheme. They have been upfront—they found the modelling challenging. They didn’t have any data—well, not reliable data—about how much parents were paying for ECE. Inland Revenue assumed more families were paying higher childcare costs than turned out to be the case. For those reasons, it turns out that the initial conservative estimate of annual FamilyBoost costs was overstated.

There is room for us to give FamilyBoost a boost, and that is what we are doing. We are increasing—and this bill does it—the 25 percent rebate in FamilyBoost to 40 percent. Good news for families with ECE costs.

For what? Like, five families? How many families qualify?

Households will therefore, Julie Anne Genter, be able to get back 40 percent of their ECE fees up to a maximum of $1,560 a quarter.

Why not just give free ECE for everyone?

That’s up to $1,560 every three months, in the bank account. That is up to $120 a week.

I wish to note for the record, because Hansard might not get it down, that Julie Anne Genter, from the Green Party of New Zealand, appears very, very dynamically opposed to the idea of parents with young children getting this relief. I haven’t seen her this excited all day—not since I talked about the Mt Victoria tunnel a week or so ago.

FamilyBoost payments will increase, and this will be welcomed by working families with very young children, who are a bit more pragmatic than Julie Anne Genter and believe that, actually, that cash is meaningful to them.

Also, what this bill does is that the rate at which the maximum payment reduces after a household reaches $140,000 of income will now be relaxed. FamilyBoost payments will now cut out altogether at an annualised household income of just under $230,000 a year, rather than the $180,000 a year at present.

It’s still a bunch of paperwork. No one is actually accessing this. The people who need it most can’t get it.

I want to emphasise that that’s household income, so it is not just an individual’s income; it’s the income collectively brought into a household by parents and caregivers.

It’s bad policy.

The higher cut-out is partly because of the increase in payments and partly because this bill lowers the rate at which the maximum FamilyBoost payment reduces for higher incomes from 9.75 cents—

People in Wellington know—that’s why they don’t vote for you.

Mr Speaker, honestly. Interjections are meant to be short and witty, and Julie Anne Genter hasn’t been either for some time.

We’ll just leave the Speaker to decide that, shall we, Ms Willis—

Well, honestly, it’s a constant barrage.

—and you just carry on with your legislative statement.

Yep. From 9.57c to 7c for each additional dollar of income above the annualised $140k. Those are the technical details, members. What is important is that this scheme will be available to thousands more New Zealand households as a result of this bill, and these changes will apply to eligible early childhood education fees incurred on or after 1 July 2025.

This is the reason why this bill needs to be progressed at pace, because we want to ensure that parents can apply for this extra amount of cash from October. We want to make sure that, for the fees they’ve been paying since July, they can get up to 40 percent of that back, and that’s the reason we are progressing this at pace. Because FamilyBoost is paid out every three months, the first increased payments to more families—and there will be more families who just missed out in the past because they earned just a bit too much as a household; they will look upon this as a great move forward because they will now be eligible for the scheme, and they will find that their claims can be processed and paid by Inland Revenue in October this year.

I have had families say to me, “We just miss out on the scheme, but, let me tell you, we would really like to be eligible for it.” I’ve also had families say to me it was actually really easy: “I applied, and the money went in my bank account, and, man, oh man, did that make a difference when I had to go buy the car seat, when I had to pay the electricity bill, when I had to ensure that my older preschooler had the kit-out to start school.”

Inland Revenue has also updated its modelling to include new insights and data from FamilyBoost, which indicates that the changes will result in FamilyBoost reaching 92,000 households based on an uptake rate of 71 percent. We still don’t confidently say that every family will apply for the money that’s due to them, but I urge them to do so. I want to see this policy working and money going out the door.

The scheme will cost around $170 million a year, which is what we’ve already appropriated—so no new funding is required. These FamilyBoost changes will help many more families deal with the increased costs that come with having young children. I commend this bill to the house.

This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

I have seen several recent reports about the New Zealand economy. Some are forecasts, peering into the future; some are data releases about the here and now; and some are backward-looking, given the long lag that can occur between events happening and their being reported. Each of these types of reports add to our understanding of how the economy has been performing and is expected to perform in the future.

When will the next GDP figures be released?

GDP results for the second quarter of this year come out tomorrow. This is a good example of backward-looking data. The second quarter started on 1 April, before the “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, and we are now only a couple of weeks away from the fourth quarter. Peering in the rear-view mirror, forecasters are picking a negative number for growth in Q2—somewhere between negative 0.3 percent to negative 0.5 percent, with activity in the manufacturing and construction industries likely to have fallen. As I said, the second quarter—which we will have an announcement about today—was when substantial tariffs were announced, representing the biggest hit to trade openness since the 1930s. That clearly affected the confidence of firms to invest and employ staff, and the willingness of households to spend.

How is the economy performing in the current quarter?

We are currently getting towards the end of the third quarter. Recent monthly data points to growth returning in this quarter, indicating that the worst is behind us—for example, the performance of manufacturing and services indices are a bit better than they were in the second quarter. The ANZ’s Truckometer also points to an improvement. Electronic card transaction values show a rise in July and August, and lower interest rates are having more of an impact on households as mortgage holders move to fixed, on lower and longer-term rates. Despite a stutter in the second quarter, the economy looks likely to have picked up again.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just wait for a moment.

What are the forecasters saying about growth in future quarters?

Forecasters are expecting economic growth to strengthen as lower interest rates are felt more widely across the economy and uncertainty around tariffs passes. For example, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement last month forecasts modest growth of 0.3 percent in the third quarter, but accelerating to 0.8 percent in the fourth quarter—which is, as I said, only a fortnight away—and remaining at around that level for the next couple of years. More broadly, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research does a regular exercise to average the individual forecasts of banks and other forecasters. The latest one was released on Monday; it shows the average GDP forecast of 0.5 percent for the current quarter—that is the third quarter—and 0.9 percent for the next quarter.

to the Minister for Children

What recent reports has she seen regarding the progress of the Government’s target to reduce child and youth offending?

I’ve seen a recent report which shows that in June 2025 the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour is 14.6 percent lower than the June 2023 baseline figure, and is nearly at the target of the 15 percent decrease we initially hoped to achieve by 2030. The number of serious and persistent youth offenders peaked in November 2023 at 1,126. It has fallen consistently since then, including a massive 40 percent decrease in Northland.

What specific reasons does she believe have contributed to this decrease in serious and persistent youth offending?

Oranga Tamariki have been working to better understand the factors that have contributed to the faster-than-expected decline in offending since November 2023. This analysis concluded that fast track, which has been expanded and strengthened by this Government so that it includes 14- to 17-year-olds at six sites across the country, continues to show promise in preventing children and young people from entering the youth justice system and from escalating to more persistent offending. Other initiatives introduced by Oranga Tamariki, such as intensive case management teams, also seem to be having a positive effect.

What other reasons does she believe have contributed to the reduction in youth crime?

It is likely that the wider Government work has contributed to this reduction. We know that offending is often linked to underlying factors, such as non-engagement in education. The work that Associate Minister of Education David Seymour has done on school attendance has likely contributed to this reduction. This success also highlights the strong focus that Oranga Tamariki and the Police have put on working more closely together.

What recent data has she seen on the reduction of youth crime in the Bay of Plenty?

More good news. I can confirm that, since the Government target was set, nine of the 12 police districts have seen a reduction in serious and persistent youth offender numbers. One of the largest reductions is in the Bay of Plenty, which has seen a 33 percent decrease since June 2023. This means fewer serious offences, fewer victims, safer communities, and more young people who have taken the opportunity to turn their lives around.

What feedback has she received—[Interruption]

Hang on—wait. No discussion while the question is being asked.

What feedback has she received about the impact of the Government’s efforts to reduce serious and persistent youth offending?

I’ve had an overwhelming, positive response from members of the public that I talk to. I think of the shopkeepers who tell me they no longer stay up worried that they’re going to turn up in the morning and find that their store has been ram-raided. Oranga Tamariki youth justice staff that I meet with talk about police and judiciary taking a harder line on youth offenders, alongside stronger multi-agency responses, and seeing a positive difference in young people’s lives. The public told us that this is an issue that matters to them, and we’re getting on and fixing it.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Will Winston Peters announce New Zealand’s position on the official recognition of the State of Palestine at the United Nations next week; if so, why won’t he tell New Zealanders what that position is?

Because, very simply, we have had our preliminary discussions and we want to be able to keep an open mind, given the dynamic nature of events in the Middle East. We will make our final Cabinet decision as close as possible to when the Minister of Foreign Affairs gives his address at the UN Leaders’ Week.

When will the New Zealand Government recognise the unfolding genocide taking place in Gaza, particularly following yesterday’s UN-commissioned report that concluded that “statements made by Israeli authorities [about Gaza] are direct evidence of genocidal intent.” and that Israeli authorities and security forces have committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

Well, New Zealand’s position is that we respect the decisions of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. They are the appropriate bodies to make those determinations, and we’ll let them comment.

If his Government’s infrastructure announcements are great news for the construction sector, why are there now 19,000 fewer people working in construction than there were at the election?

Because he ran up inflation, and interest rates put the economy into a recession, and he crashed the joint and drove up unemployment.

So, when his Government boasts of a $17.5 billion projected infrastructure spend this year, is he aware that this represents only 4.1 percent of GDP, which is a drop from the 20-year average in New Zealand of 5.8 percent of GDP being spent each year on infrastructure?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. This is an infrastructure pipeline now that has grown another $30 billion to $237 billion. Most importantly, about $125 billion of it is actually funded, and we have $17.5 billion in projected spend across 2025. Most importantly, we have about $7 billion worth of infrastructure with shovels in the ground—properly—before Christmas, which is great news for the construction sector.

So, if it’s great news for the construction sector, why is the Infrastructure Commission forecasting that spending on infrastructure next year will actually drop even further than this year, to $16.6 billion, making it well below the average that we have been spending every year for the last 20 years?

Well, what I can say is I’m not responsible for the Infrastructure Commission, but what I am responsible for is making sure that there is a pipeline of activity so that the construction industry has clarity to be able to plan ahead. It’s $237 billion, and is up another $30 billion in the quarter. I’d just say to the member that if he really cares about construction workers, he would actually support things like oil and gas and mining so that construction workers don’t leave the sector and go to those sectors somewhere else, he’d actually support fast track, and he’d actually support public-private partnerships. But we just don’t know what the position is.

If the pipeline on infrastructure projects is such exciting news for New Zealand, why is the Infrastructure Commission forecasting that the workforce required to deliver the pipeline projects will more than halve in the next 10 years?

The pipeline is sitting at $237 billion. The total activity—public and private activity—is another $30 billion worth of projects being added in the last quarter. That should be seen as good news for the construction sector. The reality is that interest rates are coming down. That’s what put the industry into so much difficulty, and that member needs to take 100 percent responsibility for that.

So, when investment is down and falling further, jobs are down and falling further, and project delivery of the projects in the infrastructure pipeline is so uncertain, isn’t it just the case that he’s more interested in announcements than in actually funding and delivering the infrastructure that New Zealand needs?

Oh, crocodile tears—crocodile tears. Are you trying to gaslight the nation here? Let’s just be clear: you crashed the joint and you didn’t deliver anything. It’s incredibly disappointing that after six years, including three years with an absolute majority, you did so very, very little.

Is the Government committed to construction projects that are actually constructed, or is there any circumstance where it would ever content itself with announcing bike bridges and light rail that doesn’t get built for years and years and years?

We have real projects, not phantom projects.

Can I ask the Prime Minister: does he think that the future of the Palestinian State is worth only two superficial supplementary questions?

Well, hang on—

Well, I’m not responsible for the questions, but I would just commend the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who I think is leading our Government through very, very well.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave—given the Minister’s intervention—to put those questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, seeing as the Prime Minister wasn’t willing to answer them.

Well, I will put the leave, but just bear in mind that it’s the Government’s choice as to who answers questions on any particular day, and when a question is asked as a primary about standing by all his Government’s statements, it, appropriately, goes to the Prime Minister. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.Question No. 4, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—when the House settles itself.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

[Interruption]

Hang on, hang on a minute. Just calm it down. It is appropriate that the Prime Minister waits to make sure that the translation is—

Yes.

—hang on, don’t give an answer while I’m speaking.

Oh, sorry. It’s a bit confusing with all the—

The earpieces are not 100 percent in the House, and we know that.

Does he accept, since his Government made Māori ward references mandatory, it is ultimately his responsibility when councils fail to include profiles for Māori ward candidates in election documents?

I thank the member for their question. I agree, I think it’s a very concerning development that those profiles were missed, and that is a council responsibility for running those local government elections and they should be held to account for that.

Would it be acceptable if candidates were excluded from official documents during a general election, or is it only considered acceptable when Māori are excluded?

No, and no.

If Māori can’t trust the system to even print our candidates in the booklet, how can Māori trust it to run a fair referendum on Māori wards, which are determined by the Government?

Well, again, these are issues for individual councils who are responsible for local government elections, and I would ask the member to direct those questions to those district councils.

Did the Government determine to proceed with Māori referendums in the Māori wards?

Well, our position on Māori wards has been very clear. We’re not dictating it from Wellington; we’re sending it back to local communities to make that decision. If they choose to have Māori wards, that’s fantastic. If they don’t, that’s the decision of the local community.

Point of order, please. My question was: did the Government determine to proceed with referendum for Māori wards?

Well, I think the answer was given to that: the Government determined that it would be the local councils that made that decision.

Will the Prime Minister commit right now to an independent investigation into the mishandling of Māori ward candidates from official election documents?

As I said in answer to the first question, I think it is a concerning issue, and I think the Minister will be looking into it.

If the Government can’t guarantee security for Māori during referendums, will it guarantee that there will be no more progressing with the referendum until a review is enacted?

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by security.

A supplementary?

Well, look, you can elucidate on the same question to make things flow a bit.

Thank you. If the Prime Minister can see that the referendum process has not worked, can he guarantee that they will stop the referendum process until a review has happened?

Again, those will be considerations for the local district councils who are responsible for running local elections in their district.

to the Prime Minister

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes.

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero a te United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, “Israel has committed genocide and has genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza.”?

[Does he support the statements of the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, “Israel has committed genocide and has genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza.”?]

As I’ve answered before, these are determinations for the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, not the UN.

He mea nui rānei ki tōna Kāwanatanga ko te whakaū ka pūāwai tō tātou reo me ā tātou tātai kōrero ki te ngākau me te hinengaro o te hunga rangatahi, ā, me he āe, he aha ia i poro ai i te pūtea a Whakaata Māori?

[Is ensuring that our language and stories of our ancestors thrive in the hearts and minds of rangatahi important to his Government, and, if so, why did he cut funding to Whakaata Māori?]

I missed the first part of the question, sorry, in the translation.

Can we—

Anō?

No, can I just ask the translator to repeat the translation?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

E whakaaro ana ia ka pāngia kinotia tētahi tūāpapa whakahirahira e hāpai ana i te reo me te mātauranga Māori e te poronga pūtea mō ngā kaupapa Matariki mā te 45 ōrau?

[Does he think slashing funding for Matariki events by 45 percent affects a critical platform that promotes te reo and mātauranga Māori?]

No, I’m very proud of the funding that we’ve put aside for te Matatini but also of the fact that we have created teaching resources in both te reo and English.

Ko te unuhanga o te $30 miriona i te kaupapa nei, arā i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, mā ngā kaiako he whakaiwikore i ngā mahi whakatupu i te hunga kaimahi reo Māori, e pāngia kinotia ai ngā ākonga o roto i ngā whakatupuranga?

[Does shifting $30 million in funding away from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori programme for teachers weaken efforts to grow the reo Māori workforce, affecting generations of learners?]

Look, I’m very proud of the efforts that this Government is doing to promote te reo. We’ve spent $142 million on four Māori language entities. We’ve spent over $100 million in education, including $60 million of ring-fenced funding for Māori-medium and Kaupapa Māori education, plus we’ve provided resources in both te reo and English for structured literacy and structured numeracy. That’s a first by any Government.

Ka kī taurangi rānei ia ka oti i a ia ētahi panonitanga o te Pire Paerewa Waeture hei whakaū ka kore e whakamahia hei turaki i ngā herenga Tiriti o Waitangi, hei pā kino rānei ki ngā kaupapahere e tautoko ana i te whakarauoratanga o te reo Māori?

[Will he commit to making any changes to the Regulatory Standards Bill to ensure it is not used to override Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and adversely affect polices that support te reo Māori revitalisation?]

Well, I can’t hear anything. What’s going on? Can someone explain? There was no translation available on that question. Can someone please find out what’s going on. [Translation resumes]

The primary purpose of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to make sure we get better-quality regulation. That should be beneficial to both Māori and non-Māori.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she agree with the Acting Reserve Bank Governor that “it’s been a challenging period for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, as we face a test of trust and confidence in us as an organisation”; if so, what role has she played in that?

Yes. I think that statement from the acting Governor shows a healthy degree of self-reflection that hasn’t always been a feature of the Reserve Bank. To the second part of the question: as Minister, I have made clear to the Reserve Bank my expectation that it meets higher standards, public accountability, and transparency.

What self-reflection has she undertaken, given she did not make any inquiries into the resignation of one of her most senior officials?

I reject the characterisations in that question.

Why has she not corrected the record when she said in the House on 9 September that the first time she was aware of the reasons Adrian Orr resigned was on 27 August, but, on 18 June, she told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “disagreements between the board and the Reserve Bank Governor and the Government over the level of that funding that the Reserve Bank required had contributed to those employment discussions”?

Those statements are consistent with each other.

Is she confident that she or her office have been fully transparent in relation to her or her office’s dealings between herself and either the former Reserve Bank chair, staff members of the Reserve Bank, or information communicated to her by the Secretary to the Treasury?

Yes.

How can she be trusted when throughout this process she has withheld information, only releasing it after the Ombudsman got involved?

Because at every opportunity where I have had the ability to push for more transparency and openness, I have, as the public record shows—as I have communicated privately and publicly. I would note that the member is fully aware that I both supported and prompted the release of additional information.

So do the prompting and the supporting of additional information therefore provide her reasoning as to why she did not think to ask the former Reserve Bank chair to resign until after the Official Information Act was released?

As has been traversed in this House, I relied on the judgment of the former chair of the Reserve Bank that the statements he had made were as far as he could go, given the legal obligations he had under exit agreements. As the case proved later, that judgment was wrong and he is no longer the chairman of the Reserve Bank.

How can the country trust her statements when it is clear she has not been as transparent as she could have been, she has withheld information, has not asked for advice on correcting the chair’s misleading statements on 5 March, but instead waited almost six months to say she would have asked the chair to resign if he didn’t?

That was a collection of assertions, many of which I reject. I want to, once again, state that the member is the one who is politicising this issue. It would have been inappropriate for me to be involved in the process initiated with respect to Mr Orr. I have been very careful in commenting, and I stand by those judgments.

Can I ask the Minister as to whether she’s reminded of those famous poetic lines, “I shot an arrow into the air, [whether it landed] I knew not where”?

Well, that is—

As is often the case in discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, I find his reflection useful and in line with many of my thoughts.

to the Minister of Justice

What recent reports has he seen on crime in New Zealand?

Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice published new statistics on criminal convictions and sentencing for the year ended 30 June 2025. The statistics show a 14 percent increase in the number of prison sentences compared to the previous year. This suggests the rebalancing of the justice system is under way, from a focus on reducing the prison population under the previous Government regardless of what was happening in the community, to reducing the number of victims of crime under this Government.

That’s a big, fat lie.

Restoring tougher consequences for crime has been an important part of that rebalancing. I presume, Mr Speaker, you’re going to do something about that interjection.

No.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. As I heard it, the Leader of the Opposition said, “That is a big, fat lie.” I believe that that statement—if it is the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made—is a clear breach of the Standing Orders.

Well, there’s a course of action if you want to take it. What I would say is that accusing someone of being a liar is a different matter to saying that something is a lie. We can dance around the pedantics of it. I think it reflects poorly on the person making the comment, and that is where the public will make their own judgment. The Hon David Seymour, about to say something?

How did you know?

Well, I’ll tell you what, it was the way in which you were jumping up sort of halfway and not quite getting there or waiting for me to finish speaking.

Well, a jump must be a smaller thing for you than for me, Mr Speaker.

I didn’t hear that because of the noise that’s coming from my left.

Mr Speaker, it’s the convention that all members are honourable and should be taken at their word. If one member makes a statement to try and perform their duty of informing the House and is told that what they’ve just said is a big, fat lie, the House can’t function. I don’t know why you wouldn’t ask the member to withdraw the statement. It’s actually quite a big problem.

Yes, it is, and I’m sure that your attendance at the Standing Orders Committee to make those representations will be very valuable.

What insights do the latest statistics reveal on the implementation of the Gangs Act 2024?

Well, 225 individuals were charged under the Gangs Act in the previous year, 252 of which were for displaying insignia in public places; 230 of those gang members were convicted; 33 percent had their gang insignia destroyed; and 22 people were sent to prison. I notice that the Opposition spokesperson on justice, Ginny Andersen, said that the gang patch ban hadn’t turned out too badly as she feared, and we certainly agree with that. It is part of our successful plan to restore law and order in this country.

What other insights can he provide on crime in New Zealand?

Well, the latest data shows that the number of ram raids dropped from 308 in 2023 to 55 this year—a drop of 82 percent. The Government is making real progress on reducing retail crime, and, thanks to the work of the ministerial advisory group, we’ve got much more to do.

What recent updates can he provide on the Government’s target to have 20,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime?

The latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey data, released last month, shows that, in the 12 months to May, there were 156,000 victims of serious violent crime—that’s 29,000 fewer than when we came into Government; 9,000 ahead of our target; and four years ahead of schedule. But that is still 156,000 too many victims, and that is why this Government has reformed sentencing laws, brought back three strikes, passed tougher gang legislation, and is focused every day on restoring law and order in this country.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Do recent industry closures and job losses contribute to economic growth?

Well, first and foremost, I feel for anybody who has lost their job, and any community that is affected by plant closures. In fact, the very reason why our Government is focused on economic growth is because it is the best way to create jobs and income growth in all of our communities. As the member knows, no Government can control all of the commercial factors that influence the decisions of individual firms. What we can do—and are doing—is deliver policies that support economic growth, including sound management of the Government’s books; low inflation; and investment in things that lift productivity, like education; high-quality infrastructure; and research, science, and technology. These are all things the Government is progressing at pace as part of its Going for Growth agenda.

Can the Minister explain why the Government called back $10 million from the Wood Processing Growth Fund in Budget 2024, given the closures of the Kinleith paper mill, Penrose mill, two Winstone Pulp mills, and the Eves Valley Sawmill?

I want to note that the closure of the plants in question has, of course, had significant impact on many New Zealanders, and that is always of concern to the Government. As the member knows, there are a number of factors that have influenced each of those commercial decisions, with firms citing a range of factors including international prices for their products; including their own consolidation efforts; and, quite specifically, the price of energy, which has been very directly affected by declining volumes of gas supply in New Zealand, which is very directly connected to the decision by the previous Government—doubled down on by the current Labour administration—to ban the exploration of gas in New Zealand. Now, that is a bad decision; it is one that our Government has reversed.

Does the growth in unemployment figures, the growth in manufacturing closures, the growth in people leaving for Australia, the growth in electricity prices, and the growth in the cost of food represent the “growth, growth, growth” Government agenda?

Well, let me take each of those factors and present some facts. When it comes to food price inflation, under our Government, that is significantly lower than it was under the last Government, where it reached double figures. Under our Government, the rate of inflation—[Interruption]

Just a moment. There’s a huge amount of interjection and commentary from both sides of the House—rare and reasonable is the call.

Under our Government, inflation has stabilised, having peaked at 7.3 percent under the last administration and having a far higher average than was even allowed within the target band. Under our Government, we’ve seen interest rates reduce significantly, which is a major factor for any business wishing to consider expansion or new hiring plans. Under our Government, we have seen that policies are in place to ensure that, going forward, the economy grows faster, creates more jobs, and lifts incomes.

Does she agree with the Mayor of South Waikato, Gary Petley, that the proposed closure of the Tokoroa plywood plant shows that this Government “doesn’t give a toss”?

Look, I can completely understand why the mayor is feeling aggrieved for his community, because communities that experience job losses through plant closures like this are deeply, deeply affected. I would simply say to the mayor that we do care. I would note, in particular, comments by Louise Upston, who has noted that the Ministry of Social Development is offering significant support to those who’ve required it and who has noted that we are working very hard as a Government to create the conditions for future job and business creation.

Does she see the closure of Smithfield meatworks in Timaru, Columbine Industries Clothing Ltd, and the likely closure of the Sealord factory in Nelson as examples of successful economic growth for New Zealand regions?

Once again, I acknowledge that each of those closures will have had a deep impact on the employees affected and on their surrounding communities, but I reiterate the message I gave in answer to my primary question, which is no Government—including the Government that that member was part of—can control all of the commercial factors that influence the independent decisions of individual firms around their business operations. What we can do, and are doing, are delivering conditions which better support firms to succeed. The examples of that are many, and the examples of the steps his Government took to make it hard for business are manifold.

What, in light of these closures, on a scale of one to 10 for regional economic growth, does she think she would score?

What I have made very clear is that we are working hard as a Government to create conditions that support growth. If you were to talk to any business around the country right now about whether they would prefer the inflation rates delivered under the last three years of the Labour Government or the inflation rates under this Government, they’d pick us. You would ask any business around the country, would you prefer the interest rate levels that exist right now or the interest rates left to them by the last Government, they’d pick us. You would ask any business around the country, would you prefer the employment law provisions under this Government or the last Government, they’d pick us. I stand by our record.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is a really simple one: one to 10?

Yeah, that implies a yes or no answer, which the member knows can’t be asked. We move now to question No. 10.

Zero should have been an option.

Zero will be an option for the rest of the person on my left’s day if you keep going on like that.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcements has he made about new investment for eating disorder services?

One of my top priorities as Minister for Mental Health is to improve access to mental health support so we can ensure New Zealanders have the help they need when and where it’s needed. As part of New Zealand’s first Body Image and Eating Disorder Awareness Week, I announced the first refresh in 16 years of our eating disorder services. This included a 20 percent funding boost of over $4 million annually, bringing total annual investment to over $23 million. This will bring meaningful changes to ensure our eating disorder services remain fit for purpose and meet the needs of our communities.

How will this increased investment support new eating disorder services?

This Government is delivering faster access to support and more mental health front-line workers. This increased investment for eating disorders will result in the roll-out of peer support workers across all our regional eating disorder services, new community-based support for families and carers, an increase in the capacity of our specialist services, and the expansion of prevention and early intervention programmes. When someone is making the brave step of reaching out to get support, workforce should never be a barrier.

How will the new funding improve access to early intervention and community-based care for those experiencing eating disorders?

This Government is committed to strengthening prevention and early intervention. Through funding peer-led and family based support, we are making it easier for individuals to access help earlier, reduce the need for acute in-patient care, and improve long-term recovery outcomes. When people, their loved ones, friends, or family make the brave step of reaching out for help, this Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place.

What support has the Minister seen for this announcement?

Eating disorders worker Victoria Schonwald said, “By strengthening community-based supports for families, this investment recognises that recovery doesn’t just happen in clinics or hospitals, but also around kitchen tables and within households.” The Eating Disorders Association said they were “encouraged to see an additional $4 million committed to the sector—a welcome boost for those impacted by eating disorders and their [family].” While Eating Disorders Carer Support said the announcement is “bringing a significant funding boost and valuable updates for Kiwis for the first time in over 16 years.”

to the Minister of Local Government

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga e pā ana ki ngā wāri Māori?

[Does he support all the Government’s statements and actions in relation to Māori wards?]

Yes.

Does he support the statement of the previous local government Minister that “We want Māori voices to be heard and represented.”; if so, does he think Māori wards provide a valuable opportunity of representation for Māori?

To the first part of the question, yes.

Does he think his Government’s decision to reinstate referenda on Māori wards poses a risk to Māori political representation at the local government level?

No.

Will he consider amendments to the Local Electoral Act in light of issues with Māori ward candidate profile information being left out of voting packs, to bring the administration of local body elections away from private companies and under the Electoral Commission, as recommended by the Local Government New Zealand electoral reform working group?

No.

Does he acknowledge that Māori wards support continued representation for tangata whenua at the decision-making table, and will he be showing his support by encouraging voters to retain Māori wards?

The most important thing that community members can do in the context of supporting local democracy is to get out and vote in local body elections, and I would encourage all people and all voters to do that.

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “National will curb the rising cost of living”; if so, what recent actions has he taken to curb food costs?

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Christopher Luxon made that statement in March 2023, when there was a Labour Government. At the time, the latest inflation figures showed consumer prices across the board had risen 7.2 percent over the previous year—almost the highest in 35 years. Food prices, in particular, had risen a whopping 10.7 percent. So, yes, I do agree with him. To the second part of the question, as I told the member yesterday, the Government doesn’t set food prices—communism tried that approach and failed. In terms of the cost of living, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party who, have today, finally done a road to Damascus experience and voted to support our FamilyBoost relief for families.

Is the Minister blaming others, when, after two years of this Government, mince now costs more than $22 a kilo, up $3.40 in the past year of her governance, a loaf of white bread is up 42 percent and broccoli is up 75 percent?

I am very interested in this member’s questioning because I wish to share some figures with the House. They relate to food price inflation. In the period ending December 2022, food price inflation was 10.7 percent. In March 2023, 11.3 percent. In June 2023, 12.3 percent. [Interruption]

Sorry. Hang on—sorry. Just a minute. Yelling across the House like that doesn’t help order at all. Rare and reasonable interjections are, of course, accepted, but not that sort of barrage.

My simple point is that I acknowledge that food prices affect every family and we always wish to see lower rates of food price inflation. It is also the case that in recent history food price inflation, particularly under the last Government, was completely out of control. We are now experiencing much lower rates of food price inflation, but I recognise that for any family at the supermarket checkout aisle—dealing with the cost of mince rising—it is difficult. I know that families understand that the Government doesn’t set that price but that it’s important we do what we can to set the foundations for an economy that allows for a more affordable cost of living.

Does the Minister think that when Kiwis complain under her Government about the cost of mince, bread, and broccoli, they are just being a part of—to quote Christopher Luxon—a “very negative, wet, whiny, inward-looking country”?

Well, no. I think that when families acknowledge that the cost of broccoli is high or the cost of bread is high, they are reflecting reality and they are welcome to their view of reality, and I sympathise with it. For the member to use the Prime Minister’s statements from Opposition, out of context, is beneath her.

Referencing the first supplementary question, is numeric literacy important in the cost of living analysis and has this Government been in power for two years?

The Minister makes a very good point. On behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, it would be quite a miraculous thing indeed if, as Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I had changed competition law in such a way that I had set the price for broccoli, white bread, and the other products that the member has listed. If that is the approach that she is suggesting the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should take, I’d suggest to her that that would come with an awful lot of problems.